Narrated Anas ibn Maalik (ra): Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) entered Makkah in the year of its Conquest wearing a Mighfar on his head and when the Prophet (ﷺ) took it off, a person came and said, "Ibn Khatal is holding the covering of the Ka`bah (taking refuge in the Ka`bah)." The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "Kill him."
.
Commentary :
The Prophet ﷺ and the Muslims departed from Makkah oppressed, then returned as victors after the Quraysh violated the covenant which existed between them and the Messenger of Allah ﷺ as stipulated in the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah. The Conquest of Makkah is the greatest victory of the Muslims and heralded that the sun of disbelief and polytheism has set in the Arabian Peninsula.
In this hadeeth, Anas ibn Maalik (ra) reports that when the Prophet ﷺentered Makkah in the Year of the Conquest, - which is the eighth year after Hijrah - he had a mighfar on his head, which is a protective helmet with a piece of chain mail connected to it, which warriors wear in combat in order to protect themselves. It has been transmitted on the authority of Jaabir ibn ‘Abdullah (ra) that on the Day of the Conquest, the Messenger of Allah ﷺentered Makkah wearing a black turban.” [Saheeh Muslim]. It is possible that the helmet was above the turban, protecting his noble head from the rust of iron, or that the turban was over the helmet and chain mail. Or that he ﷺ first entered the city with the helmet on his head, then removed it and put on the turban after that, and each of the narrators reported what they saw.
After the Prophet ﷺ took off the helmet, a man - whose name is Aboo Barzah Nadlah ibn ‘Ubayd al-Aslamee (ra) or Sa’eed ibn Hurayth (ra) - came to him ﷺ and said: ‘O Messenger of Allah! Ibn Khatal is clinging to the curtain of the Ka‘bah.” Thereupon, the Prophet ﷺ issued his order to kill him.
Ibn Khatal’s name used to be ‘Abd al-‘Uzzaa in the time of ignorance before the Islam. He was from the tribe of Banee Taym ibn Fihr ibn Ghaalib. When he embraced Islam, the Messenger of Allah ﷺnamed him ‘Abdullah, and his given name was Khatal ‘Abd Manaaf. The word Khatal was his epithet because one of his jawbones was lower than the other.
The Prophet ﷺhad sent Ibn Khatal to a place with a man who was one of the Ansaar, to collect alms, and was invested with authority over the other man. But when they both were on the way, Ibn Khatal killed the man who was with him from the Ansaar, took his money and belongings. When he returned to Makkah, he brought along two singing female slaves who sang insults about the Prophet ﷺ. Thereafter, the Prophet ﷺ had excluded him from the amnesty which he ﷺ had offered to those who entered the Sacred Mosque during the Conquest of Makkah. He ﷺhad ordered for Ibn Khatal to be killed, even if he was found clinging to the curtains of the Ka‘bah. As a result, Aboo Barzah (ra) killed him, with Sa’eed ibn Hurayth (raa) participating in the act. It may have been Sa’eed ibn Thu’ayb or al-Zubayr ibn al-‘Awwaam (ras). Ibn Khatal was executed between the site where Ibraheem (as) stood near the Ka‘bah (i.e., the maqam of Ibraheem) and the well of Zamzam; and it was done so for the treacherous acts he committed while being a legally responsible member of the early Islamic community. Therefore, he was executed in retribution for the blood of the Muslim he killed, and then later apostatized from the religion, which was analogous to high treason.
This hadeeth highlights the permissibility of entering Makkah without being in the consecrated state one enters for Hajj or ‘Umrah (i.e., Ihraam).
It shows the permissibility of administering the fixed punishments (Hudood) and retributions (Qisaas) in Makkah.
It also shows that the Ka‘bah does not protect the offender, nor does it prevent the local leadership from issuing an obligatory fixed punishment.
It also highlights the permissibility of wearing a mighfar, and other instruments of war in case of fear of engaging with the enemy, and that does not contradict one’s complete reliance and trust in Allah.
And lastly, it establishes the permissibility of informing the authorities of corrupt people, and that this is not considered a prohibited form of backbiting and talebearing..