that what he takes equals his rightful share. Each person considers only his own entitlement, not the entitlements of others, without knowing the total amount of the shared assets or whether he should be allotted this much of their value or less. A person may neither judge his own case nor testify on his own behalf; how, then, can he allocate his own share?

Everyone knows that it is preferable for co-owners to submit to an independent distributor, and for litigants to submit to an independent judge—even if unjust or ignorant—rather than for every litigant to judge his own case and every co-owner to allocate his own share. The harm in the latter arrangement is greater than in the former. Islamic law came to secure and enhance benefits, and to eliminate and reduce harms. It gives precedence to the greater of two goods by forgoing the lesser. This is among the benefits of appointing those in authority. Were matters as the ignorant person supposes, the existence of a ruler would be no different from his absence. No rational person would say this, let alone a Muslim.

Indeed, wise people have said:

“Sixty years under an unjust ruler are better than a single night without a ruler.”

How fine are the words of Abd Allāh ibn al-Mubārak:

“Were it not for rulers, our roads would not be safe … and our weakest would fall prey to our strongest.”

The underlying principle of this issue has been discussed fully elsewhere. Here we have merely drawn attention to enough of it to make the intent of the answer clear. And Allah knows best.