[Those who expend their wealth in the way of God] then do not follow up their expenditure with reminder of their generosity and injury: He [here] warns that expenditure is invalidated by reminding [the recipient] of one's generosity and injury, because expenditure is praiseworthy in all three instances as long as it is in harmony with God's command, exalted be He, and that it removes the vice of greed form the soul of the expender and that it benefits and comforts the deserving [recipient]. But when the [giving] person reminds [the recipient] of his favour, he has then contravened God's command, because such [behaviour] is forbidden, and his soul has manifested itself in arrogance and presumptuous reliance on this blessing with conceit, veiling itself with its [conceited] act and deeming that the blessing is from itself as opposed to from God. All of these are vile traits, more base than greed, that attach themselves to that person: had he only see himself in terms of him being the source of that virtue, it would have sufficed him that that [virtue] was invalidated. As for the third aspect [of expenditure] from the point of view of the one deserving it, the act is invalidated by any injury since that is incompatible with comfort or benefit; the reminder of one's generosity also invalidates that act because it entails haughtiness and the manifestation of artificiality and establishes blame upon that person. He then says:
