was exacted from them”—or because the person possesses considerable wealth, and the claimant demands from him what he says is the share payable on his wealth.

His relatives, neighbours, friends, and others whose money was taken because of his wealth or his actions were wronged only on his account. Their money was taken because of his wealth and to preserve it. The claimant seeks his wealth, not theirs; his supposed justification and his intent concern that man’s wealth, not theirs. How, then, can their money be lost without compensation, through no fault of their own, while this man’s wealth remains protected, when it was on his account that demands were made upon them?

If those who pay on behalf of others were not entitled to reimbursement, considerable harm would befall lives and property. Lives and property may be exposed to harm and ruin that can be averted only by making a payment on someone’s behalf. If those making such payments knew that they would not be entitled to recover what they paid unless the person concerned gave permission, they would not pay. Yet he might not give permission because he is absent, imprisoned, or otherwise prevented; or because he wrongs himself and persists in conduct harmful to himself and his property, out of foolishness and wrongdoing that the Lawgiver has forbidden him.

It is well known that people are subject to the commands of Allah and His Messenger. No one may therefore inflict upon himself or his property any harm that Allah has forbidden. Whoever averts such grave harm from him by a lesser harm has done him a kindness. It is inherent in the nature of all people that whoever fails to repay kindness with kindness is unjust and transgresses. Whatever the Muslims consider injustice is indeed injustice. As Ibn Masʿūd, may Allah be pleased with him, said: “Whatever the Muslims deem good is, in the sight of