disagreement between Abū Bakr and Umar is scarcely known except in a few minor matters. Usually, two positions are reported from one of them on the matter, as with the inheritance rights of a grandfather in the presence of siblings: two positions are reported from Umar, one of which agrees with Abū Bakr’s view.

As for their disagreement over the distribution of fayʾ revenues—whether people should receive equal shares or some should receive more than others—equal distribution is undoubtedly permissible. The Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—used to distribute fayʾ and war spoils, giving equal shares to those entitled to the spoils and to those entitled to fayʾ.

The dispute concerns whether unequal distribution is permissible. The jurists hold two views on this, both of which are reported from Ahmad. The correct view is that it is permissible when it serves a beneficial purpose, for the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—would sometimes give some recipients more than others when distributing war spoils and fayʾ. He would also award a military detachment an additional quarter on the outward journey, after the fifth had been set aside, and an additional third on the return journey, after the fifth had been set aside. Thus, what both caliphs did was permissible. Moreover, it is reported that Umar chose equal distribution toward the end of his life, saying: “If I live until next year, I shall place everyone in a single category (1).”

Unequal distribution is reported from Uthmān, and equal distribution from Alī. Such matters do not warrant censure unless it is said that someone gave preferential shares to those who did not deserve them, as Uthmān was censured for some of his distributions. As for Umar’s preferential allocations, no report has reached us that anyone censured him for them.

As for their disagreement over appointing Khālid and dismissing him, each did what was most appropriate. Appointing Khālid was more appropriate for Abū Bakr, because Abū Bakr was gentler than Umar; his deputy therefore needed to be firmer than Umar’s deputy. Thus, Umar’s appointment of Abū Ubayda as his deputy was [more appropriate for him] (2), and Abū Bakr’s appointment of Khālid as his deputy was more appropriate for him. There are numerous comparable cases.