its conquest. Thus, if the fortress is conquered by force, she is handed over to him, unless she had embraced Islam before the conquest, for she would have protected herself by her Islam, making it impossible to hand her over to him; therefore, her value is paid to him. When the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) made peace with the people of Mecca in the year of Hudaybiyya, on the condition that whoever came to him as a Muslim would be returned to them, Muslim women came to him, and Allah forbade him from returning them. If the compensation were a man from the people of the fortress, and he embraced Islam before the conquest, he would also protect himself, and it would not be permissible to hand him over, and the one entitled to the compensation would receive his value. If the conversion of the slave girl or the man occurred after their capture, they are handed over to him if he is a Muslim. If he is a disbeliever, he is given their value, because a disbeliever cannot have original ownership over a Muslim. If they die before or after the conquest, he gets nothing, because his right was attached to a specific thing, which perished without negligence, so his right lapsed, like a deposit. This differs from the case where they embrace Islam, for delivering them is possible, but the law prohibits it. If the conquest was through a peace treaty, and the Imam exempted the slave girl and the man and handed them over, it is valid. If the peace treaty was absolute, the compensation is sought from the master of the fortress, and [their value] is offered to him. If they are handed over to the Imam, he delivers them to the one entitled to them; if he refuses, their value is offered to the person who stipulated them. If he accepts it, he is given it and the peace treaty is concluded; if he refuses, the judge said: The peace treaty is annulled, because it is a right for which the execution of the peace treaty has become impossible, since the right of the person entitled to the compensation is prior, and it is impossible to combine it with the peace treaty. The school of al-Shafi'i is similar to this. The master of the fortress may fortify it just as it was, without increase. It is also possible that the peace treaty remains valid and the value is paid to the person entitled to the compensation, because it became impossible to deliver it while it remains in existence, so its value is paid to him, just as if the object of compensation had embraced Islam before the conquest, or embraced Islam after it while the person entitled to the compensation was a disbeliever. As for their statement that the right of the person entitled to the compensation is prior, we say: Except that the corruption in annulling the peace treaty is greater, because its harm returns to the entire army and perhaps returns to others among the Muslims, in that this fortress might become impossible to conquer after that, and its harm would remain upon the Muslims. It is not permissible to bear this harm in order to avert a minor harm from one person, for the harm to the person entitled to the compensation is merely in the loss of the specific object of compensation, and the difference between the specific object and its value is minor, especially since it concerns one individual. Observing the right of all Muslims by averting great harm from them is more appropriate than averting minor harm from one of them or from others. This is why we said regarding one who finds his property before it is divided: He has more right to it; if he finds it after it is divided, he may not take it except for its price, lest it lead to harm by reducing the value or depriving the one into whose share it fell.