What is the reconciliation between the hadith: (There are no days in which righteous deeds are more beloved to Allah than these days), meaning the ten days?

The Shaykh : Here are two questions, after Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim. From Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: ... The rule, its establishment, and its proof with many examples: among them is that we have another hadith regarding the virtue of the ten days of Dhul-Hijjah, which includes in its generality the virtue of fasting the ten days of Dhul-Hijjah, where this hadith came explicitly mentioning fasting and its virtue in the ten days of Dhul-Hijjah. So there is a hadith in "Sahih al-Bukhari": So, by its generality, this indicates the virtue of fasting the ten days of Dhul-Hijjah, excluding the day of Eid. Now the question comes: Lady Aisha narrates that the Messenger (peace be upon him) never fasted the ten days at all. So, is the statement that is established in "Sahih al-Bukhari" by its generality given precedence, or the action that is established in "Sahih Muslim" from Aisha? The answer from the principles of jurisprudence: "The statement is given precedence over the action." Its example: from the same chapter that the question included, which is fasting, it is established in the two Sahihs from the hadith of Abdullah ibn Umar ibn al-As that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: And in a narration, when the Messenger (peace be upon him) narrated this hadith, he narrated it as an answer to Ibn Amr when he desired to increase in fasting, to fast more than one day and not another. He said: "O Messenger of Allah, I desire something better than that." So he said (peace and blessings be upon him): "So the best of fasting is the fasting of Dawud (peace be upon him); he would fast one day and break the fast the next." Do you see whether the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) used to fast like this, fasting one day and breaking the fast the next? The answer: No. This means that this best fasting, which the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) specified in his saying, was never narrated that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) practiced it. Rather, it is established from Lady Aisha herself the opposite of that. She said: So the Messenger (peace be upon him) did not have a method and practical plan in fasting. Why is this, while he says: ? Because it was not feasible for the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) to follow this method of fasting, fasting one day and breaking the fast the next, because in addition to the attribute of prophethood, he was a man of state, and such a man is not able to maintain the voluntary acts of worship and obedience as is possible for the worshipper who is dedicated to such obedience and worship. So the best of fasting, by the testimony of the statement of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), is fasting one day and breaking the fast the next, but he did not do that; rather, he did the opposite. So which is given precedence, the statement or the action? The statement is given precedence over the action. And for this, there are many and very many examples, and I will not lengthen the speech with them. Rather, I conclude this speech with an example from our reality today, in which most people have deviated from the statement of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), and I mean by that drinking while standing. It is established in more than one hadith: Rather, when he saw a man drinking while standing, he said to him, gently indicating the extent of the error of drinking while standing, he said to him: . He said: No, O Messenger of Allah. He said: ; meaning, empty what you drank in the state of standing to this degree. The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) exaggerated in prohibiting drinking while standing. And yet, it is also established in "Sahih al-Bukhari" and especially when he came to Zamzam in the Farewell Pilgrimage, he drank while standing. So what is the action? Do we drink while standing or do we drink while sitting? The answer: We drink while sitting, and it is not permissible for us to drink while standing, even though this is established from the Messenger, because the Messenger prohibited the thing that is established from him, because the statement is given precedence over the action, a consistent rule. And whoever preserves this rule and the rule that the affirming is given precedence over the negating, and many of the principles of jurisprudence like them, it becomes easy for him to reconcile many of the hadiths that occur to the mind of some of the weak in knowledge as being conflicting and contradictory. And the truth is that there is no conflict or contradiction, because the principle of jurisprudence makes it easy for us to reconcile these texts. So he drank while standing, it is authentic, but do you see why he drank while standing? It is possible that this drinking was before the prohibition of drinking while standing, so that was at a time of permissibility. It is possible that the Messenger drank while standing due to the intensity of the crowd, so it was not feasible for him to sit. It is possible finally that his drinking while standing was a speciality for him, as he was special in that he married more than four. Just as it is not permissible for a Muslim who believes in Allah and His Messenger to say, my brother , he married more than four, so we marry more than four. Similarly, it is not permissible to say, the Messenger drank while standing, so I drink while standing. Because the answer in both of these matters and their like is that he married more than four, but he prohibited marrying more than four. He drank while standing, but he prohibited drinking while standing. And this is the last of the examples that I wanted to clarify that the statement is given precedence over the action in everything absolutely.