Continuation of the discussion on the issue of fasting on Saturday and whether the statement takes precedence over the action.

The Shaykh : If the statement of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) contradicts his action, the statement takes precedence over the action for this reason: his statement is a general legislation, whereas his action may or may not be. There is no doubt that it becomes a general legislation under two conditions that we mentioned this morning. The first condition is that it must be an act of worship and not a custom, because customs do not fall under the religious laws. The second condition is that there must be no contradicting statement issued by the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), as is the case with us now. If we find a statement that contradicts his action (peace and blessings be upon him), we adopt his statement and leave his action, because his statement is the general legislation and his action may or may not be. Now we are examining this issue: how do we explain the action of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) regarding something that differs from what he addressed his Ummah with? It is very easy to say that if we do not have evidence indicating that this action came after the statement, it is understood according to the original state, which is the presumption of original permissibility. This is because the Shari'ah did not come with the rulings all at once. The story of intoxicants and the gradual prohibition of them is the clearest of examples indicating to us that intoxicants were permissible according to the original state, and we do not say they were lawful, but rather permissible according to the presumption of original permissibility. So, if a report comes to us that so-and-so among the people drank intoxicants, but his drinking could have been in that time period. When the hadith comes from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) regarding an action, as is the case with us now, where he might fast on Saturday, it is possible that this action was in the time of permissibility, before this new legislation by his statement: "Do not fast on Saturday." So it is possible that this action was in the time of permissibility. Second, it is possible that it was for an excuse; an action issued from him (peace and blessings be upon him) for an excuse. In that case, we say that since it is possible that it was for an excuse, we give precedence to the statement over the action, as stated in the rule. Third and finally, we say it is possible that this was a special privilege for the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) as long as his action contradicts his statement; therefore, the statement takes precedence over the action. What I intended by this is to say that there are several possibilities, which are three: either his action was according to the original state, or it was for an excuse, or it was a special privilege for him (peace and blessings be upon him) that no one among the people shares with him.