What is the evidence for the usul al-fiqh principle that states: (The words of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) take precedence over his actions)?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : What is the evidence for the usul al-fiqh principle that the words of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) take precedence over his actions? Is there evidence for this or not?
The Shaykh : We spoke about this recently with some detail. What have you heard?
The questioner : What have I heard!
The Shaykh : A Muslim must, when he sees the narrated hadiths, both verbal and practical, and is unable to 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 the answer be? It is not permissible. Why?
The questioner : Because it is specific to the Messenger (may Allah praise and bless him).
The Shaykh : So the action may be specific to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). Do you think there might be other actions specific to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), or is that impossible? 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 a possibility. It is clear.
There is a second possibility regarding the action, which is that the action was done under an excuse. And if one does something under an excuse, no one else can adopt it unless they are also excused like the Messenger, in which case it is given his ruling.
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 aligns with this in meaning, which is that the default for things is permissibility. 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 then? He cannot prioritize the action over the statement, because this action now faces three possibilities. This last possibility is that his action was based on permissibility, it could have been done due to an excuse, and it could have been a specific privilege for him.
In summary, the statement is a general law to which none of these three possibilities apply, whereas the action is the opposite of the statement, being subject to at least one of these three possibilities.
The Shaykh : We spoke about this recently with some detail. What have you heard?
The questioner : What have I heard!
The Shaykh : A Muslim must, when he sees the narrated hadiths, both verbal and practical, and is unable to 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 the answer be? It is not permissible. Why?
The questioner : Because it is specific to the Messenger (may Allah praise and bless him).
The Shaykh : So the action may be specific to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). Do you think there might be other actions specific to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), or is that impossible? 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 a possibility. It is clear.
There is a second possibility regarding the action, which is that the action was done under an excuse. And if one does something under an excuse, no one else can adopt it unless they are also excused like the Messenger, in which case it is given his ruling.
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 aligns with this in meaning, which is that the default for things is permissibility. 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 then? He cannot prioritize the action over the statement, because this action now faces three possibilities. This last possibility is that his action was based on permissibility, it could have been done due to an excuse, and it could have been a specific privilege for him.
In summary, the statement is a general law to which none of these three possibilities apply, whereas the action is the opposite of the statement, being subject to at least one of these three possibilities.