Section: The first thing to begin with (14) in the distribution of spoils is the spoils of war (aslab), for he distributes them to their owners because their owner is specified. Then, the expenses of the spoils follow, including the wages of the transporter, porter, guard, and warehouse keeper. Then comes the reward (radkh), according to one of the two views, or, according to the other, the fifth (khums) comes next. Then, the supererogatory gifts (anfal) from the four-fifths, then he distributes the remainder of the four-fifths among the warriors. We have prioritized the distribution of the four-fifths over the distribution of the fifth for six reasons: First, their beneficiaries are present, while the beneficiaries of the fifth are absent. Second, the return of the warriors to their homelands depends on the distribution of the spoils, while the beneficiaries of the fifth are already in their homelands; therefore, prioritizing the distribution of their share so they may return home is more appropriate. Third, the spoils were obtained through the effort and labor of the warriors, so they are like those who earned them in exchange for compensation, whereas the beneficiaries of the fifth are otherwise, making the beneficiaries of the spoils more entitled. Fourth, when the spoils are distributed among the warriors, each person takes their share, carries it, and attends to it, sparing the Imam the burden of its management. When the fifth is distributed, there is no one who can spare the Imam the burden of its management, so no benefit is gained from its distribution; rather, he would have been holding it together, and it ends up being held separately, so delaying its distribution is more appropriate. Fifth, it is not possible to distribute the fifth among all its beneficiaries because that would require knowing them and their number, which is impossible given their absence. Sixth, the warriors benefit from their shares and are able to dispose of them due to their presence, unlike the beneficiaries of the fifth.

1652 - Issue: He said: "And when a slave fights on a horse belonging to his master, a share is allotted for the horse (1), [and it belongs to the master] (2), and a reward is given to the slave."

As for the reward for the slave, it is as previously stated. As for the horse (3) he is on, its owner is entitled to its share. If he has two horses or more with him, a share is allotted (4) for two horses, and a reward is given to the slave. This was explicitly stated by Ahmad. Abu Hanifa and al-Shafi'i said: No share is allotted for the horse because it is under someone for whom no share is allotted, so no share is allotted for it, just as if it were under someone who discourages others. Our view is that it is a horse that was present at the battle and was used for fighting, so it is entitled to a share, just as if the master were riding it. And when (5) this is established, the share of the horse and the reward of the slave belong to his master, because he is his owner and the owner of his horse, regardless of whether the master was present at the fighting or absent from it. It differs from the horse of the one who discourages, because the horse belongs to him, and since he is not entitled to anything by his presence, he is even less entitled to anything by the presence of his horse.