صحیح ابن حبان
Ibn Hibban
كتاب الطبBook of Medicine
ذكر الخبر الذي يعارض في الظاهر هذا الزجر المطلق-Report that apparently contradicts the absolute prohibition
Hadith 6083
اُردوEn
أَخْبَرَنَا أَبُو خَلِيفَةَ ، قَالَ : حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو الْوَلِيدِ ، قَالَ : حَدَّثَنَا لَيْثُ بْنُ سَعْدٍ ، قَالَ : حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو الزُّبَيْرِ ، عَنْ جَابِرٍ ، قَالَ : " رُمِيَ يَوْمَ الأَحْزَابِ سَعْدٌ فَقُطِعَ أَكْحَلُهُ ، فَنَزَفَهُ فَانْتَفَخَتْ يَدُهُ ، فَحَسَمَهُ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ بِالنَّارِ ، فَنَزَفَهُ فَحَسَمَهُ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ بِالنَّارِ أُخْرَى " . قَالَ أَبُو حَاتِمٍ : الزَّجْرُ عَنِ الْكَيِّ فِي خَبَرِ عِمْرَانَ بْنِ حُصَيْنٍ : إِنَّمَا هُوَ الابْتِدَاءُ بِهِ مِنْ غَيْرِ عِلَّةٍ تُوجِبُهُ ، كَمَا كَانَتِ الْعَرَبُ تَفْعَلُهُ تُرِيدُ بِهِ الْوَسْمِ ، وَخَبَرُ جَابِرٍ فِيهِ إِبَاحَةُ اسْتِعْمَالِهِ لِعِلَّةٍ تَحْدُثُ مِنْ غَيْرِ الاتِّكَالِ عَلَيْهِ فِي بُرْئِهَا ضِدَّ قَوْلِ مَنْ زَعَمَ أَنَّ أَخْبَارَ الْمُصْطَفَى صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ تَتَضَادُّ .
Sayyiduna Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him) narrates: On the occasion of the Battle of Ahzab, Sayyiduna Sa’d (may Allah be pleased with him) was struck by an arrow which severed one of his veins, causing blood to flow and his arm to swell. The Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) had him cauterized with fire, but his blood continued to flow. The Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) had him cauterized with fire a second time.
(Imam Ibn Hibban, may Allah have mercy on him, says:) The narration transmitted from Sayyiduna Imran bin Husain (may Allah be pleased with him) regarding the prohibition of cauterization is to be understood as pertaining to the early period, and that too in cases where there is no such reason that necessitates it, as the Arabs used to do, and by this is meant wasm (i.e., branding/cauterization). Whereas in the narration transmitted from Sayyiduna Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him), there is mention of the permissibility of adopting this method due to a reason that later became apparent, and that is that a person’s recovery should not rely solely on it. This is contrary to the view of the one who claims that there is contradiction in the narrations transmitted from the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him).
(Imam Ibn Hibban, may Allah have mercy on him, says:) The narration transmitted from Sayyiduna Imran bin Husain (may Allah be pleased with him) regarding the prohibition of cauterization is to be understood as pertaining to the early period, and that too in cases where there is no such reason that necessitates it, as the Arabs used to do, and by this is meant wasm (i.e., branding/cauterization). Whereas in the narration transmitted from Sayyiduna Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him), there is mention of the permissibility of adopting this method due to a reason that later became apparent, and that is that a person’s recovery should not rely solely on it. This is contrary to the view of the one who claims that there is contradiction in the narrations transmitted from the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him).
