Background and Objective: Verse 59 of Surah An-Nisa is the central Quranic political text, serving as a primary point of contention between sovereignty-oriented (Hakimiya) and sharia-oriented interpretations. This research aims to critically analyze the apparent structural contradiction within this verse: the absolute command to obey the Uli al-Amr (those in authority) at the beginning, juxtaposed against the instruction to refer all disputes exclusively to God and the Messenger at the end. This contradiction directly challenges Fiqh al-Ta'a (jurisprudence of obedience) and the legitimacy of the usurping ruler (al-hakim al-mutaghallib) in Hakimiya Salafism.

Methodology and Theoretical Framework: The study utilizes a descriptive-analytical method and a critical approach within the framework of internal critique. By leveraging exegetical data from Shia and Sunni denominations, the research critically evaluates the logical coherence of the Salafi interpretation.

Results: Findings demonstrate that interpreting Uli al-Amr as fallible rulers introduces an irreconcilable internal contradiction. If obedience is absolute, dispute holds no meaning; if dispute is permissible, obedience cannot be absolute. Furthermore, theological arguments—such as the impossibility of conjoining command and prohibition—alongside contextual evidence such as the non-repetition of the obedience verb, invalidate legitimacy theories based on material authority.

Conclusion: The research concludes that the verse's architecture is compatible with a model where knowledge and infallibility precede material power. This proves the necessity of the intrinsic infallibility of the Uli al-Amr. By exposing the internal inconsistencies of Hakimiya Salafism, this study blocks the pathway to any religious despotism and blind, garrison-style obedience.