Zād al-Maʿād - Ibn al-Qayyim - (2/237)

Zād al-MaʿādIbn al-Qayyim

First: the permissibility of this was exclusive to the Companions. This is how those who prohibited converting Hajj into ‘umrah understood it.

Second: its obligation was exclusive to the Companions. This was the view of our teacher, may Allah sanctify his soul. He said (1): They were obliged (2) to convert their Hajj into ‘umrah because the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, commanded them to do so, made it binding upon them, and became angry when they hesitated to comply immediately. As for its permissibility and recommendation, these apply to the Muslim community until the Day of Resurrection. But Ibn ‘Abbās, that ocean of knowledge, rejected this view and held that the obligation applied to the Muslim community until the Day of Resurrection: everyone performing Hajj alone or combining Hajj with ‘umrah who has not brought sacrificial animals must leave ihrām (ritual consecration). Indeed, he has already left it, even if he does not wish to. I am more inclined to his view than to that of our teacher.

The third possibility: no one after the Companions may begin Hajj alone, or Hajj combined with ‘umrah, without sacrificial animals, such that he would need to convert it into ‘umrah. Rather, he must follow the Prophet’s final instructions to his Companions, peace and blessings be upon him: tamattu‘ for those who have not brought sacrificial animals, and combining Hajj with ‘umrah for those who have, as is authentically reported from him. As for entering ihrām for Hajj alone, then converting it at the time of circumambulation into a separate ‘umrah, thereby making it tamattu‘ = this is not permitted for him. That was exclusive to the Companions, for they had entered ihrām for Hajj alone before the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, commanded them to perform tamattu‘ and convert their Hajj accordingly. Once his command to perform tamattu‘ and convert their Hajj accordingly was firmly established, no one could contravene it by entering ihrām for Hajj alone and then converting it.

If you consider these latter two possibilities, you will find them either more compelling than

(1) I have not found this statement of his in his extant works. (2) This is the reading in the manuscripts. The printed edition reads: kānū qad furida (“they had been obliged”).

أحدها: اختصاص جواز ذلك بالصَّحابة، وهو الذي فهمه من حرَّم الفسخ. الثَّاني: اختصاص وجوبه بالصَّحابة، وهو الذي كان يراه شيخنا قدَّس الله روحه، يقول (١): إنَّهم كانوا فرضًا (٢) عليهم الفسخُ لأمر رسول الله ﷺ لهم به، وحَتْمه عليهم، وغضبه عندما توقَّفوا في المبادرة إلى امتثاله، وأمَّا الجواز والاستحباب فللأمَّة إلى يوم القيامة. لكن أبى ذلك البحر ابن عبَّاسٍ، وجعل الوجوب للأمَّة إلى يوم القيامة، وأنَّ فرضًا على كلِّ مفردٍ وقارنٍ لم يسُقِ الهدي أن يحلَّ ولا بدَّ، بل قد حلَّ وإن لم يشأ. وأنا إلى قوله أميلُ منِّي إلى قول شيخنا. الاحتمال الثَّالث: أنَّه ليس لأحدٍ بعد الصَّحابة أن يبتدئ حجًّا مفردًا أو قارنًا بلا هديٍ، يحتاج معه إلى الفسخ، لكنْ فرضٌ عليه أن يفعل ما أمر به النَّبيُّ ﷺ أصحابه في آخر الأمر من التَّمتُّع لمن لم يسق الهدي، والقران لمن ساق، كما صحَّ عنه ذلك. وأمَّا أن يُحرِم بحجٍّ مفردٍ، ثمَّ يفسخه عند الطَّواف إلى عمرةٍ مفردةٍ، ويجعله متعةً= فليس له ذلك، بل هذا إنَّما كان للصَّحابة، فإنَّهم ابتدؤوا الإحرام بالحجِّ المفرد قبل أمر النَّبيِّ ﷺ بالتَّمتُّع والفسخ إليه، فلمَّا استقرَّ أمره بالتَّمتُّع والفسخ إليه لم يكن لأحدٍ أن يخالفه ويفرِد ثمَّ يفسخه. وإذا تأمَّلتَ هذين الاحتمالين الأخيرين رأيتهما إمَّا راجحين على

(١) لم أجد كلامه في كتبه الموجودة. (٢) كذا في النسخ. وفي المطبوع: «كانوا قد فرض».