Should the factor that diverts a command from being obligatory be later than it?

The questioner : As you mentioned, a command indicates obligation, unless a diverting factor comes. Must the diverting factor be later?

The Shaykh : It must be a diverting factor, but whether it is later or earlier is not necessary. Here, the diverting factor is the action. As we said, in the original principle, an action does not contradict a statement. If a statement and an action contradict each other, the statement is given precedence over the action. However, if the action comes later, it may be an abrogating factor. Not every abrogating factor needs to be known to us regarding the precedence of the abrogating factor, the delay of the abrogating factor, or the precedence of the abrogated factor; this varies according to the evidence. But if a statement and an action contradict each other, and we want to abrogate the statement with the action, it must be clear to us that the action occurred after the statement. There are many examples of this. Some scholars rush to issue a ruling that leads to the invalidation of the statement. For example, we have many hadiths that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) used to drink while standing, and we have other hadiths that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade and warned against drinking while standing. Some scholars say: either the prohibition is abrogated, or it is interpreted as what? Disliked for a reason of recommendation (makruh tanzih), not prohibition. It is interpreted as disliked for a reason of recommendation. It should be clear to us that the action occurred after the prohibition, and this is not found. Therefore, the issue must be considered with great precision, so that a Muslim does not fall into violating a legal ruling that contains an eternal ruling until the Day of Resurrection, which is abrogated merely because it is established that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did the opposite!
Yes.