Zād al-Maʿād - Ibn al-Qayyim - (2/250)

Zād al-MaʿādIbn al-Qayyim

evidence against one who knew, remembered, and reported—especially when these eminent narrators agree in their reports from ‘Ā’ishah. Thus, reliance on the two aforementioned (1) reports of Abū al-Aswad and Yahyā is untenable.”

He said (2): “Moreover, the two reports of Abū al-Aswad and Yahyā stop at ‘Ā’ishah and are not traced back to the Prophet. They merely relate her account of what those people did, without mentioning that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, commanded them not to leave consecration. No one other than the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, constitutes an authoritative proof. If what they reported were correct—given that the Prophet’s command, peace and blessings be upon him, for those without sacrificial animals to change their consecration is authentically established—and those commanded to do so had persisted without leaving consecration, they would have been disobedient to Allah. Yet Allah protected them from that and absolved them of it. It is therefore established with certainty that the reports of Abū al-Aswad and Yahyā refer only to those who had sacrificial animals with them. This is also what the authentic hadiths we have cited (3) state: that he, peace and blessings be upon him, commanded those who had sacrificial animals with them to combine Hajj with ‘umrah and not to leave consecration until they could leave it for both together.”

He then cited (4), through Mālik, from Ibn Shihāb, from ‘Urwah, from her, a report which she traced back to the Prophet:

“Whoever has a sacrificial animal with him should enter consecration for Hajj and ‘umrah, and should not leave consecration until he can leave it for both together.”

He said: “As you can see, this hadith, transmitted through ‘Urwah from ‘Ā’ishah, makes clear that what we have explained is undoubtedly what is intended in Abū al-Aswad’s report from ‘Urwah and Yahyā’s report from ‘Ā’ishah. The difficulty has now been entirely resolved. Praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds.”

He said (5): “Further evidence that something has been omitted from Abū al-Aswad’s report is its wording: ‘From ‘Urwah

(1) Kāf, Sād, Jīm, Bā’: “alladhīna” (those who). (2) That is, Ibn Hazm, in the work cited above, pp. 350–351. (3) Kāf, Sād, Jīm: “awradnā” (we cited). Mīm-Bā’: “awradahā” (he cited them). (4) Hajjat al-wadā‘ (The Farewell Pilgrimage), p. 351. The hadith is also narrated by al-Bukhārī (1638). (5) The same work, p. 352.

حجَّةً على من عَلِم وذكَر وأخبر، فكيف وقد وافق هؤلاء الجِلَّة عن عائشة؟ فسقطَ التَّعلُّق بحديث أبي الأسود ويحيى اللَّذين (١) ذكرنا. قال (٢): وأيضًا، فإنَّ حديثَي أبي الأسود ويحيى موقوفان غيرُ مسندين؛ لأنَّهما إنَّما ذكرا عنها فِعْلَ من فَعل ما ذكرَتْ، دون أن يذكرا أنَّ النَّبيَّ ﷺ أمرهم أن لا يحلُّوا، ولا حجَّةَ في أحدٍ دون رسول الله ﷺ، فلو صحَّ ما ذكراه، وقد صحَّ أمر النِّبيِّ ﷺ مَن لا هديَ معه بالفسخ، فتمادى المأمورون بذلك ولم يحلُّوا، لكانوا عصاةً لله، وقد أعاذهم الله من ذلك وبرَّأهم منه، فثبت يقينًا أنَّ حديث أبي الأسود ويحيى إنَّما عُنِي فيه من كان معه هديٌ. وهكذا جاءت الأحاديث الصِّحاح الَّتي أوردناها (٣) بأنَّه ﷺ أمر من معه الهدي بأن يجمع حجًّا مع العمرة، ثمَّ لا يحلَّ حتَّى يحلَّ منهما جميعًا. ثمَّ ساق (٤) من طريق مالك عن ابن شهابٍ عن عروة عنها ترفعه: «من كان معه هديٌ فليُهلِل بالحجِّ والعمرة، ثمَّ لا يحلَّ حتَّى يحلَّ منهما جميعًا». قال: فهذا الحديث كما ترى من طريق عروة عن عائشة يبيِّن ما ذكرنا أنَّه المراد بلا شكٍّ في حديث أبي الأسود عن عروة، وحديثِ يحيى عن عائشة، وارتفع الآن الإشكالُ جملةً، والحمد لله ربِّ العالمين. قال (٥): وممَّا يبيِّن أنَّ في حديث أبي الأسود حذفًا قولُه فيه: «عن عروة

(١) ك، ص، ج، ب: «الذين». (٢) أي ابن حزم في المصدر السابق (ص ٣٥٠، ٣٥١). (٣) ك، ص، ج: «أوردنا». مب: «أوردها». (٤) «حجة الوداع» (ص ٣٥١). والحديث رواه البخاري (١٦٣٨). (٥) المصدر نفسه (ص ٣٥٢).