He—may Allah have mercy on him—also said:

If the public treasury is properly administered, so that its wealth is spent only on rightful purposes and is not withheld from those entitled to it, then anyone who directs some of its assets or their usufruct toward an authorized purpose of the treasury—such as building or repairing a road—without the ruler’s permission has overstepped his authority, since responsibility for administering it belongs to the ruler. The ruler must then do what best serves the public interest: if reversing that action is more beneficial to the Muslims, he reverses it; if allowing it to stand is more beneficial, he lets it stand.

The same applies when someone acts concerning property belonging to an endowment or an orphan, without the administrator’s permission, in a manner that is otherwise lawful—for example, by using its assets to build a shop or house on land belonging to the endowment or orphan.

But if the administration of the public treasury is in disorder, the jurists have said:

If someone directs some of its assets or their usufruct toward a public benefit, without grounds for suspecting improper motives in that action, and the action genuinely serves the public interest, then the ruler should neither reverse it nor hold the person who acted financially liable. Nevertheless, it is not permissible to disobey the ruler, whether he is righteous or wicked, unless he commands disobedience to Allah.

A ruling or distribution he makes is effective if it accords with what is right, whether he is righteous or wicked. But if someone acts