The second view holds that whatever property the Muslims retake from the unbelievers is to be treated as war-booty for the entire army; the original owner has no share in it whatsoever. This opinion was espoused by al-Zuhrī and ʿAmr ibn Dīnār, and is also transmitted from ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib.

The third view maintains that should such Muslim property be found before the spoils are formally divided, its owner is entitled to reclaim it without payment; but if it is recovered after the division has taken place, the owner may repossess it only by paying its market value.

Adherents of this third opinion split into two camps. Some applied the ruling to every item the Muslims recovered from the unbelievers, no matter how it first fell into enemy hands or where it was discovered. Among those who adopted this position were Mālik, al-Thawrī, and a number of other jurists; it is likewise reported from ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb.

Others distinguished between property the enemy had firmly seized and conveyed to the territory of polytheism, and property retaken from them before they could do so. They said: If the enemy had already carried the goods off, then, should the original owner locate them before distribution, they are his outright; if he finds them only after distribution, he may recover them by paying their price. As for anything the enemy had not yet removed to their own lands, the owner is entitled to it both before and after distribution. This latter stance constitutes the fourth opinion.

Their disagreement ultimately turns on the question of whether the unbelievers acquire legal ownership of Muslim property once they overpower its owners. The diversity of opinion stems from seemingly conflicting textual reports and analogical reasoning.

Thus, the ḥadīth of ʿImrān ibn Ḥuṣayn indicates that the idolaters do not gain ownership. He related:

“The idolaters raided the pastures of Madinah and took al-ʿAḍbāʾ, the camel of the Messenger of Allah—peace and blessings be upon him—as well as a Muslim woman. One night, after they had fallen asleep, the woman arose. Whenever she placed her hand on a camel it bellowed, until she came upon a docile she-camel. She mounted it and set out for Madinah, vowing that if Allah delivered her she would slaughter the animal. When she entered the city the camel was recognized, and they brought it to the Messenger of Allah—peace and blessings be upon him. When she informed him of her vow he said: ‘A poor reward you have given it! There is no vow concerning what the son of Adam does not own, and no vow that involves sin.’”

The apparent sense of the ḥadīth of Ibn ʿUmar conveys the same. His horse had been seized in a raid and captured by the enemy; later the Muslims prevailed, recovered it, and returned it to him during the lifetime of the Messenger of Allah—peace and blessings be upon him. Both reports are rigorously authentic.

By contrast, the report suggesting that the unbelievers can acquire ownership is the Prophet’s—peace be upon him—remark: “Has ʿAqīl left us any house at all?!”—that is, ʿAqīl had sold the houses that had belonged to him in Mecca after the Prophet’s migration to Madinah.