Zād al-Maʿād - Ibn al-Qayyim - (2/236)

Zād al-MaʿādIbn al-Qayyim

‘What, then, of Bilāl ibn al-Hārith’s hadith concerning the conversion of Hajj into ‘umrah—meaning the statement that it was exclusively for us?’ He replied: ‘I do not accept it. This man is not known. This hadith does not have a known chain of transmission. In my view, Bilāl ibn al-Hārith’s hadith is not authentically established.’” These were his exact words.

I say: Further evidence that Imam Ahmad’s position is correct and that this hadith is not authentic is that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, declared that the tamattu‘ into which he commanded them to convert their Hajj was for all time. How, after this, could it be authentically established that he said it was exclusive to them? This is among the most utterly impossible (1) claims. How could he command them to convert their Hajj into ‘umrah and say, “‘Umrah has become part of Hajj until the Day of Resurrection,” and then be authentically reported as saying that this was exclusive to the Companions, to the exclusion of those who came after them? We therefore call Allah to witness that this hadith of Bilāl ibn al-Hārith is not authentically transmitted from the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him; it is erroneously attributed to him. How could Bilāl ibn al-Hārith’s report take precedence over the reports of the trustworthy, reliable transmitters who carried this knowledge and related from the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, the opposite of what he reported?

Moreover, how could this be authentically established from the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, while Ibn ‘Abbās issued fatwas to the contrary and argued for his position throughout his life, before scholars and ordinary people alike, when the Companions of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, were still present in large numbers? Yet not a single one of them said to him, ‘This was exclusive to us and not for anyone else,’ only for it to emerge after the Companions’ deaths that Abū Dharr had held and reported (2) that it was exclusive to them?

As for ‘Uthmān’s statement, may Allah be pleased with him, concerning tamattu‘ in Hajj—that it was for them and not for anyone else—it is subject to exactly the same assessment as Abū Dharr’s statement. Nevertheless, what is reported from Abū Dharr and ‘Uthmān admits of three possible interpretations:

(1) Amhal (“most impossible”) is absent from ق, ك, ب, and مب. (2) Wa-yarwī (“and reported”) is absent from the printed edition.

فحديث بلال بن الحارث في فسخ الحجِّ، يعني قوله لنا خاصَّةً؟ قال: لا أقول به، لا يُعرَف هذا الرَّجل، هذا حديثٌ ليس إسناده بالمعروف، ليس حديث بلال بن الحارث عندي يثبت. هذا لفظه. قلت: وممَّا يدلُّ على صحَّة قول الإمام أحمد وأنَّ هذا الحديث لا يصحُّ: أنَّ النَّبيَّ ﷺ أخبر عن تلك المتعة الَّتي أمرهم أن يفسخوا حجَّهم إليها أنَّها لأبدِ الأبد، فكيف يثبت عنه بعد هذا أنَّها لهم خاصَّةً؟ هذا من أمحل (١) المحال. وكيف يأمرهم بالفسخ ويقول: «دخلت العمرةُ في الحجِّ إلى يوم القيامة»، ثمَّ يثبت عنه أنَّ ذلك مختصٌّ بالصَّحابة دون من بعدهم؟ فنحن نشهد بالله أنَّ حديث بلال بن الحارث هذا لا يصحُّ عن رسول الله ﷺ، وهو غلطٌ عليه. وكيف تُقدَّم رواية بلال بن الحارث على روايات الثِّقات الأثبات حملةِ العلم الذين رووا عن رسول الله ﷺ خلافَ روايته؟ ثمَّ كيف يكون هذا ثابتًا عن رسول الله ﷺ وابن عبَّاسٍ يفتي بخلافه، ويناظر عليه طولَ عمره بمشهدٍ من الخاصِّ والعامِّ، وأصحاب رسول الله ﷺ متوافرون، ولا يقول له رجلٌ واحدٌ منهم: هذا كان مختصًّا بنا ليس لغيرنا، حتَّى يظهر بعد موت الصَّحابة أنَّ أبا ذر كان يرى ويروي (٢) اختصاصَ ذلك بهم؟ وأمَّا قول عثمان ﵁ في متعة الحجِّ: إنَّها كانت لهم ليست لغيرهم، فحكمه حكم قول أبي ذر سواءٌ على أنَّ المرويَّ عن أبي ذر وعثمان يحتمل ثلاثة أمورٍ:

(١) «أمحل» ليست في ق، ك، ب، مب. (٢) «ويروي» ليست في المطبوع.