Another basis for this disagreement is that some scholars likened the main army’s influence on the booty taken by a detached unit to the influence of those who actually fought—namely, the members of that detachment.
Hence, in the view of the majority, a fighter becomes entitled to a portion of the spoils only under one of two conditions: either he was personally present at the fighting, or he served as reinforcements for those who were.
With regard to how large that portion should be, they differed about the cavalryman. The majority maintain that the horseman receives three shares—one for himself and two for his mount—whereas Abū Ḥanīfah gives him only two: one for himself and one for his horse.
The roots of this divergence lie in competing narrations and in the role of analogy. Abū Dāwūd relates from Ibn ʿUmar that “the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—assigned to a man and his horse three shares: two for the horse and one for its rider.” He also transmitted—from Mujammaʿ ibn Ḥārithah al-Anṣārī—a report that accords with Abū Ḥanīfah’s stance.
The analogy set against the plain wording of Ibn ʿUmar’s report asserts that an animal’s share should not exceed a human’s. Abū Ḥanīfah relied on this principle to favor the narration that supports it over the contrary narration. Yet the analogy is of little value, because the horse’s allotment is actually owed to the rider by virtue of the horse—and it is hardly far-fetched that a mounted fighter contributes to battle three times as much as a foot-soldier; indeed, that may well be required. Moreover, Ibn ʿUmar’s report is the better authenticated.
As for what a soldier may take from the booty before its official distribution, the Muslims unanimously agree on the prohibition of illicit appropriation (ghulūl), on the strength of numerous authentic statements of the Messenger of Allah—peace and blessings be upon him—such as: “Return even a needle and thread, for misappropriation is a shame and disgrace upon its perpetrator on the Day of Resurrection,” and other narrations to the same effect.
They did, however, differ over whether the combatants may eat from the food supplies while they remain on the field of operations. The majority permitted it, whereas others—for example Ibn Shihāb—prohibited it. The disagreement stems from the apparent conflict between the texts that forbid ghulūl and those that allow eating, such as the reports of Ibn ʿUmar, Ibn al-Mughaffal, and Ibn Abī Awfā. Those who treated the prohibition texts as general and these allowances as specific exceptions permitted the fighters to eat; those who judged the prohibition texts paramount did not.
Ibn al-Mughaffal’s report states: “On the day of Khaybar I came across a sack of fat and said, ‘I will not give anyone anything from it.’ Then I turned around and saw the Messenger of Allah—peace and blessings be upon him—smiling.” Al-Bukhārī and Muslim both recorded this ḥadīth.