A ransom may consist of wealth, a service, or a Muslim captive. For example, if we capture one of the enemy combatants and bring him to the imam, he may, if he wishes, execute him; or he may release him freely, saying, “Go to your family”; or he may enslave him—that is, make him a slave; or he may demand a ransom from him, whether in the form of wealth, a service, or a Muslim captive.
Are these four options subject to the imam’s personal choice, or to what serves the greater interest?
The answer is: they are subject to what serves the greater interest. The legal principle is that anyone acting on behalf of another, when given a choice between two matters, must make that choice according to what serves the greater interest, not according to personal desire. As for one who is not acting on behalf of another, when given a choice between two matters, his choice is according to his own preference: if he wishes, he does this, and if he wishes, he does that. Thus, regarding expiation for an oath, we say that one has the choice between feeding people, clothing them, or freeing a slave. Should he consider what serves the greater interest, or may he do whatever he wishes?
The answer is: he may do whatever he wishes, because this choice is granted to make things easier for the legally accountable person, who may choose whichever he wishes.
“War booty becomes owned by taking possession of it in enemy territory. It belongs to those combatants who were present at the battle, from which one-fifth is taken out …”
His statement, “War booty becomes owned by taking possession of it in enemy territory,” means that when the Muslims fight their enemies, the enemies are defeated, and the Muslims take possession of the property, that property becomes owned by the Muslims, even if they are in enemy territory—that is, in the lands of the disbelievers.
For example, if we fight the disbelievers, enter their land, and they flee, leaving their property behind, then we own that property, even though it is in enemy territory. It is not necessary to bring it into the lands of Islam. This is the meaning of the author’s statement, “in enemy territory”: it is not a condition that it be brought into the lands of Islam; rather,