others; or else that what he did (1) was a sin. It has already been explained (2) that he will not be punished for his sin in the Hereafter.

As for his statement:

“Until wickedness became manifest in some of them and treachery in others.”

The reply is that such conduct becoming manifest after their appointment does not prove that it already existed when they were appointed, nor that the one who appointed them knew of it. When Uthmān—may Allah be pleased with him—learned that al-Walīd ibn Uqba had drunk wine, he summoned him and administered the prescribed legal penalty. He would dismiss anyone he deemed deserving of dismissal and administer the prescribed legal penalty to anyone he deemed deserving of it.

As for his statement:

“And he distributed the wealth among his relatives.”

At most, this would constitute a sin for which he would not be punished in the Hereafter—so what of the fact that it was a matter subject to considered judgment? People differed over what belonged to the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—during his lifetime: whether the ruler after him was entitled to it. There are two views on this. They likewise differed concerning the guardian (3) of an orphan: if he is wealthy, may he take his remuneration from the orphan’s property despite his wealth, with abstention merely being preferable, or is abstention obligatory? There are two views.

Those who permitted a wealthy guardian to take from the orphan’s property (4) also permitted an administrator of the Muslims’ public treasury to take compensation from it, and likewise permitted this for a judge and other officials. Among those who said that this is impermissible with respect to an orphan’s property were some who nevertheless permitted it from the public treasury (5), just as a zakat collector may receive compensation despite being wealthy. Indeed, a zakat collector may receive his remuneration despite his wealth.