Zād al-Maʿād - Ibn al-Qayyim - (2/176)

Zād al-MaʿādIbn al-Qayyim

his entering ihrām, he would have entered it for ‘umrah and would not have brought the sacrificial animals. What lay behind him was what he had already done and completed, whereas what lay ahead was what he had not yet done. He thus explained that, if he could begin again what was now behind him—namely, entering ihrām—he would have entered ihrām (1) for ‘umrah without bringing sacrificial animals. It is well known that he would not choose to leave the preferable course for a less preferable one; rather, he would choose only what was preferable. This indicates that his later position favoured tamattu‘.

Those who favour qirān when bringing the sacrificial animals may say: He (peace and blessings be upon him) did not say this because what he had done was inferior or less preferable. Rather, his Companions found it difficult to leave ihrām while he remained in it. He would therefore have chosen to do as they did, so that they would carry out what they had been commanded willingly, lovingly, and wholeheartedly. He might leave a preferable course for a less preferable one to act in harmony with others and unite their hearts, as he said to ‘Ā’ishah:

“Were it not that your people had only recently left the age of ignorance, I would have demolished the Ka‘bah and given it two doors.” (2)

Here (3), he left what was preferable for the sake of harmony and winning hearts, so that doing so became the preferable course in those circumstances. The same applies to his choosing tamattu‘ without bringing sacrificial animals. This reconciles what he actually did with what he wished and desired to do. Allah, Glorified is He, would thus have granted him both: one through his performing it, and the other through his wishing and desiring it. He therefore granted him the reward for what he did, and the reward for the harmony with his Companions that he intended and wished for.

How could a form of pilgrimage involving an interval out of ihrām, without bringing sacrificial animals, be better than a form of pilgrimage (4) involving no such interval, for which he brought a hundred sacrificial camels? And how could any form of pilgrimage be better for him than a form of pilgrimage

(1) “La-ahrama (he would have entered ihrām)” is omitted from Mb and the printed edition, leaving the conditional sentence without its consequent clause. (2) Reported by al-Bukhārī (1586) and Muslim (1333). (3) The printed edition reads: “fa-hādhā (so this).” (4) “Yatakhallaluhu … nusuk (involving … a form of pilgrimage)” is omitted from S because of a scribal eye-skip.

إحرامه لكان أحرم بعمرةٍ ولم يَسُقِ الهدي، لأنَّ الذي استدبره هو الذي فعلَه ومضى فصار خلفه، والَّذي استقبله هو الذي لم يفعله بعدُ، بل هو أمامه، فبيَّن أنَّه لو كان مستقبلًا لما استدبره ــ وهو الإحرام ــ لأحرم (١) بالعمرة دون هديٍ، ومعلومٌ أنَّه لا يختار أن ينتقل عن الأفضل إلى المفضول، بل إنَّما يختار الأفضل، وهذا يدلُّ على أنَّ آخر الأمرينِ منه ترجيح التَّمتُّع. ولمن رجَّح القِران مع السَّوق أن يقول: هو ﷺ لم يقل هذا لأجل أنَّ الذي فعله مفضولٌ مرجوحٌ، بل لأنَّ أصحابه شقَّ عليهم أن يحلُّوا من إحرامهم مع بقائه هو محرمًا، فكان يختار موافقتهم ليفعلوا ما أُمِروا به مع انشراحٍ ومحبَّةٍ وقبولٍ. وقد ينتقل عن الأفضل إلى المفضول لما فيه من الموافقة وائتلاف القلوب، كما قال لعائشة: «لولا أنَّ قومكِ حديثو عهدٍ بجاهليَّةٍ لنقضتُ الكعبة وجعلتُ لها بابين» (٢)، فهنا (٣) ترك ما هو الأولى لأجل الموافقة والتَّأليف، فصار هذا هو الأولى في هذه الحال، فكذلك اختياره للمتعة بلا هديٍ. وفي هذا جمعٌ بين ما فعله وبين ما ودَّه وتمنَّاه، ويكون الله سبحانه قد جمع له بين الأمرين: أحدهما بفعله له، والآخر بتمنِّيه ووِداده له، فأعطاه أجر ما فعله، وأجرَ ما نواه من الموافقة وتمنَّاه. وكيف يكون نسكٌ يتخلَّله التَّحلُّل لم يَسُقْ فيه الهدي أفضلَ من نسكٍ (٤) لم يتخلَّله تحلُّلٌ، وقد ساق فيه مائة بدنةٍ؟ وكيف يكون نسكٌ أفضلَ في حقِّه من نسكٍ

(١) «لأحرم» ساقطة من مب، المطبوع، فأصبح الكلام بدون جواب الشرط. (٢) رواه البخاري (١٥٨٦) ومسلم (١٣٣٣). (٣) في المطبوع: «فهذا». (٤) «يتخلله ... نسك» ساقطة من ص بسبب انتقال النظر.