Ibn 'Alqamah, that he took his horse. Ahmad said the same: he is entitled to it. And because the horse is used for assistance in war, it resembles the weapon. What they mentioned is invalidated by the spear, the bow, and the shield, for they are from the spoils, yet they are not worn. Once this is established, the mount and what is upon it—its saddle, its bridle, its protective coverings, any ornamentation if it is upon it, and all of its equipment—are from the spoils, because it is subordinate to it and is used for assistance in war. It is only considered part of the spoils if he was riding upon it; if it was in his home, or with someone else, or running loose, it is not part of the spoils, like the weapon that is not with him. If he was riding upon it and he knocked him off it, or wounded him while upon it, then killed him after he dismounted, then it is from the spoils. This is also the opinion of al-Awza'i. If he was holding its reins but not riding upon it, there are two narrations from Ahmad regarding it. One of them is that it is from the spoils; this is the opinion of al-Shafi'i, because he is capable of fighting upon it, so it resembles his sword or his spear in his hand. The second is that it is not from the spoils; this is the manifest view in the words of al-Khiraqi and the choice of al-Khallal, because he is not riding upon it, so it resembles how it would be if it were with his servant. If he was on a horse and had an extra horse led by his side (janibah), the extra horse is not from the spoils, because it is not possible for him to ride both simultaneously.

Section: The claim of killing is not accepted except with evidence (bayyinah). Al-Awza'i said: He is given the spoils if he says, "I killed him," and is not asked for evidence, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) accepted the word of Abu Qatadah. Our argument is the statement of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "Whoever kills a person killed in battle, and has evidence for it, shall have his spoils." (Agreed upon). As for Abu Qatadah, his opponent acknowledged it for him, so he sufficed with his acknowledgment. Ahmad said: It is not accepted except with two witnesses. A group of the hadith scholars said: One witness and an oath are accepted, because it is a claim regarding wealth. It is possible that one witness is accepted without an oath, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) accepted the word of the one who testified for Abu Qatadah without an oath. The reasoning for the first [position] is that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) considered evidence, and the absolute mention of it refers to two witnesses, and because it is a claim of killing, so two witnesses are considered, as in the case of intentional killing.

Section: It is permissible to take the spoils from the slain and leave them naked. This is the opinion of al-Awza'i. Al-Thawri and Ibn al-Mundhir disliked it because of the exposure of their 'awrah (private parts) that it entails. Our argument is the statement of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) regarding the one killed by Salamah ibn al-Akwa': "He shall have all of his spoils." And he said: "Whoever kills a person killed in battle, he shall have his spoils." This encompasses all of it.

1641 - Issue: He said: (And whoever grants them safe conduct (aman) from among us—whether a man, a woman, or a slave—his safe conduct is valid.)

The general principle is that if safe conduct is granted to the people of war, it becomes forbidden to kill them, take their wealth, or harm them. It is valid from every sane, adult Muslim acting of their own free will, whether they are male or female, free or a slave. This is what al-Thawri, al-Awza'i, al-Shafi'i, Ishaq, Ibn al-Qasim, and most scholars have said. It was narrated from 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him). Abu Hanifah and Abu Yusuf said: The safe conduct of a slave is not valid unless he has been given permission to fight; because jihad is not incumbent upon him, so [his safe conduct] is not valid, like [that of] a child, and because he is brought from the Dar al-Harb, so it is not trusted that he would not look out for their benefit in prioritizing their interests. Our argument is what was narrated by 'Ali from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), that he said: "The sanctuary (dhimmah) of the Muslims is one; the lowliest among them may strive for it. Whoever violates the safe conduct of a Muslim, upon him is the curse of Allah, the angels, and all of mankind; neither repentance nor ransom shall be accepted from him." Narrated by al-Bukhari. Fudayl ibn Yazid al-Raqashi narrated, saying: 'Umar ibn al-Khattab prepared an army, and I was among them, and we besieged a place, and we saw...