Zād al-Maʿād - Ibn al-Qayyim - (2/127)

Zād al-MaʿādIbn al-Qayyim

Medina to Mecca would have been seven days; for, on that assumption, he would have left Medina with four days remaining in Dhū al-Qa‘dah and reached Mecca after three days of Dhū al-Hijjah (1) had elapsed, at the beginning of the fourth night. That amounts to seven nights, no more. This is incorrect by consensus, and no one has maintained it. Thus, his departure must have been with six days remaining in Dhū al-Qa‘dah. All the reports are thereby reconciled, and any contradiction between them is removed, praise be to Allah.

I say: The reports are harmonious and consistent, with no contradiction between them, even if he departed on Saturday. This also removes the strained interpretation you imposed on them, as we have explained.

As for Abū Muhammad’s statement, “Had his departure from Medina been with five days remaining in Dhū al-Qa‘dah, he would have departed on Friday,” and so on, this does not necessarily follow. He could indeed have departed with five days remaining and done so on Saturday. What misled Abū Muhammad was that he saw that the narrator had omitted the tā’ from the numeral. Since it is omitted only when the noun being counted is feminine, he understood this to mean “with five nights remaining.” That would be so only if the departure had been on Friday; had it been on Saturday, there would have been four nights remaining. Yet this very argument can be turned against him: had the departure been on Thursday, it would not have been with five nights remaining, but with six nights remaining. He was therefore compelled to interpret the departure dated as occurring with five remaining as the onward departure from Dhū al-Hulayfah. There is no need for him to do so, however, since Dhū al-Qa‘dah may have been a short month. The departure was thus reported as having occurred with five days remaining, on the assumption that the month would have its usual length. This is the customary practice of the Arabs and of people generally when dating events: they give dates by the number of days remaining in the month, assuming it will be full; then the date is reported after the month has ended and it has become apparent

(1) ص، ج، ق، ب، مب: “li-Dhī al-Hijjah” (“of Dhū al-Hijjah”).

المدينة إلى مكَّة سبعةَ أيَّامٍ؛ لأنَّه كان يكون خارجًا من المدينة لو كان ذلك لأربعٍ بقين لذي القعدة، واستوى على مكَّة لثلاثٍ خلون من ذي الحجَّة (١) وفي استقبال اللَّيلة الرَّابعة، فتلك سبع ليالٍ لا مزيد، وهذا خطأٌ بإجماعٍ وأمرٌ لم يقله أحدٌ، فصحَّ أنَّ خروجه كان لستٍّ بقين لذي القعدة، وتآلفت الرِّوايات كلُّها، وانتفى التَّعارض عنها بحمد الله. قلت: هي متآلفةٌ متوافقةٌ، والتَّعارض منتفٍ عنها مع خروجه يومَ السَّبت، ويزول عنها الاستكراه الذي أوَّلتَها عليه كما ذكرناه. وأمَّا قول أبي محمد: لو كان خروجه من المدينة لخمسٍ بقين من ذي القعدة لكان خروجه يوم الجمعة، إلى آخره= فغير لازمٍ، بل يصحُّ أن يخرج لخمسٍ، ويكون خروجه يوم السَّبت. والَّذي غَرَّ أبا محمد أنَّه رأى الرَّاوي قد حذف التَّاء من العدد، وهي إنَّما تُحذف مع المؤنَّث، ففهم لخمس ليالٍ بقين، وهذا إنَّما يكون إذا كان الخروج يوم الجمعة، ولو كان يوم السَّبت لكان لأربع ليالٍ بقين. وهذا بعينه ينقلب عليه، فإنَّه لو كان خروجه يوم الخميس لم يكن لخمس ليالٍ بقين، وإنَّما يكون لستِّ ليالٍ بقين، ولهذا اضطُرَّ إلى أن يؤوِّل الخروج المقيَّد بالتَّاريخ المذكور بخمسٍ على الاندفاع من ذي الحليفة، ولا ضرورةَ له إلى ذلك، إذ من الممكن أن يكون شهر ذي القعدة كان ناقصًا، فوقع الإخبار عن تاريخ الخروج بخمسٍ بقين منه بناءً على المعتاد من الشَّهر، وهذه عادة العرب والنَّاس في تواريخهم، أن يؤرِّخوا بما بقي من الشَّهر بناءً على كماله، ثمَّ يقع الإخبار عنه بعد انقضائه وظهور

(١) ص، ج، ق، ب، مب: «لذي الحجة».