How can conflict arise between the ruler and the ruled—with the ruler remaining in power—after referring the matter to Allah and His Messenger? What is the mechanism for such a conflict, bearing in mind that open rebellion is a manifest evil, while absolute obedience may have hidden harms? And why is such conflict not mentioned by scholars in these situations, despite the noble verse, "And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger," which permits it?

It is permissible for the subjects to dispute with the rulers with what is known to be right, meaning that the ruled may present to the Imam what they deem to be in accordance with the Sharia (definition), and that all of them should refer to the Quran and Sunnah (definition) in case of disagreement. This occurred in the early days of Islam; for instance, a woman disputed with Umar ibn al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, regarding the determination of women's dowries. Umar acknowledged his mistake and retracted his decision. This dispute does not necessitate rebelling against the rulers or causing discord; rather, it is conducted with wisdom and good counsel, either through direct address or written correspondence. The verse (And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger) serves as evidence for this, and for the fact that there is no obedience to the ruler in disobedience to Allah, and that obedience to him is only in what is known to be right.