the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, when he said:

“A Muslim must listen and obey in hardship and ease, willingly and unwillingly, and even when others are favoured over him, unless he is commanded to disobey Allah.”

In the two Sahīh collections, Ubādah ibn al-Sāmit is reported to have said:

“We pledged allegiance to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, to listen and obey in hardship and ease, willingly and unwillingly, and even when others are favoured over us; not to contest authority with those who hold it; and to speak—or stand up for—the truth wherever we may be, fearing no one’s blame for Allah’s sake.”

It is well known that such preferential treatment has persisted throughout Islamic history among rulers and those involved in these affairs. The only exceptions are the Rightly Guided Caliphs and those who followed their example. That being so, when a recipient is given his due or less than his due, he is entitled to it by virtue of that distributor’s allocation. Likewise, if someone distributes an inheritance and gives some of the heirs their rightful shares, they are entitled to those shares by virtue of his allocation. Similarly, if he rules that someone is to receive what is rightfully his, that person may take it on the strength of this judgment.

No one may say, “He acquired it merely by taking possession of it, just as if there had been neither a judge nor a distributor.” For if this claim were accepted, it would invalidate the judgments and grants made by all rulers other than the caliphs. The obligation to obey those in authority would then lapse, since there would be no difference between a judgment or allocation being made and none being made at all.

The unsoundness of this view, both rationally and religiously, is apparent to anyone of understanding. Opening this door would lead to harm greater than the injustice of the wrongdoer. Then everyone would suppose