Continuation of the explanation of the author's statement: "And it is incumbent upon him to correspond with them and ask them what they take issue with him for. If they mention an injustice, he removes it; and if they claim a doubt, he clarifies it."

The Shaykh : This is not a trivial matter. These are people who have power, and if they were to fight the people, much blood would be shed. In that case, he asks them; he corresponds with them; he sends someone to them who is trustworthy and acceptable to everyone. He does not send someone they hate; if he sent a messenger they hate, they would kill him and not return to him. Rather, he sends someone acceptable to everyone so that he can negotiate with them: "What do you take issue with?" If they mention an injustice, it is obligatory for him to remove it. If they say, "We take issue with this imam regarding such and such injustices," then it is obligatory for him to remove the injustice, return the rights to their owners, and prevent future injustice. Although this is obligatory for him in principle because injustice is forbidden, when it comes after these people's request, its obligation increases to save the blood of Muslims. If he persisted in keeping his injustice, these people would fight him and evil would occur. It is said, "It is obligatory for you to remove the injustice." Now, if they did not mention an injustice but mentioned a problem, if they also mentioned a problem or a doubt, it is obligatory for him to clarify it for them. They say, "By Allah, you did such and such, and this is a matter that is unclear to us." For example, if he made a peace treaty with the disbelievers and they said, "We do not accept this; jihad is established until the Day of Resurrection." This is a doubt that he must clarify and explain. He says to them, "For example, I made this treaty out of necessity because I saw that I was not capable of fighting this enemy and could not manage it, so I saw the treaty as better than not having one. I am in a time of preparation; I am preparing for battle. I will not leave off fighting the enemy and I will not abolish jihad with this treaty, but I saw that the treaty at that time had benefit and prevented harm. I guarantee you that I will establish jihad and raise its banner whenever the opportunity arises." In that case, he has clarified the doubt for them and explained it. Similarly, if he imposed a tax on some of the people's wealth and they said, "Why do you impose this tax? We do not accept it. This is injustice and oppression." He says, "I imposed this tax to reduce the import of this matter which is harmful to the people. This tax I impose will be spent on the interests of Muslims. So I am preventing the expected harm from the prevalence of this thing among the people, and I spend what I collect from it on other interests of the Muslims." The important point is that if they mention a doubt, it is obligatory for him to clarify it. Now, if he said, for example, "Go back behind you. I am the imam and no one has an objection to me. I am not asked about what I do, and you are the ones asking. What do we say?"

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Do we say this is not permissible? It is forbidden for him to say this statement.
(may Allah have mercy on him) "And it is incumbent upon him to correspond with them and ask them what they take issue with him for" The "what" here is an interrogative particle. The interrogative "what" is suspended, so they ask about the action. The clause is in the position of the second object of "ask them." He asks them what they take issue with? "Take issue with" means to deny, as Allah the Exalted said meaning they did not deny of them except that. So the meaning of "take issue with" is: what do they deny against him? "If they mention an injustice, he removes it," because their exit is for the removal of injustices. This is an exit based on a valid, acceptable interpretation. It is not permissible for a person to oppress people, even if he has the highest authority over them; it is not lawful for him to oppress them. The apparent meaning of the author's statement, "If they mention an injustice," is that there is no difference between the injustice being general or specific. An example of a general injustice is imposing taxes on people in their trade, or forcing them to demolish their houses and build them in the shape he wants, or forcing them to move something from their houses to the streets without compensation, and similar injustices that are general, a general system for all the subjects. Or a specific injustice, such as oppressing a specific person in his wealth or his person. If they mention an injustice, he removes it obligatorily, or not? He removes it obligatorily. Why? Because removing injustice is obligatory, whether he is requested to do so by the people or not. For Allah the Glorious and Exalted says Thus came the Qudsi hadith narrated by the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) from his Lord. "And if they claim a doubt, he clarifies it" A doubt means in a ruling or in a situation. In a ruling, such as they say, "You forbade such and such and said it is forbidden, but its prohibition has not become clear to us." Or he said, "You said this is obligatory and forced the people to do it, but the reason for its obligation has not become clear to us." So he must, do we say? remove this doubt and clarify it for them. Or he ordered the fighting of this group, and the permissibility of fighting them has not become clear to us, so he must clarify this doubt for them. If someone asks, "How is he obligated to clarify the doubt when he is the wali, the one in authority, and no one is to hold him accountable?" The answer is that he is obligated to clarify that to prevent, do we say?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : harm, and so that he may have an excuse if he fights them, so that no one says he fought them with a blind fight. Because if he clarifies the truth and removes the doubt, and then they persist in fighting, he has an excuse in fighting them. Now, if he removed the injustice and clarified the doubt and stood firm on what he should be, but they persisted in fighting.