– al-baʿīr (camel): within the class of camels this word functions like “human” among people; it is used for both the male and the female.
– al-ṣadaqah: what is intended here is the zakāh, and one of its legitimate channels of expenditure is outfitting combatants in the path of Allah.

Lessons derived from the two ḥadiths:
1 – We have already established that the sound criterion for ribā (usury) is that it occurs between two edible commodities when both are sold by measure or by weight. If either measurement or weight is absent, even though the item is edible, then neither ribā al-faḍl (surplus usury) nor ribā al-nasīʾah (deferred usury) applies.
2 – Accordingly, there is no ribā in transactions involving animals, whether they are exchanged for one another or for something else, because the necessary condition for ribā is lacking.
3 – Meat, however, is subject to ribā, for it is an edible commodity sold by weight. Hence it is impermissible to sell portions of meat of the same type unequally in weight.
4 – The legitimacy of preparing for jihad in the path of Allah and of procuring the necessary equipment for it.
5 – The validity of acting through an authorized agent in matters that admit delegation.
6 – The term ṣadaqah here refers to the obligatory zakāh; jihad in the path of Allah is one of its designated avenues, and the Prophet ﷺ financed it from those funds.
7 – The permissibility of holding zakāh funds until they are needed—an issue on which jurists differ. Abū Ḥanīfah allowed it, whereas the other three imams ruled it impermissible.
8 – The lawfulness of borrowing when in need, and that such borrowing is not the blameworthy asking of people for their wealth.
9 – The permissibility of deferring repayment even when the due date is not fixed to a specific calendar day.
10 – Selling a live animal for another live animal on deferred terms is not a form of ribā, for ribā pertains to edible commodities sold by measure or weight; this is the point illustrated by the ḥadith.
11 – Purchasing on a deferred-payment basis implies that the deferred price may legitimately exceed the spot-payment price of the commodity.