This is from 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.

Section: If a minor, a woman, or an infidel fights on a horse, and we say that they are not entitled to anything except the reward (radkh), then no share is allotted for the horse according to the outward position of our companions, because they said: the reward for the rider does not reach the share of a rider. The apparent meaning of this is that they are given a reward for him and his horse that does not reach the share of the rider. This is because the share of the horse belongs to him; if he is not entitled to a share by his presence, then he is even less entitled by his horse, unlike the slave, for the horse belongs to someone else.

Section: If the one who spreads rumors (murjif) or the one who discourages (mukhadhil) fights on a horse, there is nothing for him nor for the horse, for the reasons we have mentioned. If a slave fights without the permission of his master, no reward is given to him, because he is disobedient in his fighting, so he is like the one who discourages or the one who spreads rumors. If a man fights without the permission of his parents or without the permission of his creditor, he is entitled to a share, because Jihad becomes mandatory upon him once he is present in the ranks, so he no longer remains disobedient in it, unlike the slave.

Section: Whoever borrows a horse to fight on it and does so, the share of the horse belongs to the borrower. This is the view of al-Shafi'i, because he is enabled (7) to fight on it by a valid legal permission, so he resembles the one who rented it. There is another report from Ahmad that the share of the horse belongs to its owner, because it is part of its growth (nama'), so it resembles its offspring. This is the view of some of the Hanafis. Others said: There is no share for the horse, because its owner did not earn a share, so he did not earn anything for the horse (8), like the one who discourages and the one who spreads rumors. The first view is more correct, because it is a horse that he fought on.