The Conflict Between the Words and Deeds of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): Do the Deeds Specify the Words?

The questioner : Do the deeds of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) restrict or specify his words? And likewise, do the deeds of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) change the ruling from obligatory to recommended?

The Shaykh : What is the first part of the question?

The questioner : Do the deeds of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) restrict or specify his words?

The Shaykh : Yes; do his deeds specify his words? Is there anything else after that?

The questioner : Do they change the ruling from obligatory to recommended?

The Shaykh : Do his deeds change the ruling from obligatory to recommended?

The questioner : That is possible in both cases together, provided it is established that his deed came after his word; in that case, his deed is considered an explanation of his word. This includes his command, if his deed comes contrary to the command—that is, after the command; that is evidence that the command is not for obligation. However, it should be noted in both cases that the action of the Messenger (peace be upon him) must be continuous, not just once, but repeated by him to the extent that it is most likely that his deed was an explanation of his word and his command. This is a point that is difficult to verify; that is, that the deed came after the word or command. Verifying this is very difficult. Therefore, the scholars say that the original ruling for a word that contradicts a deed is to attempt to reconcile them; otherwise, the word is given precedence over the deed.
Likewise, the original ruling for a command is obligation, unless there is an indicator. The indicator may be from his word (peace be upon him), or from his deed. I mentioned earlier that his deed, to be an indicator that turns a command from obligation to recommendation, is only valid if it is established that he (peace be upon him) did it more than once after commanding the thing. In this case, his deed is an explanation of his command.
I said that a word may be accompanied by a word of his (peace be upon him) that explains that his command is not for obligation. The evidence for this is abundant. Among that is his saying (may Allah bless him and grant him peace): , but the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) did not want to make things difficult for his Companions, so he did not command them. This is evidence that a command implies obligation; because he (peace be upon him) says: . If the command did not imply obligation, the Messenger (peace be upon him) would not have needed to say such words: . But this is clear evidence that a command necessitates obligation. He knew that if he commanded them with a command that necessitates obligation to use the miswak at every prayer, and in some narrations: and to delay the 'Isha' prayer to the middle of the night, he would put his Ummah in difficulty. Therefore, he used this expression to benefit us with two benefits:
The first benefit: that the original ruling for a command is obligation.
And the second benefit: that using the miswak at prayer, and delaying the 'Isha' prayer to the middle of the night, is not obligatory.
Likewise, for example, his saying (peace be upon him): . In the third instance, he said: , out of dislike that people would take it as a Sunnah; meaning: a binding Sunnah. So he followed up his saying: with his saying in the third instance: ; so that people would understand that this prayer is not obligatory.
Likewise, his saying (peace be upon him): . In the third instance, he said: ; out of dislike that people would take it as a Sunnah.
This is the answer to the previous question.
When he commanded to straighten the rows: