None of Ahmad’s early followers said that the Prophet performed tamattu in its specific sense. As far as we know, the first of Ahmad’s followers to claim this was Judge Abū Ya‘lā. In his commentary, he cited this line of argument as evidence for the superiority of tamattu. He noted that the first approach—arguing from the Prophet’s command rather than his practice, and from his statement, “Had I known beforehand what I came to know later”—was the approach of Ahmad’s followers, just as their imam, Ahmad, had argued.

Those among Ahmad’s followers who maintained that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, performed tamattu held two views.

The first was that he left ihrām despite having brought the sacrificial animals. They interpreted the report stating that tamattu was exclusively for them to mean that they alone were permitted to leave ihrām despite having brought sacrificial animals, unlike those Companions who brought sacrificial animals. This was the approach of the judge and those who followed him. The overwhelming majority of scholars rejected this view. Among those who criticized the judge for it were Shaykh Abū al-Barakāt and others. They said: “Anyone who carefully considers the widely transmitted hadiths will see clearly that neither the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, nor anyone else who brought sacrificial animals left ihrām.”

The second view was that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, performed tamattu in the sense that he entered ihrām for umrah, did not leave ihrām because he had brought the sacrificial animals, and entered ihrām for Hajj