Zād al-Maʿād - Ibn al-Qayyim - (2/212)

Zād al-MaʿādIbn al-Qayyim

And her statement, “We did,” is like her saying, “We set out with the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace,” or “We travelled with him,” and similar expressions. Unless this narration is mistaken, it must unquestionably be understood in that sense, given the authentic, explicit hadiths establishing that she had (1) entered ihrām for ‘umrah. How could ‘Urwah be accused of error in this matter, when he was the most knowledgeable of all people about her hadiths and heard them directly from her, without an intermediary?

As for his statement in Hammād’s narration, “More than one person related to me that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said to her, ‘Abandon your ‘umrah,’” there is only a need to establish a defect in it and reject it if it contradicts the established narrations from her. But if it agrees with them, confirms them, and attests that she entered ihrām for ‘umrah, this indicates that it was reliably preserved and that whoever related it to him retained it accurately. Moreover, Hammād ibn Zayd alone transmitted this version criticized as defective—namely, his wording, “More than one person related to me”—whereas several other narrators differed from him, transmitting it with an unbroken chain from ‘Urwah, from ‘Ā’ishah. Even if a contradiction were assumed, the more numerous narrators would be more likely to be correct.

How astonishing! How can it be permissible to declare ‘Urwah—the most knowledgeable of all people about her hadiths—mistaken in reporting her statement, “I was among those who entered ihrām for ‘umrah,” on the strength of ambiguous wording open to different interpretations? How can such wording be used to override an authentic, explicit report supported by the narrative in several ways, some of which have already been mentioned? Here are four narrators who reported that she entered ihrām for ‘umrah: Jābir, ‘Urwah, Tāwūs, and Mujāhid. Even if the narration of al-Qāsim, ‘Amrah, and al-Aswad contradicted theirs, the narration of these four would deserve preference because they are more numerous, because Jābir is among them, and because of ‘Urwah’s distinction and his knowledge of the hadiths of his maternal aunt.

(1) “Qad (already)” is absent from Q, B, and Mb.

وقولها: «فعلنا» كما قالت: خرجنا مع رسول الله ﷺ وسافرنا معه ونحوه. ويتعيَّن قطعًا ــ إن لم تكن هذه الرِّواية غلطًا ــ أن تُحمل على ذلك للأحاديث الصَّحيحة الصَّريحة أنَّها كانت قد (١) أحرمت بعمرةٍ، وكيف يُنسَب عروة في ذلك إلى الغلط، وهو أعلم النَّاس بحديثها، وكان يسمع منها مشافهةً بلا واسطةٍ. وأمَّا قوله في رواية حماد: حدَّثني غير واحدٍ أنَّ رسول الله ﷺ قال لها: «دَعِي عمرتك»، فهذا إنَّما يحتاج إلى تعليله وردِّه إذا خالف الرِّوايات الثَّابتة عنها، فأمَّا إذا وافقها وصدَّقها وشهد أنها أحرمت بعمرةٍ، فهذا يدلُّ على أنَّه محفوظٌ، وأنَّ الذي حدَّثه ضبطَه وحفظه. هذا مع أنَّ حمَّاد بن زيدٍ انفرد بهذه الرِّواية المعلَّلة، وهي قوله: «فحدَّثني غير واحدٍ»، وخالفه جماعةٌ فرووه متَّصلًا عن عروة عن عائشة، فلو قُدِّر التَّعارض فالأكثرون أولى بالصَّواب. ويا للعجب! كيف يكون تغليط أعلم النَّاس بحديثها ــ وهو عروة ــ في قوله عنها: «وكنت فيمن أهلَّ بعمرةٍ» سائغًا بلفظٍ مجملٍ محتملٍ، ويُقضى به على النَّصِّ الصَّحيح الصَّريح الذي شهد له سياق القصَّة من وجوهٍ متعدِّدةٍ قد تقدَّم ذكر بعضها؟ فهؤلاء أربعةٌ رَوَوا عنها أنَّها أهلَّت بعمرةٍ: جابر، وعروة، وطاوس، ومجاهد، فلو كانت رواية القاسم وعمرة والأسود معارضةً لرواية هؤلاء لكانت روايتهم أولى بالتَّقديم لكثرتهم، ولأنَّ فيهم جابرًا، ولفضل عروة وعلمه بحديث خالته.

(١) «قد» ليست في ق، ب، مب.