who is a stranger from their region and openly hostile to them, despite the presence of several other judges in their region, or not?

What is the ruling concerning those among them who cannot establish their entitlement because they lack the means to produce legally admissible testimony, given the prevailing practice whereby witnesses nowadays will testify only for a fee satisfactory to them, which a poor person may be unable to afford? The same applies to women, whose circumstances are generally unknown to the witnesses.

If the ruler asks a judge about the entitlement of those mentioned, and he replies, “Of these people and others in similar circumstances, only the blind, those with disabling impairments of their limbs, and the chronically incapacitated are entitled—no one else. Disregard everyone else,” without knowing their actual circumstances, is he thereby sinful and disobedient, or not? What must he do in this matter?

If the ruler asks him whether those in the lodges and hospices are entitled to their allocated stipends, and he replies that these lodges and hospices are “shops”—although their residents undoubtedly include righteous people, scholars, bearers of the Noble Book, and those devoted exclusively to Allah Most High—does he thereby cause them harm, or not?

What is the ruling on this sweeping statement about them, made without knowing them all or having any comprehensive knowledge of their actual circumstances, if it proves to be unfounded and false? Would his narrations and other reports thereby cease to be accepted, or not?

May those he has slandered bring a claim against him over this attack upon them, which leads kings to cut off their stipends, and require him to substantiate it? If he cannot substantiate it, may they then demand of him