There is a principle in the principles of jurisprudence that states: The words of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and his commands take precedence over his actions; is there evidence for this?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner: O Shaykh, there is a principle in the principles of jurisprudence that states: The words of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and his commands take precedence over his actions; is there evidence for this or not?
The Shaykh: We spoke about this recently with some detail, did you hear about it?
The questioner : It has not reached me!
The Shaykh: It is necessary for the Muslim, when he looks at the narrated hadiths, both verbal and practical, that he cannot reconcile them except by adopting this principle. For example, if someone asked you: Is it permissible for a man to marry more than four women following the example of the Messenger (peace be upon him)? What would be the answer?
The questioner: No.
The Shaykh : Why?
The questioner: There is specific evidence regarding this.
The Shaykh: So, the action may be specific to the Messenger (peace be upon him). Do you think there could be other actions specific to the Messenger (peace be upon him), or is that not possible?
The questioner: Perhaps.
The Shaykh: It is possible. So, if an action and a statement contradict each other, this possibility applies to the action, while the statement remains free from such possibility. Is that clear?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh: There is a second possibility regarding the action, which is that the action was done under an excuse. And if he did something under an excuse, no one else can adopt it unless they are also under an excuse like the Messenger, in which case it is given the same ruling as his. For these two reasons, and a third reason that applies to some hadiths, which is that the Messenger may have done something based on the presumption of original permissibility, as al-Shawkani and others say, or based on the other principle that meets this one in meaning, which is: The default ruling for things is permissibility. So, it is possible that the Messenger did something based on this principle, and then his statement came forbidding what he had done. What does the Muslim do in that case? He cannot prioritize the action over the statement; because this action now has three possibilities applying to it. This last possibility is that he may have done it based on permissibility, he may have done it due to an excuse, or he may have done it as a specific privilege for him.
And the conclusion is that the statement is a general law to which none of these three possibilities applies, whereas the action is the opposite of the statement, exposed to at least one of these three possibilities.
The Shaykh: We spoke about this recently with some detail, did you hear about it?
The questioner : It has not reached me!
The Shaykh: It is necessary for the Muslim, when he looks at the narrated hadiths, both verbal and practical, that he cannot reconcile them except by adopting this principle. For example, if someone asked you: Is it permissible for a man to marry more than four women following the example of the Messenger (peace be upon him)? What would be the answer?
The questioner: No.
The Shaykh : Why?
The questioner: There is specific evidence regarding this.
The Shaykh: So, the action may be specific to the Messenger (peace be upon him). Do you think there could be other actions specific to the Messenger (peace be upon him), or is that not possible?
The questioner: Perhaps.
The Shaykh: It is possible. So, if an action and a statement contradict each other, this possibility applies to the action, while the statement remains free from such possibility. Is that clear?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh: There is a second possibility regarding the action, which is that the action was done under an excuse. And if he did something under an excuse, no one else can adopt it unless they are also under an excuse like the Messenger, in which case it is given the same ruling as his. For these two reasons, and a third reason that applies to some hadiths, which is that the Messenger may have done something based on the presumption of original permissibility, as al-Shawkani and others say, or based on the other principle that meets this one in meaning, which is: The default ruling for things is permissibility. So, it is possible that the Messenger did something based on this principle, and then his statement came forbidding what he had done. What does the Muslim do in that case? He cannot prioritize the action over the statement; because this action now has three possibilities applying to it. This last possibility is that he may have done it based on permissibility, he may have done it due to an excuse, or he may have done it as a specific privilege for him.
And the conclusion is that the statement is a general law to which none of these three possibilities applies, whereas the action is the opposite of the statement, exposed to at least one of these three possibilities.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.