What is the way to acquire beneficial knowledge? And how do we reconcile contradictory hadiths, such as the hadith prohibiting wearing a ring on the ring finger and the hadith of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) wearing a ring on the ring finger?

The questioner : The first question, which we will begin with, is the first question asked to the Shaykh, andThe Shaykh : he will answer, if Allah wills.

The Shaykh : It is obligatory for all students of knowledge, if they truly wish to specialize in 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, to expand their knowledge of two fundamental 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 and advance 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 fundamental jurisprudential rules is the statement of the scholars: "If two texts conflict, one permitting something and the other prohibiting it." The texts referred to are undoubtedly the Qur'an and the Sunnah, and there is no third except as we mentioned, as an aid to understanding them. If two conflicting hadiths come, how do we reconcile them? The ways of reconciliation are many, and very many, summarized in some books of hadith. Al-Hafiz al-Iraqi referred to more than one hundred ways in his commentary on the Introduction to the Sciences of Hadith by Ibn al-Salah. By one of these ways, or more, one can reconcile two differing hadiths, or between a verse and a hadith. Among these ways, which relate to the answer to the first question, is that there is a hadith in Sahih Ibn Majah that the Prophet 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 and how does he do it?—this important rule applies: "If a prohibitor (of prohibition, i.e., a preventer) and a permitter conflict, the prohibitor is given precedence over the permitter." With this rule, many difficulties are resolved. Some people are aware of it, and the truth is with them, while others are not aware and fall into error or into an interpretation that necessitates much or little denial of the divine attributes (ta'til). For example, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) prohibited drinking while standing, yet he drank while standing. He said: and he held his thigh. The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) prohibited marrying more than four women, yet 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, regarding the prohibition of wearing a ring on the ring finger, the prohibition is given precedence. As for his wearing it, I mention this and say, as a precaution, according to what came in the question, because I do not have it at hand. But if the hadith is found to be that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) wore a ring in the manner 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. 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. Thus, the reconciliation between the two differing hadiths regarding wearing a ring is to give precedence to his prohibition, because first, it is a prohibition, and second, it is speech, and speech is given precedence over action. Why did the scholars go to giving speech precedence over action in general? And giving the prohibitor precedence over the permitter in particular? As for giving speech precedence over action, it is because speech is a general legislation for all Muslims, whereas his action (peace and blessings be upon him) may imply one of three things. The first is 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 dire necessity. For that reason, his speech (peace and blessings 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 the prohibitor precedence over the permitter, that is more appropriate because first, it is speech, and second, it is a prohibition, and the original state of things is permissibility. If the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) performed an action that was not specific to him, and there was no dire necessity or pressing need that compelled him to do so, then it is said that this was in the first state, before the new legislation came. Therefore, due to 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.