the jurists. Hadith jurists, such as Ahmad ibn Hanbal and others, advocate converting Hajj into ‘umrah [as a recommended act] (1). Some of them, such as the Zāhirīs, deem it obligatory; this was also the position of Ibn ‘Abbās—may Allah be pleased with them both. The position of the Shi‘a, Abū Hanīfa, Mālik, and al-Shāfi‘ī is that such a conversion is impermissible. The Companions disagreed over this matter: many of them advocated it, while Abū Dharr and a group of others were reported to have prohibited it. If converting Hajj into ‘umrah is correct, then it is one of the positions of Ahl al-Sunnah; and if it is wrong (2), that too is one of the positions held by Ahl al-Sunnah. Thus, the truth does not lie outside their positions (3).
If they impugn ‘Umar because he (4) prohibited it, Abū Dharr prohibited it even more emphatically than ‘Umar did. He maintained that tamattu‘ was exclusive to the Companions of the Messenger of Allah—may Allah bless him and grant him peace. Yet they profess loyalty to Abū Dharr and hold him in high esteem. If error on this issue warrants impugning someone, they should impugn Abū Dharr; otherwise, how can they impugn ‘Umar but not him, when ‘Umar was superior to him and possessed greater understanding and knowledge?! (5)
A second response is that ‘Umar—may Allah be pleased with him—did not prohibit Hajj tamattu‘. Rather, it is reliably reported from him that when al-Dabbī (6) ibn Ma‘bad said to him, “I have entered the state of ihrām for both Hajj and ‘umrah,” ‘Umar replied, “You have been guided to the Sunnah of your Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace.” This was narrated by al-Nasā’ī and others (7).