an instruction (1) to obey even when the ruler reserves privileges for himself—which is injustice on his part—and a prohibition against contesting authority with those to whom it belongs. This is a prohibition against rebelling against him, for those to whom authority belongs are the authorities whom one has been commanded to obey: those who possess the power by which they issue commands. What is meant is not (2) someone who deserves to be appointed (3) but possesses no authority, nor is it restricted to a just incumbent (4), because (5) he has already stated that they will reserve privileges for themselves. This shows that it is a prohibition (6) against contesting the ruler’s authority even when he reserves privileges for himself. This is a broad subject.
The fourth argument:
If we suppose that justice is required of every officeholder (7), so that only an upright person is to be obeyed, not an unjust one, then it is evident that requiring justice of rulers is no more stringent (8) than requiring it of witnesses (9). A witness may (10) report something he does not (11) know; if he is not upright, the truthfulness of his report cannot be known. By contrast, a ruler issues a command (12) whose ruling may be known independently of him, and one can therefore know whether it constitutes obedience to Allah or disobedience to Him.