and he compensated anyone who was unwilling to relinquish his share. He had already distributed the property, so he did not return it to them. Quraysh had not fought him as Hawāzin had, and he granted clemency only to those among them who did not fight him, as he said:

“Whoever closes his door is safe; whoever lays down his weapons is safe; and whoever enters the mosque is safe.”

When most of them refrained from fighting him, and he knew that they were Muslims, he released them. He did not seize their property as spoils or take their families captive, nor did he enslave them or their children. Rather, he called them “the released men of Quraysh,” unlike Thaqīf, who were called “the emancipated,” for he freed their children after they had been enslaved and distributed.

This indicates that the ruler should deal with property and men, immovable and movable possessions, in whatever way best serves the public interest. The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, conquered Khaybar and divided it among the Muslims. He took some of its women captive but allowed the remaining inhabitants and their offspring to stay until they were later expelled; he did not enslave them. He conquered Mecca by force but did not divide it up, in the public interest.

Scholars have differed over land conquered by force, holding three opinions: must it be divided, as Khaybar was, because it constitutes spoils of war? Does it instead become fay’ (property held for the Muslim community), as indicated by Surah al-Hashr, with land not being included among the spoils of war? Or may the ruler choose between these two courses? Most scholars hold that the ruler has this choice, and this is the correct view. It is the position of Abū Hanīfa, of Ahmad according to the well-known report from him, and of others.