dull-colored, so what is your opinion, O Commander of the Faithful, regarding their shares? He wrote to him: "Those are the pack horses; so for those of them that approach the noble breeds, assign one share, and disregard anything other than that." Our evidence is what Sa'id narrated with his chain of transmission from Abu al-Aqmar, who said: The cavalry raided the Levant, and the Arabian horses reached [the enemy] on the same day, while the pack horses (kawadin) reached [them] at the forenoon of the next day. A man from Hamdan, known as al-Mundhir ibn Abi Humaydah, was in charge of the cavalry. He said: "I will not make the one who arrived on his day the same as the one who did not arrive." Thus, he favored the [Arabian] horses. Umar said: "May the mother of the Wadi'i [clan member] be bereft of him; implement what he said." It is not known that any of the Companions disagreed with this opinion. Makhul narrated that the Prophet (peace be upon him) gave the Arabian horse two shares and gave the pack horse one share. Sa'id also narrated this. Moreover, the benefit of the Arabian horse and its impact in war is greater, so its share is weightier, just like the differentiation in the case of those who are given a stipend (ridhakh). As for their statement that it is from the category of horses, we respond: Horses in themselves vary in merit, so their shares vary accordingly. Regarding their statement that the Prophet (peace be upon him) allocated two shares for the horse without differentiation, we respond: This was a specific case that has no general application. It is possible that there was no pack horse among them, which is the most apparent view, for they were the horses of the Arabs, and there were no pack horses among them. Evidence for the correctness of this is that when they found the pack horses in Iraq, the matter was unclear to them, and that Umar assigned one share for them and enforced what al-Mundhir ibn Abi Humaydah said regarding the superiority of the Arabian horses over them. If the Prophet (peace be upon him) had made them equal, that would not have been hidden from Umar, nor would he have contradicted him; and had he contradicted him, the Companions would not have remained silent about objecting to him, especially since his son is the narrator of the report, so how could that have been hidden from him! It is also possible that he favored the Arabian horses as well, but the narrator did not mention it due to the prevalence of the Arabian horses and the scarcity of the pack horses. The report of Makhul, which we narrated, points to the correctness of this interpretation. Their drawing an analogy to human beings is not sound, because an Arabian human has no impact in war superior to others, unlike the Arabian horse in comparison to others. And Allah knows best.

1646- Issue: He said: (And no share is given for more than two horses.)

He means that if a man has horses with him, four shares are given for two horses, and one share for their owner, and no more than that is given. Abu Hanifa, Malik, and al-Shafi'i said: No share is given for more than one horse, because it is not possible to fight on more than that, so no share is given for what exceeds it, just like what exceeds two horses. Our evidence is what al-Awza'i narrated, that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) used to assign shares for horses, and he would not assign shares for a man for more than two horses, even if he had ten horses with him. From Azhar ibn Abd Allah, that Umar ibn al-Khattab wrote to Abu Ubaydah ibn al-Jarrah to assign two shares for a horse, and four shares for two horses, and one share for their owner, making it five shares, and whatever was above two horses were considered reserve mounts (jana'ib). Sa'id narrated both of these in his "Sunan". Furthermore, there is a need for the second, as continuously riding one weakens it and prevents fighting upon it, so a share is assigned for it just like the first, unlike the third, for it is dispensable.