And once his stipend has been assessed at the level of sufficiency, is it permissible to increase it if funds are abundant? The apparent meaning of Ahmad’s words is that it is permissible to increase it beyond the level of sufficiency when funds permit this. In a report transmitted by Abu al-Nadr al-ʿAjali, he said: “The fayʾ is for both the rich and the poor.” Thus, he affirmed that the rich have a right to it, and a person is considered rich only by virtue of what exceeds his needs. This is also the position of Abu Hanifah, contrary to al-Shafiʿi, who held that this is impermissible.
The time for disbursing the stipend should be known, so that the army may anticipate it when it becomes due. This is determined according to the time at which the rights of the treasury are collected. If they are collected once a year, the stipend is disbursed at the beginning of each year; and if they are collected twice, the stipend is disbursed twice each year.
If they are collected monthly, the stipend is disbursed at the beginning of each month, so that the funds are paid to them as soon as they are received, neither being withheld from them once accumulated nor demanded from them when their collection is delayed. If payment to them is delayed after it becomes due, while the funds are available in the treasury, they may demand it just as one may demand a due debt. If the treasury becomes unable to pay—because of unforeseen circumstances—and their entitlements are cancelled or delayed, their stipends remain a debt owed by the treasury. They may not demand payment from the ruler, just as a creditor may not demand payment of his debt from an insolvent debtor.
If the ruler wishes to remove some members of the army for a valid reason or an excuse that warrants it, he may do so. If he wishes to remove them without any reason, however, he may not, because they are the Muslims’ army, defending them. If a member of the army wishes to remove himself from the dīwān, he may do so when he is no longer needed; but he may not do so when he is needed, unless he has a valid excuse.
If the army is mobilized for combat and they refuse to fight—while being capable of confronting those who oppose them—their stipends lapse. If they are too weak to fight, their stipends do not lapse. If one of their mounts dies in battle, he is compensated for it; but if it dies outside battle, he is not compensated. If his weapon is worn out in battle, he is compensated for it if it was not included in the assessment of his stipend; if it was included, he is not compensated for it. If he is mobilized for a journey, he is given travel expenses if they were not included in the assessment of his stipend; but if they were included, he is not given them.
If one of them dies or is killed, whatever stipend he was entitled to is inherited from him according to Allah’s prescribed shares, and constitutes a debt owed to his heirs by the treasury. As for paying the maintenance of his descendants from his stipend through the army dīwān, there are two possibilities: their maintenance may be removed from the army dīwān because the person entitled to it has passed away, and they may instead be referred to the funds from war booty and charity allocated to the poor and needy. Alternatively, their maintenance may continue to be paid from his stipend, in order to encourage him to remain in service and to spur him to advance.
If he becomes chronically incapacitated, does his stipend lapse? It may be held that it lapses, since it is in return for a service that no longer exists. It may also be held that it remains payable, as an incentive toward enlistment and the receipt of stipends.