or compel them to give up part of their homes for the streets without compensation, and similar public injustices that affect all the subjects.

An example of a private injustice is that he wrongs a particular person in his property or in his person.

His statement, “If they claim a doubtful matter, he must clarify it,” applies whether the doubt concerns a ruling or a circumstance. Regarding a ruling, they may say: “You prohibited such-and-such and said that it is unlawful, but its prohibition has not become clear to us.” Or they may say: “You said that this is obligatory and compelled the people to do it, but the basis of its obligation has not become clear to us.” Or: “You ordered that this group be fought, but the permissibility of fighting them has not become clear to us.”

Or they may say: “You did such-and-such, and this matter is unclear to us.” For example, if he were to conclude a peace treaty with the polytheists, and they said: “We do not accept this, for jihad remains until the Day of Resurrection.” This is a doubt that he must explain and clarify to them. He should say to them: “I concluded this treaty out of necessity, because I saw that I was unable to fight this enemy. I therefore considered the treaty better than having no treaty. I am now preparing myself, and I will not abandon fighting the enemy or nullify jihad by this treaty. Rather, I considered that the treaty serves an interest and wards off harm. I guarantee to you that I will establish jihad and raise its banner whenever the opportunity arises.” At that point, he has clarified and explained the doubt to them.

Likewise, for example, if he imposes a tax on one of the people’s forms of wealth, and they say: “Why are you imposing this tax? We do not accept it; this is injustice and an unlawful levy,” and he says: “I imposed this tax in order to reduce the importation of this commodity, which harms the people. The tax that I impose will be spent on the interests of the Muslims. By means of this tax, I ward off