If you find it in it, then he has lied against Allah and His Messenger; and if you do not find it in it (33), then he has spoken the truth. So which of the two groups is more entitled to be followed, and more deserving of what is correct: those who possess the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger, or those who have opposed them both? Furthermore, it has been established (34) from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), whose word is a proof upon all of creation, so how can it be opposed by the word of someone else? Sa'id ibn Jubayr reported from Ibn 'Abbas that he said: "The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) performed tamattu'." 'Urwah said: "Abu Bakr and 'Umar forbade tamattu'." Ibn 'Abbas replied: "I fear that they will be destroyed. I say: 'The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said,' and they say: 'Abu Bakr and 'Umar forbade it.'" Ibn 'Umar was asked about the tamattu' of Hajj and he commanded it. It was said to him (35): "You are opposing your father." He said: "'Umar did not say what they say." When they persisted against him, he said: "Is the Book of Allah more entitled to be followed, or 'Umar?" Al-Athram recorded all of this.

Section: Whoever wishes to enter into ihram for 'Umrah, it is recommended (36) that he say: "O Allah, I intend 'Umrah, so facilitate it for me, and accept it (37) from me; and my place of exiting ihram is wherever You restrain me." It is recommended for a person to articulate what he has entered into ihram for, in order to remove ambiguity. If he does not articulate anything and limits himself to mere intention, it suffices him, according to the view of our Imam, Malik, and al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifah said: "It does not take effect with mere intention until it is accompanied by the talbiyah or driving the sacrificial animal (hady)," based on what Khallad ibn al-Sa'ib al-Ansari reported from his father, from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), who said: "Gabriel came to me and said: 'O Muhammad, command your companions to raise their voices with the talbiyah.'" Al-Nasa'i recorded it, and al-Tirmidhi (38) said: "It is a hasan sahih hadith." This is because it is an act of worship characterized by prohibition and authorization, so it requires a mandatory verbal utterance, like prayer. Furthermore, the sacrificial animal and the udhiyah (sacrifice) do not become obligatory by mere intention, and likewise for the nusuk (rites). Our position is that it is an act of worship at the end of which no verbal utterance is mandatory, so there is none at its beginning, like fasting. The report intended implies recommendation, for its explicit phrasing is raising the voice, and there is no disagreement that it is not mandatory, so that which is necessary for it is even more so. Even if verbalization were mandatory, it does not necessitate that it be a condition, for many of the obligations of Hajj are not conditions for it, and prayer has a mandatory verbal utterance at its end, unlike Hajj and 'Umrah. As for the sacrificial animal and the udhiyah, they are the obligation of property, so they resemble a vow, unlike Hajj, which is a physical act of worship. Accordingly, if he articulates something other than what he intended—such as intending 'Umrah but his tongue slips to Hajj, or the reverse—what he intended takes effect, not what he pronounced. Ibn al-Mundhir said: "All of the scholars from whom we preserve knowledge are in consensus on this." This is because the obligation is the intention, and upon it is the reliance; the utterance is of no consequence, so it has no effect, just as a difference in intention has no effect in matters where the utterance is considered and not the intention.