needed to establish the religion, subdue its enemies, make it prevail and raise it high is of greater value than giving to someone who does not serve these purposes, even if the latter is needier.

As for the assertion that these restrictions accord with al-Shāfi‘ī’s school but not Mālik’s, and what has been reported of ‘Umar’s position, assessing this requires knowledge of the imams’ positions on this matter and the caliphs’ practice in distributing grants.

The basis of this issue is that scholars hold three views concerning land conquered by force. The first—which is al-Shāfi‘ī’s position—is that it must be divided among those entitled to the spoils, unless the ruler obtains their willing consent to make it an endowment. Al-Umm states that if a judge rules that it is to be made an endowment without their willing consent, his ruling is to be overturned, because the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, divided Khaybar among those entitled to the spoils.

However, the majority of the imams disagreed with al-Shāfi‘ī on this. They regarded ‘Umar ibn al-Khattāb’s decision to make land conquered by force communal property as sound and permissible, and held that ‘Umar retained it without obtaining the willing consent of those entitled to the spoils. There is no dispute that ‘Umar did not divide any of the lands he conquered by force in Syria, Iraq, Egypt and elsewhere among those entitled to the spoils; he divided only the movable property.

But Mālik and a group of scholars—this being the second view—held that it was reserved exclusively for those who had been at al-Hudaybiyyah. Ismā‘īl ibn Ishāq, the leading Mālikī scholar, wrote a work on this in which he disputed al-Shāfi‘ī’s position on this issue and addressed his arguments. Positions corresponding to both views have been transmitted from Imam Ahmad, but the well-known position in his school is the