The second report is the ḥadīth of Ibn ʿAbbās, likewise recorded by Mālik:

“Someone presented the Messenger of Allah—peace and blessings be upon him—with a wild donkey while he was at al-Abwāʾ or at Waddān. He declined the gift and said, ‘We have only refused it because we are in a state of iḥrām.’”

There is yet another reason for the divergence: Does the prohibition of eating depend on the pilgrim’s having killed the animal, or is each act—killing and eating—independently forbidden?

• Those who relied on the ḥadīth of Abū Qatādah said that the prohibition concerns eating only when it is combined with killing.
• Those who held to the ḥadīth of Ibn ʿAbbās maintained that each act on its own is forbidden.

Hence, whoever weighed the reports (tarjīḥ) sided with either the ḥadīth of Abū Qatādah or that of Ibn ʿAbbās, whereas those who reconciled the narrations adopted the third opinion. They argued that reconciliation is preferable, and they bolstered this with what is related from Jābir, who quoted the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—as saying:

“Land game is lawful for you while you are in iḥrām, so long as you do not hunt it yourselves nor is it hunted specifically for you.”

They also disagreed about the pilgrim in dire necessity: should he eat carrion or may he hunt within the Sanctuary?

• Mālik, Abū Ḥanīfah, al-Thawrī, Zufar, and a number of others said: if compelled, he may eat carrion and pork, but not hunt.
• Abū Yūsuf said: he may hunt and eat, but must pay the compensatory penalty; yet the first view is preferable as a precaution.

Abū Yūsuf contended that his ruling is more consistent with analogy, for carrion and pork are intrinsically forbidden, whereas hunting is prohibited only for a particular reason; what is forbidden because of an external cause is lighter than what is inherently forbidden, and whatever is intrinsically unlawful is more serious.

Thus, the Muslims are unanimously agreed that these five matters are among the prohibitions of iḥrām.

They differed, however, regarding a pilgrim contracting marriage. Mālik, al-Shāfiʿī, al-Layth, and al-Awzāʿī said: a pilgrim may neither marry nor arrange a marriage; if he does, the contract is void. This was also the opinion of ʿUmar, ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, Ibn ʿUmar, and Zayd ibn Thābit. Abū Ḥanīfah and al-Thawrī, however, held that there is no harm in a pilgrim marrying or acting as guardian in marriage.

The root of their disagreement is the conflicting textual evidence. One such report is what Mālik transmitted from ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān, who said that the Messenger of Allah—peace and blessings be upon him—declared: “A pilgrim may neither marry, nor arrange a marriage, nor propose.”

The ḥadīth that conflicts with this is the report of Ibn