who is entitled to a share, and he is the owner of its benefit, so he becomes entitled to the share of the horse, like the lessee. This is because the share of the horse is entitled by virtue of its benefit, and this benefit belongs to the borrower with the permission of the owner. It differs from the offspring or the young, for which he has no permission. As for if he borrowed it for a purpose other than fighting, then fought on it, it is like the usurped horse, according to what we will mention.

Section: If one usurps a horse and fights on it, the share of the horse belongs to its owner. Ahmad has explicitly stated this. Some of the Hanafis said: There is no share (9) for the horse. This is one of the positions of the companions of al-Shafi'i. Some of them said: The share of the horse belongs to the usurper, and he owes its rent to the owner; for it is a tool, so the yield of it belongs to its user (10), as if he had usurped a sickle and harvested with it, or a sword and fought with it. Our view is that it is a horse on which someone who is entitled to a share fought, so it is entitled to a share, just as if it were with its owner. And when it is established that it has a share, it belongs to its owner; because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) allotted two shares for the horse and one share for its owner (11), and whatever is for the horse is for its owner. It differs from that which is used to harvest, for which there is nothing. Also, because the share is entitled by the benefit of the horse, and its benefit belongs to its owner, so it is necessary that what is entitled by it should belong to him.

Section: Whoever rents a horse to fight on it, and fights on it, the share of the horse belongs to him. We know of no disagreement regarding this; because he is entitled to its benefit through a binding entitlement, so its share is for him, like its owner.

Section: If the lessee or the borrower is someone who has no share—either because he has nothing, like the one who spreads rumors (murjif) and the one who discourages (mukhadhil), or because he is someone who is given a reward (radkh), such as a minor—then his ruling is the ruling of his horse, according to what we have mentioned. If he usurps a horse and fights on it, it is possible that its ruling is the ruling of his horse; because the horse follows the rider in its ruling, so it follows him when it is usurped, by analogy to his own horse. It is also possible that the share of the horse belongs to its owner; because the offense is from its rider, and the depletion is in it, so the prohibition is exclusive to him and to what is dependent on him. His own horse is dependent on him; for whatever is for it, is for him. But the horse here belongs to someone else, and its share belongs to its owner, so its share does not decrease by the decrease of his share, just as if a slave fought on a horse belonging to his master. And if the slave fought without the permission