by force, and no disagreement is recorded on the matter—save from al-Shāfiʿī, and from Aḥmad in one of his two reported views.

Those who hold that Mecca was taken by treaty argue: Had it been seized by force, the Prophet ﷺ would have distributed its lands among the victors; the combatants would then have owned its plots and houses, possessed a stronger claim to them than their former occupants, and the latter could lawfully have been expelled. None of this occurred, which, they say, contradicts the rulings that apply to a forcible conquest.

The proponents of the forcible-conquest view reply: If he ﷺ had reached a peace settlement with them, the amnesty he proclaimed—conditional on each person entering his own house, bolting his door, and laying down his weapons—would have served no purpose. Moreover, Khālid ibn al-Walīd fought them and killed a number of them, and the Prophet did not censure him for it.

Likewise, had the city been taken by treaty, he would not have declared, “Allah made it lawful for me only for one brief hour of the day,” for a treaty would have left its sanctity intact and could not have suspended it.

Nor would he have marshalled his forces—cavalry and infantry—into right and left wings, fully armed, had the opening been through conciliation.

He ﷺ also said: “Allah restrained the elephant from Mecca, but He let loose upon it His Messenger and the believers.”

Scholars then differed over whether the prescribed penalties may be carried out within the Sacred Precinct:
• The other three Imams maintain that ḥudūd (mandatory punishments) and qiṣāṣ (retaliatory execution or injury) are indeed enforced there, citing the general proofs, the greater sanctity of human life, and the fact that penalties short of death are a form of chastisement and therefore not prevented by the city’s sanctity.
• Abū Ḥanīfah, however, held that retributive punishments are not executed there, reasoning from Allah’s words: “Whoever enters it shall be safe” (Q 3:97).