Two different examples illustrating when it is prescribed to act upon an independent public interest, or when it is not?

The Shaykh : Well, perhaps some examples will clarify that, or one example with two aspects. Imposing taxes, as is the reality today in all Islamic countries, unfortunately, under the claim that the government needs money to manage the affairs of the Muslim community. So, there is a public interest that necessitates establishing taxes and collecting funds from the beneficiaries to achieve this public interest. Here we say, based on the previous explanation and quoting from the Shaykh al-Islam: Have you applied the rulings of Islam in funding the state budget and filling the state treasury with money collected through lawful means?! You did not do that, so then abolish this innovation of taxes you have introduced and implement the Sharia rulings in collecting funds: zakah, endowments, inheritances, and so on. So here it is said that this is a misguided innovation, and it is not called an independent public interest, because it actually achieves a benefit. But what prompted the creation of this calamity? It is the non-implementation of the Sharia. Now, a contrary example to this in the same example... from the application. An Islamic government funds its treasury with the Islamic system of collecting funds, then suddenly... for example, it is invaded by a disbeliever. Yes, this invasion now requires funds that the funds collected in the treasury cannot suffice to repel this invading disbeliever enemy. Here the state imposes taxes on wealthy Muslim individuals to pay off this harm that has arisen, and they are not responsible for it. Once this harm is removed, those temporary taxes are removed. These are two completely contrasting examples that clarify for you when the independent public interest is lawful, or when it is not prescribed to act upon it?