What is the authenticity of the hadith of Ibn 'Abbas: (He prayed in an open space, and there was nothing in front of him) narrated by Ahmad and Abu Dawud?

The questioner : He says, what is the authenticity of this hadith from Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him and his father): narrated by Ahmad and Abu Dawud?

The Shaykh : This hadith is valid, but there are some principles of usul al-fiqh (the principles of jurisprudence) that must be observed when a researcher or jurist perceives a contradiction between some hadiths. One of these principles is: "When a statement and an action contradict each other, the statement is given precedence over the action." If his statement (peace and blessings be upon him) contradicts his action, the statement is given precedence over the action. Why? Because the statement is a general legislation, which the Messenger (peace be upon him) directed to the Ummah. As for the action, although its original ruling is also that it is a general legislation, in many cases it is a ruling specific to him (peace be upon him) and not to the rest of the people. This does not require giving examples. Sometimes that action came from him (peace be upon him) due to dire necessity or pressing need, in which case he is excused, and the statement directed to the Ummah remains without any contradiction. For these reasons, it is part of the fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) that must be considered that the statement is given precedence over the action, unless there is evidence indicating that the statement was abrogated. This is difficult to imagine, but we assume that if evidence arises that the statement was abrogated by the action, that is what is followed. However, this rarely happens, even though some people err in this regard. For example, the hadith: , and in it: , and in a narration: . This contains a command for the one who prays behind an imam who is sitting due to an excuse that he must follow him and sit with him. This hadith was contradicted by the prayer of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) while sitting during his illness, with the people standing behind him. Some claimed that this hadith is abrogating, that this actual action is abrogating the verbal hadith: . This was refuted by saying that the action does not have the strength of legislation that can abrogate the established verbal statement from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). Rather, the obligatory course in this situation is to reconcile the action and the statement. This is when we have a proof that the statement is prior to the action, and the contradicting action is later than it. In that case, reconciliation is necessary. As for abrogating the statement from the start merely because the Messenger (peace be upon him) performed an action contrary to it, this is not permissible because it entails the denial of the general legislation directed to the Ummah. If reconciliation is possible, it must be done. This is a very essential principle to observe.
The Shaykh: Some of the preceding imams attempted to reconcile what happened to the Messenger in this incident with his statement (peace be upon him): . Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) applied both the verbal and the actual hadith in their respective places. He made the verbal hadith a consistent rule, because this is the nature of Prophetic statements. As for the action that occurred from the Messenger (peace be upon him), he adhered to it within the limits of its reality and did not attach other forms to it. So what did he say? He said: "If the imam begins the prayer sitting, then those behind him must sit with him. But if he begins the prayer standing, and then something happens that causes him to sit, the followers behind him continue in their initial standing." This is from the precision of his understanding (may Allah have mercy on him), because the incident was like this: the imam, Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, was leading by virtue of the delegation of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to him when he said: . So he prayed with the people as an imam standing, naturally. When the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) came out to the people and Abu Bakr stepped back, and the Prophet took the place of the delegate, and entered sitting, his prayer was a completion of the prayer of the delegate imam who had started it standing. So this is what Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) says: he distinguishes between when the imam begins the prayer sitting, in which case they must sit, and when he begins the prayer standing and then something happens that causes him to sit; in that case, the actual incident comes and specifies the verbal rule. This is the reconciliation that should be adopted, not saying that the hadith commanding sitting is abrogated, because the actual incident does not have the general indication that contradicts the verbal hadith, so there is no way but to say it is abrogated.
The Shaykh: Yes, however, there is another reconciliation, which is: if the story—as Imam Ahmad imagined it—was that the imam began the prayer from sitting, and those behind him prayed standing, this form completely contradicts his statement (peace be upon him): . In that case, it is said that this actual form also does not stand as abrogating the statement, but rather stands as clarifying its meaning. Because we know that the original ruling of every command is that it indicates obligation, unless evidence arises indicating the absence of obligation. If it is established for us that his statement (peace be upon him) is prior, and his action (peace be upon him) in the form we imagined—entering the prayer sitting while the people are praying behind him standing—is contrary to the hadith completely, nevertheless it is not permissible to say that this actual hadith abrogates the verbal hadith, because reconciliation is possible in a way closer than abrogating the verbal hadith. It is said that the actual hadith clarifies that the command in the verbal hadith is not for obligation, but rather for recommendation. So his statement (peace be upon him) remains clear and not abrogated by the method of reconciling the verbal and actual hadiths. This is if the actual incident was first later than the verbal one, and secondly was in this narrow form that we described. How so, when first it is not known that it is later than the verbal hadith, and secondly the prayer there was not started by the imam from sitting, but rather from standing? Therefore, the command to pray behind a sitting imam by sitting is a clear command. All that can be said is: is the command for obligation as its apparent meaning suggests? Or is it for recommendation as required by the reconciliation between the actual incident and the verbal hadith?
The answer we are confident in is that the command for obligation remains in effect, and we have no knowledge that the actual incident occurred after the verbal statement. In fact, it is reported in *Musannaf 'Abd al-Razzaq* with a sound chain from one of the Tabi'un—and from my memory, it was Tawus or 'Ata, one of them for certain—that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), in the incident of his praying while sitting, said a hadith like this: . Although this hadith is mursal, it confirms that the command in the hadith agreed upon by al-Bukhari and Muslim remains on its original basis, because no evidence has been established for us that the actual incident occurred after his (peace be upon him) general statement. Therefore, the hadith remains on its original basis, continuing in the Shari'ah until the Day of Resurrection, absolutely; . For this reason, Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah—I mean, he supports the view that the hadith is not abrogated—by a hadith narrated by Imam Muslim in his *Sahih* from Jabir ibn 'Abd Allah al-Ansari (may Allah be pleased with him), that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) led his companions in the midday prayer one day while sitting, because he had been riding his mount and it threw him to the ground, injuring his shoulder or his armpit, so he was unable to pray standing. He prayed sitting, and the people stood behind him as usual. He gestured to them to sit, so they sat. When he finished his prayer with the taslim (peace and blessings be upon him), he said to them: and mentioned the hadith: . Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) says: "In this hadith, there is a legal rationale for the command for the followers to pray sitting, all of them, behind the sitting imam. As for this phenomenon that the Messenger (peace be upon him) observed from the Companions, namely that he prayed sitting while they prayed standing, it resembles the practice of the people of Persia, whose custom was that the king would sit on his throne while the people around him stood. For this reason, he said to them: , 'Do as you are doing and what you have done,' for very clear reasons. Among them is that when the King of Persia sits on his throne... with people standing around him, it is an intended act to display his arrogance and pride. Whereas in the situation that occurred between the Companions and the Prophet, there is absolutely nothing of this. There, the King of Persia sat to magnify himself, and those around him stood to magnify him. All of this does not exist in the image of the Companions standing behind the Messenger (peace be upon him). The Messenger of Allah sat, and he is the one who conveyed to us the words of our Lord: , and he is the one who said to 'Imran ibn Husayn: . So how could he leave off standing if he were able to do so? If he sat out of necessity, where is the sitting of the King of Persia? The King of Persia sat to magnify himself, while our Messenger sat out of necessity. Furthermore, the King of Persia sat to judge between people, meaning to control them with his judgments, while the Messenger of Allah sat in prayer to display his servitude to his Lord. This is another difference between the sitting of the King of Persia and the sitting of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). So when the Companions stood behind the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), they did not stand as the followers and courtiers of the King of Persia stood to magnify him. The Companions did not stand behind the sitting Prophet to magnify him, but rather to implement that principle: . How great is the difference between the two images in terms of objectives and intentions! But this formality is not acceptable to the Messenger (peace be upon him), who established for us that we should not imitate the disbelievers. For this reason, he said to them: , 'You are standing on my head.' So what did they do? He said to them: . Ibn Taymiyyah says: "This is a ruling accompanied by a sound cause that cannot be imagined to be abrogated. And whatever ruling is accompanied by a sound cause is not abrogated; therefore, this ruling cannot be abrogated by an action like what occurred from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)." Especially—and I emphasize—that there is nothing proving that this action occurred after the statement. Thus, the statement of the Messenger (peace be upon him): remains decisive until the Day of Judgment.
Other than that?