Awfā, Abū Talhah, al-Hirmās ibn Ziyād, Umm Salamah, Anas ibn Mālik, and Sa‘d ibn Abī Waqqās. These are seventeen Companions: some reported his practice, some the words with which he entered ihrām, some his account of what he himself had done, and some his command to perform it.

If it is asked: How can you include Ibn ‘Umar, Jābir, ‘Ā’ishah, and Ibn ‘Abbās among them? ‘Ā’ishah says, “The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, declared his intention to perform Hajj,” and in another wording, “He performed Hajj alone.” The first is in the two Sahīh collections (1), and the second is in Muslim (2). Muslim records two wordings: this is one, and the other is, “He declared his intention to perform Hajj alone.” Ibn ‘Umar says, “He recited the pilgrim’s invocation for Hajj alone,” as recorded by al-Bukhārī (3). Ibn ‘Abbās says, “The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, declared his intention to perform Hajj,” as narrated by Muslim (4). And Jābir says, “He performed Hajj alone,” as narrated by Ibn Mājah (5).

The answer is: If the reports from these Companions contradicted one another and thereby lost their evidentiary force, the reports of the others do not contradict one another (6). Suppose, then, that the reports of those you mentioned provide no evidence for either combining Hajj and ‘umrah or performing Hajj alone because they contradict one another. What would justify setting aside the reports of the others, despite their clarity and authenticity? How much stronger, then, is the case when their reports corroborate one another and there is no contradiction