Azami 4807

Bukhari related it in "The Recompense of Hunting" (1851), and Muslim related it in "Hajj" (1206:99), both of them through Hushaym (that is, Ibn Bashir Wasiti), who said, Abu Bishr informed us (that is, Jafar bin Iyas Yashkuri), who said, Saeed bin Jubayr told us, from Ibn Abbas, and he related it. Their wording is the same, except that Muslim said "matted" instead of "reciting the pilgrim's call."The second narration in Muslim comes through Waki, from Sufyan, from Amr bin Dinar, from Saeed bin Jubayr, from Ibn Abbas.Zuhayr related it from Abu Zubayr, who said, I heard Saeed bin Jubayr, and in it, "and that they should uncover his face, I think he said, and his head."Israil related it from Mansur, from Saeed bin Jubayr, and in it, "Do not cover his face," without mentioning the head.Shuba related it, saying, I heard Abu Bishr narrating from Saeed bin Jubayr, and he mentioned in it, "leaving his head uncovered." Shuba said, Then he later told me, "leaving his head and face uncovered." All these narrations are in Sahih Muslim.What appears to be the case is that the difference occurred with Saeed bin Jubayr himself. Sometimes he combined the head and the face, at other times he mentioned the head alone, and at other times the face alone, and all of these are sahih. So there is no basis for finding fault with this addition, as Hakim did in "Marifat Ulum Hadith" (p. 148), where he said, "The mention of the face is a scribal error on the part of the narrators, because of the consensus of the reliable and trustworthy transmitters among the companions of Amr bin Dinar on narrating from him, 'and do not cover his head,' and this is what is preserved."This is mistaken for two reasons. First, the mention of the face has been established in narrations other than that of Amr bin Dinar, as you have seen. Second, as Zaylai said in Nasb Raya (3/28), "The authority to be relied upon in this matter is Muslim, not Hakim, for Hakim frequently makes errors. Moreover, scribal error only occurs between letters that resemble each other, and what resemblance is there between 'face' and 'head' in their letters? This is assuming that nothing but the face is mentioned in the hadith, so how much more so when both are combined, I mean the head and the face, and the two narrations are in Muslim..." until he said, "This is far from being a scribal error."As for Bayhaqi's statement (3/393), "The mention of the face is odd," this too is an odd statement, and Ibn Turkmani took issue with it, saying, "The prohibition of covering both of them has been established as sahih. Some combined the two, some mentioned the head alone, and some the face alone, and all of it is sahih, with no error in any of it. This is preferable to charging Muslim with error."Likewise, the Hafiz criticized it in Fath al-Bari (8/54), saying, "This requires reconsideration, for the apparent state of the hadith is that it is sound," and then he listed Muslim's wordings mentioning the face.I say, the scholars, both earlier and later, have agreed unanimously that it is forbidden for the pilgrim in the state of ihram to cover his head, based on the Prophet's ﷺ statement, "He should not wear a turban nor a hooded cloak." But they differed regarding the covering of his face. Abu Hanifa, Malik, and Ahmad, in one narration, held to what is stated in this hadith, namely the prohibition of covering the face of a pilgrim who has died while in ihram.Ibn Umar used to say, "Whatever is above the chin belongs to the head, so the pilgrim in ihram should not cover it." Malik related this in "Hajj" (15).As for Imam Ahmad, three narrations are recorded from him. In the second narration, he held that the face should not be covered, citing as evidence the hadith of Ibn Abbas, "Wash him with water and lote leaves, shroud him in two garments, and do not cover his face or his head, for he will be raised on the Day of Resurrection reciting the pilgrim's call." This is the narration of Ibn Mansur and Ismail bin Saeed Shalanji, both from Ahmad.But in the narration of Mihanna from him, regarding the pilgrim in ihram who dies, should his face be covered, he said, "They have differed about it, reporting from Ibn Abbas, from the Prophet ﷺ. Some of them said, his head should not be covered." I said, "Which of the two do you find more preferable, that the face of the pilgrim in ihram be covered when he dies, or that it not be covered?" He said, "As for the head, I do not think it should be covered, but as for the face, I hope there is no harm in it." See Sharh Umda by Shaykh al-Islam (2/52–53).It has been narrated from a group of the companions, among them Ibn Abbas himself, Uthman, Abdul-Rahman bin Awf, Ibn Zubayr, Zayd bin Thabit, Saad bin Abu Waqqas, and Jabir bin Abdullah, that they permitted the pilgrim in ihram to cover his face, and thus they differ from Ibn Umar on this matter.As for what is narrated from Uthman bin Affan, that he said, "The Prophet ﷺ used to cover his face while in ihram," the correct view is that this is a report attributed only to Uthman himself, not to the Prophet.Daraqutni related it in "Ilal" (133) from Abu Bakr Shafii, who said, Musa bin Hasan told us, Qanabi told us, Ibn Abu Dhib told us, from Zuhri, from Aban bin Uthman, from Uthman bin Affan, and he related it. Daraqutni said, "This is how it appeared in Abu Bakr's book, attributed to the Prophet, but the correct view is that it is a report attributed only to Uthman." Then he traced it by his chain from Sufyan (that is, Ibn Uyayna), who said, I heard Abdullah bin Abu Bakr say, Abdullah bin Amir bin Rabia informed me, "that he saw Uthman bin Affan at Araj covering his face with a purple velvet cloth on a hot day, while he was in ihram."Ibn Uyayna said, "Sufyan Thawri used to make an error in this, saying it was from Farafisa." End of quote. Farafisa is Ibn Umayr Hanafi, that he saw Uthman bin Affan at Araj covering his face while in ihram. Malik related this in "Hajj" (14), from Yahya bin Saeed, from Qasim bin Muhammad, that he said, Farafisa bin Umayr Hanafi informed me, and he related it. Bayhaqi also reported it (5/54) through another route from Yahya bin Saeed.The conclusion, as some scholars have said, is that the hadith under discussion pertains specifically to the pilgrim in ihram who dies, while the hadith of Uthman pertains to the living pilgrim in ihram, when there is a need for it. This is the opposite of what the Hanafi scholars held, namely that the hadith of Ibn Abbas is to be understood as referring to the living pilgrim in ihram rather than the deceased one, for according to them his ruling is like that of any other deceased person with regard to covering the head and face.