"Mecca will not be attacked after today..." He said this regarding Mecca, while he was there after its conquest, and that was said about the polytheists who were defeated at the trench, while he (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) was in Medina; both are authentic, and all praise is due to Allāh. They only differ in terms of the clarity of their intended meanings; for this confused some of them, as explained by Imām Abū Jaʿfar al-Ṭaḥāwī in "Mushkil al-Āthār" (2/227-229). The meaning of the first phrase is: "Quraysh—the inhabitants of Mecca at that time—will not be disbelievers until they are attacked for disbelief"; as he said in its completion: "and no Qurayshī will be killed..." meaning: he will not apostatize and be killed in patience. As for the ḥadīth of the translation; it is as the ḥāfiẓ said in "al-Fatḥ": "a sign of the signs of prophethood; for he (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) performed ʿumrah in the following year, and Quraysh prevented him from the House, and a truce occurred between them until they broke it, which led to the conquest of Mecca, and the matter occurred as he (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) said." (Note): The ḥadīth of the attack on Mecca narrated by al-Ḥārith ibn al-Barṣāʾ was attributed by the ḥāfiẓ in the biography of (al-Ḥārith) in "al-Iṣābah" to al-Tirmidhī and Ibn Ḥibbān, and they both authenticated it! I do not think its attribution to Ibn Ḥibbān is anything but an error; because what is understood from it is that it means "Ṣaḥīḥ Ibn Ḥibbān" and we did not see it in its arrangement called "al-Iḥsān" by al-Amīr ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn al-Fārisī, nor in the arrangement of its additions known as "Mawārid al-Ẓamʾān" by al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Haythamī, and it only has one ḥadīth in "al-Iḥsān" about the false oath, which is in "al-Iḥsān" (7/303-304), and it is in "al-Mawārid" with the number (1189), so if the ḥadīth were in "Ṣaḥīḥ Ibn Ḥibbān"; al-Haythamī would have included it, if Allāh wills, in "Mawārid al-Ẓamʾān." To clarify the truth, I say: what I mentioned about "al-Mawārid" is only for the sake of citation, not..
"لا تغزى مكة بعد اليوم ... ". هذا قاله في حق مكة، وهو فيها بعد فتحها، وذاك قاله في المشركين المنهزمين عن الخندق، وهو ﷺ في المدينة؛ وكلاهما صحيح والحمد لله، وإنما يختلفان من حيث وضوح المراد منهما؛ فإن هذا أشكل على بعضهم، كما شرحه الإمام أبو جعفر الطحاوي في "مشكل الآثار" (٢/٢٢٧- ٢٢٩). فمعنى الفقرة الأولى منه: "لا تكفر قريش- سكان مكة يومئذ- حتى تغزى على الكفر"؛ كقوله في تمامه: "ولا يقتل قرشي.. " أي: لا يرتد فيقتل صبراً. وأما حديث الترجمة؛ فهو كما قال الحافظ في "الفتح ":"علم من أعلام النبوة؛ فإنه ﷺ اعتمر في السنة المقبلة، فصدَّته قريش عن البيت، ووقعت الهدنة بينهم إلى أن نقضوها، فكان ذلك سبب فتح مكة، فوقع الأمر كما قال ﷺ". (تنبيه): حديث غزو مكة من رواية الحارث بن البرصاء عزاه الحافظ في ترجمة (الحارث) من "الإصابة " للترمذي وابن حبان وصححاه! وما أظن عزوه لابن حبان إلاّ وهماً؛ لأن المتبادر منه أنه يعني "صحيح ابن حبان " ولم نره في ترتيبه المسمى بـ"الإحسان " للأمير علاء الدين الفارسي، ولا في ترتيب زوائده المعروف بـ"موارد الظمآن " للحافظ الهيثمي، وليس له في "الإحسان " إلا حديث واحد في اليمين الفاجرة، هو في "الإحسان " (٧/٣٠٣- ٣٠٤)، وهو في "الموارد" برقم (١١٨٩)، فلو كان الحديث في "صحيح ابن حبان "؛ لأورده الهيثمي إن شاء الله في "موارد الظمآن ". وبياناً للحقيقة أقول: ما ذكرته عن الموارد إنما هو من باب الاستشهاد لا