this was due to his desire alone and if its owner is asked about the reason and cause for his withholding he will not find in that a clear and acceptable argument that indicates a clear excuse. rather his answer will be pasted on patched up stammering and confusing. i once asked a man who was withholding about the reason that prompted him to do that and he gave me answers similar to what i mentioned. i began to explain to him the corruption of it and that there was nothing that he had reasoned with that would necessitate the amount of his withholding. that is because i did not ask him to give from his wealth what would be clear to him let alone what would be unfair to him or lower his rank in his wealth. so his last answer was to say this is how i like and this is how i desire. so i informed him then that he had deviated from the rule of reason to desire since what he was reasoning with did not undermine the immediate state he was in nor his firmness confidence and consideration of the consequences. this amount of this reason is what should be corrected and not accepted.
كان من هذا العارض عن الهوى فقط، وهو الذي إذا سئل صاحبه عن السبب والعلة في إمساكه لم يجد في ذلك حجة بينة مقبولة تنبئ عن عذر واضح. لكن يكون جوابه ملزقا مرقعا ملجلجا مثبجا. وقد سألت مرة رجلا من الممسكين عن السبب الداعي له إلى ذلك، فأجابني بأجوبة من نحو ما ذكرت. وجعلت أبين له فسادها وأنه ليس مما اعتل به شيء يوجب مقدار ما كان عليه من الإمساك. وذلك أني لم أسمه أن يجود من ماله بما يبين عليه فضلا عما يجحف به أو يحطه عن مرتبته في غناه، فكان آخر جوابه أن قال هكذا أحب وكذا اشتهى. فأعلمته حينئذ أنه قد حاد عن حكم العقل إلى الهوى، إذ كان ما يعتل به ليس بقادح في الحالة العاجلة التي هو عليها ولا في الحزم والوثيقة والنظر في العاقبة. فهذا المقدار من هذا العارض هو الذي ينبغي أن يصلح ولا يقار