One of the two relevant reports is what Mālik transmits from Ibn ʿUmar:
“The Messenger of Allah—peace and blessings be upon him—dispatched a detachment in which ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿUmar served toward Najd. They captured a large number of camels; each man’s share came to twelve, and they were further granted one camel apiece as an extra allotment (nafl).”
This indicates that the nafl was distributed after the booty had been divided and the statutory fifth (khums) set aside.
The second report is the ḥadīth of Ḥabīb ibn Maslamah:
“The Messenger of Allah—peace and blessings be upon him—used to grant a quarter of the spoils taken by advance detachments—after the khums—at the start of the campaign, and a third—after the khums—upon their return.”
That is, at the beginning of his expedition—peace and blessings be upon him—and at its conclusion.
The second issue concerns the amount the imam may award as nafl. Among those who permit the nafl to be taken from the principal booty, some say he may not give more than a third—or, at most, a quarter—citing the ḥadīth of Ḥabīb ibn Maslamah. Others maintain that if the imam assigns to a detachment everything it seizes, it is lawful, arguing that the verse on anfāl has never been abrogated, but remains operative in its general, unrestricted sense. Those who view the verse as limited by this report insist that the imam may not allot more than a quarter or a third.
The third issue is whether the imam may promise a nafl before the battle begins. The scholars differ: Mālik disapproved, whereas a number of jurists allowed it. Their disagreement arises from a tension between the intended purpose of jihād and the apparent sense of the report. Jihād is undertaken solely to seek the Countenance of Almighty Allah and to make His word supreme; if the imam promises a nafl beforehand, the fear is that the combatants might shed blood for motives other than Allah’s sake.
The report whose outward meaning suggests the permissibility of such a promise is the ḥadīth of Ḥabīb ibn Maslamah stating: “During a campaign the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—would grant a quarter of the booty to the detachments that went out ahead of the army, and a third upon their return.” It is clear that the aim of this was to spur the troops on to fight.
The fourth issue is whether the personal effects (salab) of a slain enemy automatically belong to his slayer, or only when the imam awards them. Here, too, the jurists differed.
Mālik held that the killer is entitled to the salab only if the imam, exercising ijtihād after the battle, assigns it to him; this was also the position of Abū Ḥanīfah and al-Thawrī. Al-Shāfiʿī, Aḥmad, Abū Thawr, Isḥāq, and a group of the early scholars ruled that the salab is due to the killer whether or not the imam declares it so. Some of them granted it to him in every circumstance, without condition. Others said he receives it only if he kills the enemy while the latter is facing him, not fleeing—a view ascribed to al-Shāfiʿī. Still others stated that he is entitled to it only when he slays the enemy face-to-face, either before the tumult of battle or after it.