Umar saw a striped silk garment, or one of pure silk, being sold, so he said to the Prophet ﷺ, "If only you would buy this and wear it on Fridays or when receiving delegations."The Prophet ﷺ replied, "Only one who has no share in the Hereafter wears this."Later, some of these garments were given as a gift to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, and he sent one of them to Umar.Umar said, "I heard you say what you said about it, yet you have sent it to me?"He replied, "I sent it to you only so that you may sell it or clothe someone with it."
حدثنا يحيى عن عبيد الله أخبرني نافع
أن عمر رأى حلة سيراء أو حرير تباع فقال للنبي ﷺ لو اشتريت هذه تلبسها يوم الجمعة أو للوفود قال إنما يلبس هذه من لا خلاق له قال فأهدي لرسول الله ﷺ منها حلل فبعث إلى عمر منها بحلة قال سمعت منك تقول ما قلت وبعثت إلي بها قال إنما بعثت بها إليك لتبيعها أو تكسوها
Its isnad is sahih. Malik related it in Muwatta 3:106 from Nafi with similar wording. Abu Dawud related it in 82:4 by way of Malik. Munziri said, Bukhari, Muslim, and Nasai reported it.Al-hullah, with damma on the ha, Ibn Athir said, it is the singular of hulal, and it refers to garments of Yemen, and it is not called a hullah unless it consists of two pieces of the same type, that is, a waist-wrap and an upper wrap. As for sayara, its meaning was explained earlier at 698, and the quotation from Ibn Athir is that it functions either as a descriptive adjective or as a genitive construction. We add here the statement of Nawawi in his commentary on Muslim, 14:37-38, they voweled hullah here with tanwin, taking sayara as a description, and without tanwin, taking it as a genitive construction, and both are well known readings. The careful scholars and the masters of the Arabic language prefer the genitive construction.I say, the genitive construction is the only possibility here in this wording found in the Musnad, because of the phrase "or silk," for if it were meant as a description, it would have been "or silken."Al-khalaq, with fatha on the kha and a light lam, means share or portion. The meaning is that he has no share in the hereafter, as is found in the narration of Malik and others, and such abridgment and omission is permissible in cases like this.