his family or his friends, but instead gave it to all the Muslims, and it were said, “The claimant became angry with the ruler,” all this would amount to is that the claimant became angry because the ruler had not given him any wealth, while the ruler said (1), “It belongs to someone else, not to you.” What praise, then, does the claimant deserve for such anger? Even if he had been completely wronged (2), his anger would have been motivated by nothing but worldly gain. How could this be praiseworthy, when suspicion is more remote from (3) the ruler who takes nothing for himself than it is from the claimant (4) who takes for himself? How, then, can suspicion be laid (5) upon one who does not seek (6) any wealth for himself, yet not be laid upon one who seeks (7) the wealth for himself?

That (8) ruler says, “It is only (9) for Allah’s sake that I withhold it, for it is not lawful for me to take wealth from one entitled to it and give it to one who is not entitled to it.” The claimant, however, says, “I am angry only because of my small share (10) of the wealth.” Is not the person who relates [something like] (11) this about Fātimah and counts it among her virtues ignorant?

Has Allah not censured the hypocrites of whom He said: