and ‘Urwah, Tāwūs, and Mujāhid.

The second point is the statement in the report: “Once we had circumambulated the House, we left consecration; then, in the evening, we entered consecration for Hajj.” This is unquestionably false, because Jābir, Anas ibn Mālik, Ibn ‘Abbās, and ‘Ā’ishah all related that they left consecration on the day they entered Mecca, whereas their entering consecration (1) for Hajj was on the Day of Tarwiyah. There were unquestionably three days between the two days mentioned.

I say: The hadith is neither objectionable nor invalid; rather, it is authentic. Abū Muhammad—may Allah have mercy on him—fell into error here because of his own understanding. Asmā’ stated that she and ‘Ā’ishah had undertaken ‘umrah, and this undoubtedly occurred. As for her statement, “Once we had circumambulated the House, we left consecration,” it is a report (2) about herself and those who were not prevented by menstruation, as ‘Ā’ishah was. She did not explicitly state that ‘Ā’ishah circumambulated the House on the day they entered Mecca or that she left consecration that day. There is no doubt that ‘Ā’ishah had come in consecration for ‘umrah and remained so until she began menstruating at Sarif. She then added Hajj to her ‘umrah, thereby combining the two in a single state of consecration. Thus, if (3) it is said that ‘Ā’ishah undertook ‘umrah with the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, or that she came in consecration for ‘umrah, this is not false.

As for her statement, “Then, in the evening, we entered consecration for Hajj,” she did not say that they entered consecration on the evening of their arrival, which would entail what Abū Muhammad claimed. Rather, she meant the evening of the Day of Tarwiyah. Something so clear requires no explicit mention of the evening of that particular day: scholars and laypeople alike know this, and no other meaning would occur to them. Thus, rejecting