And know that whatever thing you take as spoils of war…

It has been narrated from al-Kalbi that this was revealed concerning the Battle of Badr, and this is what the speech of the majority necessitates. Al-Waqidi said: The [ruling of] the fifth (khums) was [established] in the Ghazwah of Banu Qaynuqa‘, one month and three days after Badr, in the middle of Shawwal, twenty months after the Hijrah.

Ma (whatever) is a conjunctive noun (mawsulah), and the referential pronoun (al-‘a’id) is omitted; it would have been regular for it to be explicit. To treat it as conditional is contrary to the apparent meaning, as is treating it as an infinitive particle (masdariyyah).

Ghanima (spoils), in origin, is from al-ghunm, meaning gain (al-ribh). It has come as ghunm, ghunman (with the damma), ghunman (with the fatha), ghunuman (with the harakah), ghanimah, and ghunmanan (with the damma). In al-Qamus: al-maghnam, al-ghunaym, al-ghanimah, and al-ghunm (with the damma) all refer to al-fay’. It is well-known that ghanimah and fay’ are distinct. It has been said: The name fay’ encompasses both, because they return to us, but the reverse is not true, so [the fay’] is more specific. It has also been said: They are like the poor (faqir) and the indigent (miskin).

They [the scholars] have interpreted it as that which is taken from the disbelievers by force through fighting or cavalry charge (ijaf). Therefore, that which is taken by stealth (ikhtilas) is not called ghanimah, nor does it carry its ruling. If one or two individuals enter the Abode of War (dar al-harb) raiding without the permission of the Imam and take something, it is not subject to the fifth. Regarding entry with his permission, there are two narrations; the most well-known is that it is subject to the fifth, because when he granted them permission, he committed to supporting them with reinforcement, thus they became like the main body of the army (al-mana‘ah). It has been narrated from al-Shafi‘i (may Allah be pleased with him) regarding the first case that the fifth is required even if it is not considered ghanimah in his view, because it is annexed to it.

His saying, Exalted is He, “min shay’in” (of anything), is an explanation of the conjunctive noun (al-mawsul). Its position is accusative as a state (hal) from its omitted referential pronoun, intended to emphasize the importance of the spoils so that nothing remains exempt from it—meaning, whatever you take as spoils, being anything that falls under the name of "thing," even a needle or a thread.

This excludes the belongings of the slain (salb) for the killer, provided the Imam has granted it to him. The Shafi‘is say: The salb belongs to the killer, even if he is a child or a slave, and even if it was not stipulated for him, and even if the slain was like his relative, and even if he did not fight, or [if the slain was] like a woman or a child, provided they were combatants, even if [the killer] turned away from them, due to the agreed-upon report: "Whoever kills a combatant, for him is his salb." Yes, a Muslim slave who kills a dhimmi does not deserve it in their view, even if he went out with the Imam’s permission.

Our companions [the Hanafis] answered that the salb is taken by the force of the army, so it is ghanimah and is distributed as such. The Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said to Habib ibn Abi Salamah: "You have nothing of the salb of your victim except that which your Imam’s soul is pleased to grant you." What they [the Shafi‘is] have narrated is susceptible to being interpreted as an instruction of the Shari‘ah, and it is susceptible to being interpreted as a special grant (tanfil), so it is carried upon the latter, due to what we have narrated. As for captives, the Imam has the choice [to kill, ransom, or enslave them]; likewise for conquered land in our view. The details are in the books of jurisprudence.

The interpreted infinitive from anna (with the fatha) along with its subject and predicate—when mentioned—its advancement is to prevent the illusion that it is inna (with the kasra), so it follows the habitual [syntax] in this regard. Some parsed it as the predicate of an omitted subject, i.e., "The ruling is that..." and the sentence is the predicate of the first anna. The fa is [there] because of the meaning of compensation (jaza') in the conjunctive noun. It is said: It is a conjunctive clause (silah), and anna is a substitute for the first anna. Al-Ju‘fi narrated from Abu ‘Amr [a reading of] fa-inna with a kasra, and it is supported by the reading of al-Nakha‘i: fa-lillahi khumsuhu. The well-known reading is preferred because it is more emphatic in its indication of establishing the fifth, and that there is no way to abandon it, despite the possibility of the news (khabar) implying [the estimation of] "necessity," "right," "obligation," and the like.

The author of al-Taqrib countered this by saying it is contradicted by the necessity of ambiguity. It was answered that by ambiguity, it is meant that which allows for obligation, recommendation, or permissibility, and the context rejects everything but obligation. And if what was mentioned regarding "necessity," "right," and "obligation" is meant, then the generalization necessitates glorification and awe. It was read as khumsahu with the mimin being silent. The majority hold that the mention of Allah, Exalted is He, is to glorify the Messenger (peace be upon him), as in His saying: "And Allah and His Messenger are more worthy that they should satisfy Him." Or it is to explain that there is no alternative in the khums but to dedicate it sincerely to Him, Exalted is He, and that the meaning is the division of the fifth as mentioned in His saying: "And for the Messenger, and for the near kinsman, and the orphans, and the needy, and the wayfarer."

It is said that His saying "for the Messenger" is a conjunction to "for Allah" based on the first explanation, and with the estimation of a subject, i.e., "And it—the fifth—is for the Messenger..." based on the second explanation. The repetition of the lam (the preposition "for") for the near kinsmen, and not for the others from the remaining categories, is to dispel the illusion of their participation in the share of the Prophet (peace be upon him) due to their increased proximity to him. By them, it is intended: the Banu Hashim and the Banu al-Muttalib who are Muslims, because he (peace be upon him) placed the share of the near kinsmen with them, excluding the children of their brother [their full brother], ‘Abd Shams, and their brother from the father, Nawfal. He answered [the objection] regarding this when ‘Uthman and Jubayr ibn Mut‘im said to him: "These are your brethren, the Banu Hashim; their merit is not denied because of the place in which Allah, Exalted is He, has placed you among them. What do you see regarding our brothers from the Banu ‘Abd al-Muttalib? You gave to them and deprived us, yet we and they are in the same status; we and the Banu al-Muttalib are one and the same." And he intertwined his fingers—narrated by al-Bukhari—meaning, they did not separate from the Banu Hashim in supporting him (peace be upon him) in either the Age of Ignorance or Islam.

The manner of division according to our companions is that it was, in the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), in five shares: a share for him (peace be upon him), a share for the aforementioned near kinsmen, and three shares for the remaining three categories. As for after his passing (peace be upon him), his share (peace be upon him) fell away, just as the safi—that which he would choose for himself from the spoils, like a shield, a sword, or a slave-girl—fell away upon his death, because he was entitled to it due to his Prophethood, and there is no Prophet after him (peace be upon him). Likewise, the share of the near kinsmen fell away; they are only given due to poverty, and their poor are prioritized over the poor of others, and their wealthy have no right, because the four Rightly Guided Caliphs divided it as such, and they are sufficient as examples. It is narrated from Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) that he prohibited the Banu Hashim from the fifth and said: "You only have that your poor should be given, your widows married, and those of you without a servant should be served. As for the wealthy among you, he is in the status of the wayfarer; a wealthy person is not given anything from charity, nor an orphan who has means." It is narrated from Zayd ibn ‘Ali similarly; he said: "It is not for us to build palaces from it, nor to ride horses from it." [This is] because the Prophet (peace be upon him) only gave to them for their support, not for kinship, as is indicated by his response to ‘Uthman and Jubayr (may Allah be pleased with them), which indicates that what is meant by "kinship" in the text is the kinship of support, not the kinship of blood. When the support ceases, the giving ceases, because a ruling ceases upon the cessation of its cause.

The orphan is a young one who has no father; the poor orphans among the near kinsmen enter into the share of the orphans mentioned, not their wealthy, and the needy among them enter into the share of the needy. The benefit of mentioning the orphan, despite their entitlement being based on poverty and need rather than orphanhood, is to dispel the illusion that the orphan does not deserve anything from the spoils because entitlement is through Jihad, and the orphan is young and does not participate in it. In al-Ta’wilat of ‘Alam al-Huda, Sheikh Abu Mansur, it is stated that the near kinsmen also deserve it by virtue of poverty, and the benefit of mentioning them is to dispel the illusion that the poor among them do not deserve it because it is of the category of charity, and charity is not permissible for them. In al-Hawi al-Qudsi, and from Abu Yusuf: the fifth is spent upon the near kinsmen, the orphans, the needy, and the wayfarer, and we follow this. This implies that the legal opinion (fatwa) is upon spending it on the wealthy near kinsmen, so let this be remembered. In al-Tuhfah, it is stated that these three are the recipients of the fifth in our view, not by way of strict entitlement; even if it were spent on one category among them, it would be permissible, as in charities—thus it is in Fath al-Qadir.

The school of Imam Malik (may Allah be pleased with him) is that the fifth is not necessarily to be "fifth-ed" (divided into five), and that it is delegated to the opinion of the Imam, as is suggested by the words of Khalil. Ibn al-Hajib stated this explicitly: "It is not to be divided into five by necessity, but rather from it is spent on his family (peace be upon him) by discretionary judgment and on the interests of the Muslims." They are started with, by way of recommendation—as al-Tatta'i reported from al-Sunbati—over others, and he mentioned that they are the Banu Hashim and that their share is reserved because they are prevented from [receiving] Zakat, according to what is seen of the scarcity or abundance of wealth. ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz used to allocate to the children of Fatimah (may Allah be pleased with her) twelve thousand dinars every year, aside from what was given to others among the near kinsmen. It is said: The wealthy and the poor are treated equally, and that is the action of Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him). ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) used to give according to what he saw fit. It is said: [The Imam] has the choice, because the action of both Shaykhs is an argument. ‘Abd al-Wahhab said: The Imam starts with his own expenses and the expenses of his family without estimation. The apparent view of the majority is that he does not start with that, and Ibn ‘Abd al-Hakam held this view.

The meaning of mentioning Allah, Exalted is He, according to this Imam, is that the fifth is spent in the ways of devotion to Allah, Exalted is He, and what is mentioned after is not for specification, but rather for prioritizing it over others, and it does not lift the ruling of the first generalization, but rather it remains as it is. This is like the generalization established for the angels, even if Gabriel and Michael (peace be upon them) were specified after.

The school of Shafi‘i (may Allah be pleased with him) regarding the division of the spoils is that the salb is taken from the capital of the wealth, then—where there are no volunteers—the expenses of guarding, transport, and other necessary costs are removed, then the remainder is divided into five equal parts. It is written on a slip of paper "For Allah, Exalted is He" or "For the Public Interests," and on [another] slip "For the Warriors," and they are inserted into small balls. What comes out for Allah, Exalted is He, is divided into five public interests, such as the frontier posts (thughur), those occupied with the sciences of the Shari‘ah and their tools—even if they are beginners—the Imams, and the mu’adhdhins, even if they are wealthy, and all who are occupied away from their livelihood with the interests of the Muslims due to the generality of their benefit. The incapable of earning are added to them. The giving is [left] to the Imam’s opinion, considering the abundance or scarcity of wealth. This is the share that was for the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) in his life; he used to spend from it on himself and his family, store from it the expenses of a year, and spend the remainder on public interests.

Regarding whether he (peace be upon him)—with this expenditure—was an owner of it or not, there are two opinions. Imam al-Rafi‘i went to the second, preceded by a group of predecessors. He said: He (peace be upon him), with his disposal of the aforementioned fifth, was not the owner of it, nor did it pass from him to another by inheritance. It was refuted by stating that the correct, textually supported view is that he did own it. Sheikh Abu Hamid erred [by saying] that he (peace be upon him) did not own anything, even if what he needed was made permissible for him. Al-Rafi‘i’s words might be interpreted as not denying absolute ownership, but rather the ownership that necessitates inheritance from him. This is supported by the requirement of his words in al-Khasa’is that he does own.

As for the Banu Hashim and the [Banu] Muttalib, the consideration is by lineage through fathers, not mothers. The wealthy and the poor participate in it due to the generality of the verse, and his giving (peace be upon him) to al-‘Abbas, who was wealthy, and to the women. The male is favored like [in] inheritance. The orphans [participate], and the presence of a grandfather does not prevent it. The child of adultery and the disavowed enter into it, but not the foundling, according to the preferred views. His poverty is stipulated according to the famous view. Proof is necessary here for establishing orphanhood, Islam, and poverty. Likewise for the Hashimi and the Muttalibi. A group stipulated for both, along with [the previous conditions], the widespread report of lineage, and for the needy and the wayfarer, even by their own claim without an oath. Yes, it appears that in the case of one claiming the loss of wealth, or family, he is charged with providing proof. Islam is stipulated for all, and poverty [is stipulated] for the wayfarer as well. The complete details are in their books.

Abu al-‘Aliyah clung to the literal meaning of the noble verse and said: It is divided into six shares, and the share of Allah, Exalted is He, is spent on the interests of the Ka‘bah—that is, if it is nearby, otherwise on the mosque of every town where the fifth occurred, as Ibn al-Humam said. Abu Dawud narrated in al-Marasil and Ibn Jarir from him that he (peace be upon him) used to take a handful from it and make it for the interests of the Ka‘bah, then divide what remained into five shares.

The school of the Imamis is that it is divided into six shares as well, like the school of Abu al-‘Aliyah, except that they said: The share of Allah, the share of the Messenger (peace be upon him), and the share of the near kinsmen are for the Imam who stands in the place of the Messenger (peace be upon him), and a share for the orphans of the family of Muhammad (peace be upon him), a share for their needy, and a share for their wayfarers; no one else shares with them in that. They narrated that from Zayd ibn ‘Ali and Muhammad ibn ‘Ali al-Baqir (may Allah be pleased with them). The apparent view is that the first three shares which they mentioned are today hidden in the sirdab (cellar), as the one who stands in the place of the Messenger has, in their view, gone into occultation, so it is hidden for him until he returns from his occultation. It is said: The share of Allah, Exalted is He, is for the public treasury (bayt al-mal), and it is joined to the share of the Messenger (peace be upon him).

This is [the case], and He, Exalted is He, did not explain the status of the remaining four-fifths. Since He, the Majestic, explained the ruling of the fifth and did not explain them, it indicates that they are the property of the warriors. Their division according to Abu Hanifah is: the horseman receives two shares, and the footman receives one share, based on what is narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) that the Prophet (peace be upon him) did likewise. The horseman on a ship also deserves two shares, even if he cannot fight upon it, due to [his] being prepared; one prepared for a thing is like the participant [in it], as in al-Muhit. There is no difference between a horse that is owned, rented, or borrowed; likewise for [a horse that is] usurped, with details regarding it. Shafi‘i and Malik went to [the opinion] that the horseman has three shares, due to what is narrated from Ibn ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with them) that the Prophet (peace be upon him) allotted that to the horseman, and this is the opinion of the two Imams.

It was answered that it has been narrated from Ibn ‘Umar also that the Prophet (peace be upon him) divided two shares for the horseman. If his two narrations contradict, the narration of someone else is preferred due to its safety from contradiction, so it is acted upon. This narration is the narration of Ibn ‘Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them). In al-Hidayah: He (peace be upon him) had contradictory actions regarding the horseman, so we return to his saying (peace be upon him). He (peace be upon him) said: "For the horseman two shares, and for the footman one share." This was countered in al-‘Inayah that his method of deduction opposes the rules of the principles [of jurisprudence], for the principle is that if two evidences contradict and reconciliation and preference are impossible, one turns to what is after them, not to what is before them. He said: "His actions contradicted, so we return to his saying." The path taken in such [matters] is to deduce from his saying and say: his action does not contradict his saying, because the saying is stronger by agreement. The Imam [Abu Hanifah] held that no share is given except for one horse. According to Abu Yusuf, a share is given for two horses. What is used as evidence for that is carried upon tanfil (special grant) in the view of the Imam, just as he (peace be upon him) gave Salamah ibn al-Akwa‘ two shares while he was on foot. And a share is not given for three, by agreement.

"If you have believed in Allah": The condition, its response is omitted, i.e., if you have believed in Allah, Exalted is He, then know that He, Exalted is He, has assigned the fifth to whom He assigned, so deliver it to them, and be content with the remaining four-fifths. It is not intended merely to know that, but [rather] knowledge accompanied by action and obedience to His command, Exalted is He. The response was not placed before it because it is not correct for the response to precede the condition according to the correct view among the scholars of Arabic. It was not estimated as "action" to shorten the distance, as al-Nasafi did, because the consistent [practice] in such [examples] is to estimate what the preceding [text] indicates, so it is estimated from its genus.

His saying, Exalted is He, "and [on] what We sent down" is a conjunction to the Majestic Name, and ma (what) is a conjunctive noun, and the referential pronoun is omitted, i.e., that which We sent down "upon Our servant" (Muhammad, peace be upon him). In expressing it as such is that which is hidden [within it] of honor and glorification. It was read as ‘abdina with two dammams as the plural of ‘abd, and it is said: it is a collective noun for it, and by it is intended the Prophet (peace be upon him) and the believers, for some of what was sent down was sent down upon them.

"On the Day of the Criterion" is the Day of Badr, so the annexation is for the established covenant. Al-Furqan (the Criterion) is in the linguistic sense, for on that day [the truth] was distinguished from falsehood. The adverb is in the accusative by anzalna. Abu al-Baqa’ allowed its connection to amantum (you believed). His saying, Exalted is He, "the day the two armies met" is a substitute for it or connected to al-furqan. The definition of the "two armies" is for the covenant, and by them are intended the two factions: the believers and the disbelievers. By what was sent down upon him (peace be upon him)—of signs, angels, and victory—is intended that "sending down" is merely the reaching and facilitating, so it encompasses all with a real encompassment. The conjunctive noun is general, and there is no combining of the real and the metaphorical, contrary to those who imagined it [so]. The belief in these things is made from the requirements of knowing that the fifth is for Allah, Exalted is He, in the aforementioned manner, in that the revelation is articulate about that, and that since the angels and the victory were from Him, Exalted is He, it was necessary that the spoils obtained through them be spent in the directions which Allah, Exalted is He, appointed.

"And Allah is over all things powerful." Among the effects of His power, the Majestic, is that which you witnessed on the day the two armies met.