The argument of some scholars for moving the finger in the sitting between the two prostrations based on a principle of usul al-fiqh (the principles of jurisprudence); which is

The questioner : Regarding the last principle, some scholars argued for moving the finger in the sitting between the two prostrations based on a principle of usul al-fiqh (the principles of jurisprudence); which is: "That mentioning some instances of the general with a ruling that agrees with the ruling of the general does not necessitate its restriction." They said that the general is the hadiths that came in a general form; such as "when he sat in prayer, he did such and such and moved," he did this and moved. This is the general. And the restricted is "when he sat for the tashahhud, he did this." So they said that mentioning some instances of the general with a ruling that agrees with the ruling of the general does not necessitate its restriction. We want to clarify this principle after we have known that you have ruled that the addition in the hadith of Abu Dawud al-Tayalisi and others, namely the addition of "then he prostrated," is anomalous. If we know from the perspective of hadith science that it is anomalous, how is the issue answered using the mentioned principle of usul al-fiqh (the principles of jurisprudence)?

The Shaykh : The principle is conceded, there is no dispute about it. But this does not apply to a hadith from a single Companion where the narrators differed in their narration of it, with some generalizing and some restricting. In that case, it is necessary to combine all these words and narrations with each other, so that we arrive at the result closest to the truth. The one narrator who says, "When he sat," without mentioning "for the tashahhud," attributes it to Ibn 'Umar, for example, or to 'Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr. And the other trustworthy narrator who says, "When he sat for the tashahhud," also attributes it to Ibn 'Umar. We cannot say that Ibn 'Umar sometimes said "when he sat" generally to give the generalization, and sometimes said "when he sat for the tashahhud" to give the restriction. It is not possible to imagine that one narrator has two narrations and two intentions; sometimes generalization, which is broad and inclusive, and sometimes restriction, which is specific. The previous principle can be applied if two hadiths or two texts in the Noble Qur'an from Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He) come regarding a specific issue; in that case, it cannot be said that the general is not applied to the restricted. But if the issues are different, one from the other, as is, for example, mentioned in the books of usul al-fiqh (the principles of jurisprudence) that in some verses it is freeing a slave, and in some other verses it is freeing a believing slave. Here, it is not said that one is restricted by the other, but rather that one is applied in its generality and the other in its restriction, because the issue is separated from the other. Here, the issue is never like that, first. And second, it revolves around one narrator about whom the narrators differed in the precision of this hadith, with some completing it and some not completing it. Here, the topic of hadith science and the acceptance of the addition of a trustworthy narrator comes into play, or whether it is not accepted, because it contradicts the narrations of the trustworthy ones. Therefore, it is not correct to say that this generalization is applied in its generality and that one in its restriction, because the subject is unified and the narrator is also one. This is what I have regarding this issue.
And supporting this is that we do not find in all the narrations that any of the Salaf (the earliest generations) understood this detail, which is out of place; that is, applying the general and applying the restricted. The general permits, for example, moving between the two prostrations, because it said, "When he sat." Who among the Salaf (the earliest generations) used to raise his finger in the sitting between the two prostrations? No one. We only follow some hadiths in which the narrator deviated and certainly erred, and this is not clarified except after collecting the chains and combining them with each other. At that time, the researcher will arrive at a result in which there is no doubt at all that it is one issue. From here, Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) says in some examples; he says, for example, regarding the description of the prayer of fear: about 15 types have come regarding it, the prayer of fear, the prayer of war, the prayer of... Then he says: only about seven types are refined from these narrations. Why? Because he sees that the narrations differ from the same narrator, with some adding and some subtracting. So he combines these narrations and makes them one type, while others, whenever they see a difference regarding a Companion in one of these descriptions, make it an independent form. This is not of the precision of this science; the science of the noble Prophetic hadith.