Is the statement or action of a Companion considered a proof?

The questioner : There is a third opinion regarding the beard, O Shaykh.

The Shaykh: Yes.

The questioner : The hadith of Ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him)—do we consider it the statement of Ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) and the action of Ibn 'Umar when he used to trim what was beyond a fistful?

The Shaykh : It is an action.

The questioner : Is his statement considered a proof? The statement of Ibn 'Umar, his action...?

The Shaykh : Yes?

The questioner : Is his action considered a proof?

The Shaykh : Yes, yes, it is an action, and his action is a proof for me here; why? This is related to a rule, so we must be well-versed in it. I say, confident in what I am saying: "That any general text that encompasses many parts, if the practice of the Salaf did not follow one of its parts, then acting upon that part is not in accordance with the Shari'ah." Do you understand this statement, or does it need clarification?
The audience: It needs clarification.

The Shaykh : It needs clarification. In fact, it requires explanation. I will illustrate this with an example that has not occurred, and I hope it never will, although part of it has occurred. As for the example that has not occurred: A group enters the mosque after the adhan for the pre-obligatory sunnah prayer, such as the Zuhr prayer. One of them says to the group: "Come, my brothers, let us pray in congregation, without praying individually, let us pray in congregation." They cite two authentic hadiths as evidence: the first hadith is , and the second hadith is clearer: . So, come, let us pray in congregation. If you asked anyone from the scholars or students of knowledge: Is this caller doing good or doing wrong? They all agree that he is doing wrong. Why, when he cited two hadiths? The answer is obvious to them. They said: Because this congregation was not prescribed. This congregation for the voluntary prayer was not prescribed. Now, this requires some insight. Do we have a text stating that they did not pray these pre-obligatory or post-obligatory sunnah prayers in congregation? Do we have a text to that effect? We have no text. So how do we say it? I say that they did not actually pray them, and others say it this way. Where did they get this, and the text is missing?
How?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Ah, something like that, but in clearer terms: If this had occurred, it would have been transmitted. So, since it was not transmitted, it indicates that it did not occur. With such premises, we reach that conclusion: namely, that the Salaf did not pray these sunnah prayers in congregation. Up to this point, I think the matter is clear. This is the one that has not occurred, and I hope it never will.
As for what I mentioned earlier: part of it has occurred. You see people in the mosques, group after group, group after group, but it is the obligatory prayer. That is, a group enters and finds that the imam has already prayed, so one of them steps forward. This has happened often. He raises his voice and stands in the middle of the mosque without praying facing a sutrah, because he is ignorant and does not know the rulings of the Shari'ah. He raises his voice and disturbs the people who are remembering the Lord of the Worlds after the obligatory prayer, or those who have started the voluntary prayer for the sunnah. So he disturbs them. What is the evidence of these people? Is their evidence that they—the righteous Salaf—used to pray a second and third congregation, and so on? In some Syrian countries, they remain for the 'Asr prayer until the adhan for Maghrib; group after group, group after group, and so on. None of that is the case. But where did they get it? From what we took earlier, the sunnah congregation. The previous example cited his statement (peace and blessings be upon him): . These people entered the mosque, and the congregational prayer had ended. So, come, let us pray in congregation; . And there is the most famous and most authentic hadith, which is his statement (peace and blessings be upon him): . So, the best thing is to pray in congregation rather than individually. Is this a reality or not? The evidence is the same as the evidence for the previous case, but the difference is that this one did not occur, and that one did occur, and the evidence is one, and the evidence is all marfu' (traced to the Prophet). Therefore, the severe warning came in the authentic hadith: to the end of the hadith. Why did the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) threaten to burn the houses of those who lagged behind in the congregational prayer? Because there is no congregation after it. So, citing a general text that the practice did not follow in some of its parts or branches; it is not permissible to act upon it. Is it clear now? We return now. Yes?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : We return now. Yes, keep your question. We return now: is a general text, meaning it encompasses what Ibn 'Umar did—meaning the fistful—and it encompasses the excess, and it encompasses, according to what Allah blesses in the length or shortness of the beard. Do you see if all of this falls within the generality of the text or not? This is the issue here. Ibn 'Umar:
First: One of the narrators of the hadith is Ibn 'Umar; he is one of the narrators of this hadith.
Second: He saw the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and knew that his beard was thick and large.
Third—and lastly: Ibn 'Umar distinguished himself from all the Companions by—what shall I say?—his exaggeration in following the traces of his Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and doing as he did; even in some matters that might be considered odd by others, and especially by his father, al-Faruq (the Decisive One). You know, for example, that he was seen one day urinating by a tree. Why? He said: I saw the Messenger of Allah urinate there. He would take the rein of the camel and circle it in a place. Why? He said: I saw the Messenger of Allah do that. He would unbutton the shirt. Why? I saw the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) do so. A person with this level of determination in following the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), even in matters that ordinary reason does not accept, follows the Messenger. When his need arose there, he relieved himself, and he had to do as the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) did. Do you think if the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) had left his beard as it was, that he would have contradicted him, when he had agreed with him in matters much easier than this issue?
This issue has a general text: . If the Prophet had applied the general text, it would be unthinkable for Ibn 'Umar to contradict him in that; because he did not contradict him in such parts. This is first. Second, Ibn 'Umar did not act alone in trimming his beard; rather, that was reported from Abu Hurayrah and from some of the Salaf, as in "Tafsir Ibn Jarir al-Tabari." Al-Bayhaqi narrated in "Shu'ab al-Iman" with a sound chain from Ibrahim ibn Yazid al-Nakha'i, who said: "They used to trim their beards." So, here we say, with all scientific boldness, that leaving the beard untrimmed did not follow the practice of the Salaf in absolute terms. The practice of the Salaf did not follow it. These are texts indicating that the Salaf used to trim. So, whoever says, "We take the generality of the text and contradict the action of Ibn 'Umar, or the action of Abu Hurayrah, or other Companions who were mentioned in some of the narrations I cited earlier"; this person places his understanding of the text above the understanding of Ibn 'Umar and others from the Salaf. Here, it is said, especially by Ibn Qudamah al-Maqdisi (may Allah have mercy on him) in his book "Al-Mughni," that often he narrates a report from some Companions and says: "We do not know of anyone who contradicted him," so it becomes consensus or in the position of consensus. And we say here: We do not know of anyone who contradicted Ibn 'Umar; rather, we know of those who agreed with him, and we do not know of anyone who contradicted these people. So, I say that leaving the beard untrimmed is only within the limits of what is established from the narrator of the hadith, who is Ibn 'Umar. And here comes a jurisprudential rule. There are two rules, and I hope one is not confused with the other:
The rule that applies here is that "the narrator is more aware of his narration than others." The narrator is more aware of his narration than others. And this applies here: Ibn 'Umar is more aware of the statement of his Prophet, which he heard from his mouth, and saw applied on his beard . He understands that if this leaving untrimmed is absolute, then it is not permissible to trim it, or it is permissible to trim more than we, the later generations, do. The narrator is more aware of his narration than others. This is the rule.
There is another rule held only by the Hanafis, contrary to the majority, and the position of the majority is correct. Their statement — I mean the Hanafis — is: if a narrator's opinion contradicts his narration, is the criterion his narration or his opinion? The Hanafis said, "The criterion is his opinion, not his narration." The majority said, "No, the criterion is his narration, not his opinion." This is a different rule from the other one. That rule states, "The narrator is more aware of his narration than others are." But here, the Hanafi rule states, "The narrator's opinion, when it contradicts his narration, takes precedence over his narration." They gave an example to illustrate the difference between the two rules.
You all know his statement (peace and blessings be upon him): . It was reported from Abu Hurayrah that a vessel in which a dog has licked is washed only three times. The Hanafis adopted Abu Hurayrah's opinion, even though he was the one who narrated the hadith of washing seven times, one of which with soil. They set aside the hadith in favor of Abu Hurayrah's opinion, arguing that there are complexities in the wording, such as the possibility that the narration was abrogated, or that it was contradicted by a narration he was more aware of than others, and so on. But the majority rejected this and said that the proof rests on the narrator's narration, not his opinion. The issue there is that he saw the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), heard his words, and applied them within the limits of his understanding; he did not have an opinion that contradicted the narration. In other words, a general text is not always applied in its generality. As Imam al-Shafi'i detailed in his great book, *Al-Risalah* — a very important book on the principles of jurisprudence by Imam al-Shafi'i — he said: "A text may come in a general form and its generality is intended; a text may come in a general form and be specified by a specific text; and a text may come in a general form but its specificity is intended, not its generality." He gave many, many examples. The point is that a general text is not always applied in its generality; rather, it is considered within the limits of the surrounding circumstances. The circumstance here is that this general text was not acted upon by the Salaf as the previous texts were; and so on. Just as they did not act upon this, they did not act upon that either.
What do you have?