is safe, and whoever shuts his door is safe.” Thus, he granted safety to those who did not fight him. Had they already been under a treaty, they would not have needed this. Moreover, the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, called them “the freed ones,” because he released them after gaining power over them, just as a captive is released. They therefore had the same standing as those whom he released from captivity, such as Thumāmah ibn Uthāl and others. Furthermore, he authorized the killing of certain men and women among them.

It is also authentically reported from him in the collections of authentic hadith that he said in his sermon:

“Fighting in Mecca was not permitted to anyone before me, nor will it be permitted to anyone after me. It was permitted to me only for an hour of one day.”

He entered Mecca wearing a helmet, not in a state of ihrām. Had they concluded a peace treaty with him, nothing otherwise forbidden would have become permissible for him—just as concluding a peace treaty with a town outside the Sacred Precinct would not have made such acts permissible. How, then, could fighting in the Sacred City become permissible for him while its people were at peace with him and bound to him by a treaty? Moreover, they fought Khālid, and he killed a group of them.

In short, anyone who reflects on the transmitted reports cannot but recognize that Mecca was conquered by force. Yet the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, did not distribute its land, just as he did not enslave its men. He conquered Khaybar by force and distributed its land, and he conquered Mecca by force without distributing its land. This establishes that both courses are permissible.

There are three positions on this issue: that distributing the landed property is obligatory, as al-Shāfiʿī held; that distributing it is forbidden and retaining it is obligatory, as Mālik held; or allowing a choice