and garments: he returns them to the spoils, except for something she wears, such as a shirt, a veil, or a wrapper. This is the opinion of Hakim ibn Hizam, Makhul, Yazid ibn Abi Malik, al-Mutawakkil, Ishaq, and Ibn al-Mundhir. It is also similar to the opinion of al-Shafi'i. Ishaq cited the saying of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace): "Whoever sells a slave who has property, his property belongs to the seller." Al-Sha'bi said: He places it in the public treasury (bayt al-mal). Malik would grant leniency regarding minor items, such as earrings and similar things, but did not hold this view for significant items. It is possible to provide a detailed distinction on this matter: one may say that whatever was visibly upon her, seen by both the seller and the purchaser, such as an earring, a ring, or a necklace, belongs to the purchaser. This is because the apparent implication is that the seller only sold her with what was upon her, and the purchaser bought her accordingly; thus, it enters into the sale, similar to daily-wear garments or the ornamentation of a sword. As for what was hidden and unknown to the seller, he returns it, because the sale was concluded for her without it, so it did not enter into the sale, just like another slave girl.

Section: Ahmad said: It is not permissible for the army commander to purchase anything from the spoils of the Muslims because he might be shown favoritism, and because Umar returned what his son had bought during the expedition of Jalula and said: "He is being shown favoritism." Ahmad used this as evidence. Furthermore, since he is the seller or his agent, it is as if he is buying from himself or his own agent. Abu Dawud said: It was said to Abu Abd Allah: If the partition officials assess a well-known item, and they say regarding hides: Goat hides are worth such-and-such, and lamb hides are worth such-and-such, and he needs it, can he take it at that value without going to the partition officials? He granted leniency in that. This is because it is difficult to seek permission for it, so it is excused, just as it is excused to enter a bathhouse or ride a boatman's vessel without pre-estimating the fee.

1669 - Issue: He said: (And when the enemy is fought, they shall not be burned with fire).

As for the enemy, when he is captured, it is not permissible to burn him with fire, according to a consensus we are aware of. Abu Bakr al-Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him) used to order the apostates to be burned with fire, and Khalid ibn al-Walid did so