What is the criterion in the issue of the conflict between the statement and the action? And does it imply a special status for the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : My Shaykh, regarding the issue of the conflict between the statement and the action, I know your ijtihad in it and what you have reached, because if the statement conflicts with the action, the action is specific to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). But I came across some hadiths that confused me, so I wanted to mention them to you.
The Shaykh : Please.
The questioner : It appears to me, if Allah wills, the way of the truth in it.
The Shaykh: May Allah will it.
The questioner : The story of Umm Salama when she saw the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) praying after the Asr prayer, so she ordered a slave girl to ask him and say to him: "You forbid us from praying after Asr, yet you are praying." So if someone were to say that what Umm Salama understood from the conflict between the statement and the action was the special status of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and the generality for the Ummah, likewise the hadith of Anas when he said to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him): "You forbid us from continuous fasting, yet you continue fasting," then he said So what Anas understood from that is that if the statement contradicts the action, what is the criterion for this issue?
The Shaykh : What did you understand from these hadiths, because you did not clarify the problem well to me. That is, either we say if the statement contradicts the action and reconciliation between them is not possible, either we take the statement or we take the action. What did you understand from such evidence that you are presenting?
The questioner : What I understood from them is that the Companion, Umm Salama and Anas, when they saw the action of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) contrary to his statement, they did not attribute that to the rule that the statement is for us and the action is for him. If they had attributed it to that, they would not have needed to ask. So when they asked, this indicates that they see the reconciliation between the statement and the action, which is the original principle?
The Shaykh : And this is what we say, but if reconciliation is not possible.
The questioner : If reconciliation is not possible, is it obligatory to prefer that the statement is stronger than the action?
The Shaykh : May Allah bless you. You took from this that the original principle is reconciliation!
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : We do not say otherwise, but we say if they differ and reconciliation is not possible, do we take the action and disregard the statement, or the opposite?
The questioner : The intelligent one in such a case says the action transfers from obligation to recommendation, or transfers from prohibition to dislike. So is reconciliation possible in this case?
The Shaykh : No, it is not possible.
The questioner : It is not possible.
The Shaykh : This is not possible except with one condition.
The questioner : Please.
The Shaykh : And that is that the action be after the command, or that the action be after the prohibition.
The questioner : This has become clear to us.
The Shaykh : Yes, exactly. As for having a general command whose date we do not know, and an action whose date we do not know, which is earlier and which is later, here, considering what the scholars of knowledge and jurisprudence say, that the statement of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) is a general Shari'ah directed to the general Muslim community, whereas his action may be from his special status (peace and blessings be upon him), therefore the preference should not be for what involves his specific status (peace and blessings be upon him) over the statement which is a general Shari'ah for the people of Islam.
The questioner : So the difference that has become clear to me now is attributing obligation to recommendation and prohibition to dislike, if the precedence of the statement is known.
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.
The questioner : Or if neither this nor that is known.
The Shaykh : The statement is given precedence.
The questioner : May Allah reward you.
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.
The questioner : What Allah willed.
The Shaykh : Please.
The questioner : It appears to me, if Allah wills, the way of the truth in it.
The Shaykh: May Allah will it.
The questioner : The story of Umm Salama when she saw the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) praying after the Asr prayer, so she ordered a slave girl to ask him and say to him: "You forbid us from praying after Asr, yet you are praying." So if someone were to say that what Umm Salama understood from the conflict between the statement and the action was the special status of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and the generality for the Ummah, likewise the hadith of Anas when he said to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him): "You forbid us from continuous fasting, yet you continue fasting," then he said
I am not in your state; I am fed and I am given drink.
إني لست بهيأتكم إني أطعم وإني أسقىThe Shaykh : What did you understand from these hadiths, because you did not clarify the problem well to me. That is, either we say if the statement contradicts the action and reconciliation between them is not possible, either we take the statement or we take the action. What did you understand from such evidence that you are presenting?
The questioner : What I understood from them is that the Companion, Umm Salama and Anas, when they saw the action of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) contrary to his statement, they did not attribute that to the rule that the statement is for us and the action is for him. If they had attributed it to that, they would not have needed to ask. So when they asked, this indicates that they see the reconciliation between the statement and the action, which is the original principle?
The Shaykh : And this is what we say, but if reconciliation is not possible.
The questioner : If reconciliation is not possible, is it obligatory to prefer that the statement is stronger than the action?
The Shaykh : May Allah bless you. You took from this that the original principle is reconciliation!
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : We do not say otherwise, but we say if they differ and reconciliation is not possible, do we take the action and disregard the statement, or the opposite?
The questioner : The intelligent one in such a case says the action transfers from obligation to recommendation, or transfers from prohibition to dislike. So is reconciliation possible in this case?
The Shaykh : No, it is not possible.
The questioner : It is not possible.
The Shaykh : This is not possible except with one condition.
The questioner : Please.
The Shaykh : And that is that the action be after the command, or that the action be after the prohibition.
The questioner : This has become clear to us.
The Shaykh : Yes, exactly. As for having a general command whose date we do not know, and an action whose date we do not know, which is earlier and which is later, here, considering what the scholars of knowledge and jurisprudence say, that the statement of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) is a general Shari'ah directed to the general Muslim community, whereas his action may be from his special status (peace and blessings be upon him), therefore the preference should not be for what involves his specific status (peace and blessings be upon him) over the statement which is a general Shari'ah for the people of Islam.
The questioner : So the difference that has become clear to me now is attributing obligation to recommendation and prohibition to dislike, if the precedence of the statement is known.
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.
The questioner : Or if neither this nor that is known.
The Shaykh : The statement is given precedence.
The questioner : May Allah reward you.
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.
The questioner : What Allah willed.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.