The Path to Acquiring Beneficial Knowledge? And How Do We Reconcile Contradictory Hadiths?

The questioner : May Allah rewardThe Shaykh : May you receive the best reward for what you mentioned in this beneficial sermon, in which you clarified the great principle that all Muslims should follow if they wish to be saved in this world from discord and in the Hereafter from the punishment of Allah (Mighty and Majestic), and to attain Paradise. There is no doubt that what you mentionedThe Shaykh : is far more important than many of the questions that many of those who wrote them are anticipating. Knowing the principles is far more important than knowing the branches. Nevertheless, these questions must be mentioned to the Shaykh and posed to him. However, we apologize to our brothers for the fact that there are a great many questions, some of which relate to the same topic he mentionedThe Shaykh : and some relate to the rites of pilgrimage. These two types of questions will be prioritized over the others due to the necessity of the situation. As for the remaining questions, if there is time for them, there is no harm. The one who will determine that isThe Shaykh : you yourself.
As for the first question with which we will begin these questions, it is the first question that was asked of himThe Shaykh : , andThe Shaykh : He will answer it, if Allah wills.

The Shaykh : It is obligatory for all students of knowledge, if they truly wish to gain understanding of the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) according to the methodology we have previously explained, that they expand their knowledge of two principles of the sciences of the Shari'ah. The first principle is what is known among jurists as the principles of jurisprudence (usul al-fiqh). The other principle is what is known as the principles of the science of hadith. A student of knowledge cannot truly be a student of knowledge, or progress in the ranks of this knowledge until he becomes a scholar to whom people turn to resolve their problems, unless he relies on these two principles: the principles of jurisprudence and the principles of the science of hadith. For through them, he is able to distinguish truth from error, and guidance from misguidance. Among these foundational jurisprudential principles is the statement of the scholars: "If two texts conflict, one of which permits something and the other prohibits it." The intended meaning of the two texts is undoubtedly the Qur'an and the Sunnah, and there is no third except as we mentioned, seeking assistance in understanding them. If two conflicting hadiths come, how do we reconcile them?
The methods of reconciliation are many, and very many. They are summarized in some books of hadith. Al-Hafiz al-Iraqi referred to them in his commentary on "The Introduction to the Science of Hadith" by Ibn al-Salah, and he brought them to more than a hundred methods. A hundred methods; by one of these methods or more, it is possible to reconcile two differing hadiths, or between a verse and a hadith. Among these methods that relate to the answer to the first question, which was that there is a hadith in "Sahih Ibn Majah" that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) prohibited wearing a ring on the ring finger, and it is established that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) wore it. To answer this difficulty: how does he prohibit it, or how does he do it?
This important rule comes: "If a prohibitor and a permitter conflict, the prohibitor is given precedence over the permitter." By this rule, many, very many difficulties are resolved. Some people pay attention to it, and the truth is with them. Others do not pay attention, and they fall into error or into an interpretation that necessitates much or little of denial of the divine attributes (ta'til). For example, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) prohibited drinking while standing, and he drank while standing. He said: and he was exposing his thigh. The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) prohibited marrying more than four women, and he (peace and blessings be upon him) married more than four. How do we reconcile this?
The rule is: "If the prohibitor and the permitter conflict, the prohibitor is given precedence over the permitter." Now, it is prohibited to wear a ring on the ring finger. The prohibition is what is given precedence. As for him wearing a ring, I am mentioning this and saying, out of caution, according to what came in the question, because I do not have it at my disposal. But if the hadith is found to be such that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) wore a ring in the form that was prohibited, then there is no difficulty, because the prohibition is given precedence over the action. Why is the prohibition given precedence over the action? Rather, there is a second rule that is broader than the first rule. The first rule says: "If a prohibitor and a permitter conflict, the prohibitor is given precedence over the permitter." The second rule says: "If speech and action conflict, speech is given precedence over action," whether it is a prohibition, a command, or otherwise. In that case, the reconciliation between the two differing hadiths regarding wearing a ring is that we give precedence to his prohibition (peace be upon him), because first, it is a prohibition, and second, because it is speech, and speech is given precedence over action.
Why did the scholars go to giving precedence to speech over action in general, and to the prohibitor over the permitter in particular?
As for giving precedence to speech over action, it is because speech is a general legislation for all Muslims. As for his action (peace and blessings be upon him), it may be one of three things. The first thing: that it is according to the original state, and the original state is permissibility. The original state is the innocence of the conscience, while new rulings come after that. His action (peace and blessings be upon him) may also be for a need or a dire necessity. For that reason, his speech (peace be upon him) is not left aside. Finally, it may be from the matters specific to him (peace and blessings be upon him) in which no one of the Muslims shares with him. As for giving precedence to the prohibitor over the permitter, that is more appropriate, because first, it is speech, and second, it is a prohibition. The original state of things is permissibility. If the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) performed an action and it was not from his specific matters, and there was no dire necessity or pressing need that compelled him to it, then it is said that this was in the first state before the new legislation came. For the sake of these two rules: "The prohibitor is given precedence over the permitter" and "Speech is given precedence over action," the evidence does not conflict for students of knowledge in examples like those we mentioned earlier, and they are many, and very many.