How do we reconcile the prohibition of marriage for one in the state of ihram with the marriage of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to Maimunah while he was in the state of ihram?

The Shaykh : Yes, please go ahead.

The questioner: His EminenceThe Shaykh : Your Eminence, when discussing the two hadiths, the hadith and the hadith , you said that the first method of reconciliation is that the statement takes precedence over the action...

The Shaykh : The first method of reconciliation is that the prohibiting factor takes precedence over the permitting factor. The second method is that the statement takes precedence over the action.

The questioner : Does the statement take precedence over the action? Is this a general rule without exception? Or is it better to reconcile the statement and the action by saying that if the statement prohibits and the action permits, then this action is a contextual indicator (qarinah) that shifts the prohibition from being strictly forbidden (haram) to being disliked (makruh)?

The Shaykh : This has also been discussed in the sessions held here. We say that this contextual indicator can be applied if it is established that the action, which is considered or intended to be considered as an indicator, occurred after the statement. However, if there is no such indicator, then no, and the rule remains general. Is that clear?

The questioner : Is that clear?

The Shaykh : For example, in our current case, do we know that the Prophet’s (peace and blessings be upon him) marriage to Maimunah was lawful, assuming the hadith is not anomalous? Do we know that this occurred after his statement in the hadith of Muslim: ? We have no knowledge of that. Therefore, it is not valid to consider it an indicator for us to interpret as negating perfection rather than negating the essence. Similarly, there are many hadiths, and we have cited numerous examples, such as his prohibition of drinking while standing and his drinking while standing, not only from Zamzam but in many incidents. We have no indicator that his action came after his prohibition to say that his action after the prohibition shifts the apparent meaning of the prohibition, which implies obligation, to being recommended. However, there are other factors in this issue that prevent interpreting the action as clarifying that the prohibition is for the sake of being disliked. We explained this in that session, including the fact that he forbade drinking while standing, and this does not admit of figurative interpretation. Also, he said to the one who drank while standing: And finally, he said to the one who drank while standing: This is not a ruling regarding something disliked for the sake of being disliked, but rather it is an affirmation that it is forbidden.