A question regarding the issue of a conflict between speech and action.

The questioner : Regarding the issue of a conflict between speech and action, you preferred the position that if the action conflicts with the speech, the action is specific to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), while the general speech is for the Ummah. This is a matter in which I wish to clarify many things, because for me...

The Shaykh : This preference was not like that.

The questioner : I will present it in the rest of my speech.

The Shaykh : Please.

The questioner : Yes, my concern with this issue is because I have a book on the characteristics of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), so I need to know this rule clearly, so that this rule becomes clear to me, in order to, if it is preferred, attach other things to it.

The Shaykh : May Allah benefit you.

The questioner : May Allah bless you, may Allah reward you with good.

The Shaykh : And you as well.

The questioner : So you preferred, may Allah preserve you, that if the speech and the action conflict and we do not know which is earlier and which is later, the action specific to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) is a general speech for the Ummah.

The Shaykh : I wished that this condition had been in the beginning.

The questioner : And this is what I mean, may Allah preserve you, now it remains.

The Shaykh : So what now.

The questioner : There remain for me now two difficulties regarding this.

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : The scholars' statement that specificity is not established by probability, and the scholars' statement that the original ruling is that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) legislates and does not act for specificity , and also their statement that reconciliation takes precedence over preference!

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : Do these difficulties that I mentioned last change anything in the rule?

The Shaykh : Absolutely not, it does not change, it does not change. As for the fact that the original ruling is the absence of specificity, this is a matter in which no scholar or jurist debates. But when do they say this? They say this when an action is established from the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and it appears to some of them that this action is specific to him (peace be upon him), so they respond to him with this rule. But when there is an action from the Messenger (peace be upon him) and there is a speech that conflicts with the action, and let us now define the scope, and let us say that that speech cannot be imagined to be before the action, or that it is a text that can be reconciled with the action. If we are ignorant of the timing, if we are ignorant of the timing, it came in the recent past, for example, in a matter that contradicts his action (peace be upon him), the matter is interpreted to be not for obligation but for recommendation, or perhaps the example was completely reversed, a prohibition that contradicts this Messenger, so it was said that the prohibition is interpreted as being for discouragement. And my answer was that this reconciliation is acceptable in the science of principles, but with the condition of knowing the timing. But if we do not know which is earlier, the speech or the action, and we are ignorant of that, we return to the other rule as well, which is the counterpart to the rule I mentioned, and there is no disagreement on it with the condition I mentioned just now, which is that there is an action that came from the Messenger. The rule is that it is a general legislation, and we do not listen to one who says that this is specific to the Messenger, or that it is perhaps specific to the Messenger. We say to him, as it is authentic from Ibn 'Umar, "Make the 'perhaps' at that star." The counterpart to this rule is that if the speech differs from the action, the speech is preferred over the action as well, by the rule I mentioned in the recent past, reconciliation is not possible, reconciliation is not possible. So in this case, what is the difficulty now regarding what I have raised now? We do not deny that the original ruling regarding what he (peace be upon him) did is that we follow him, but the research there is an action and a speech that conflicts with it, and reconciliation between this speech and this action is not possible in any of the ways of reconciliation. I mention on this occasion that the scholars of hadith, may Allah reward them with good, mentioned more than one hundred ways in which conflicting hadiths can be reconciled. If the scholar-jurist is unable to reconcile his (peace be upon him) speech with his action, he has no choice at that time but to hold onto the speech and be compelled to say one of the following: either he says this is specific to the Messenger (peace be upon him), or he says this was before the coming of the prohibition or before the coming of the command. And I recall an example now, which may be suitable for what we are in this station. There are hadiths from his action (may Allah bless him and his family and grant him peace), not one hadith but many hadiths, and many of them are hadiths with authentic chains, that the Prophet (may Allah bless him and his family and grant him peace) drank while standing. And on the other hand, we have prohibitions from the Messenger (peace be upon him) that he prohibited drinking while standing. So the scholars differed here, and some took the path of reconciliation and said that the prohibition is to be understood as being for discouragement. Why? So that they do not nullify the indication of the actual texts that the Messenger drank while standing, and this is without doubt. But I found something that prevents such an interpretation, interpreting the prohibition by understanding it as being for discouragement. That is that when Imam Muslim narrated the hadith of Anas ibn Malik with the wording , he also narrated it with another wording . I said, I will not end my hadith here and put a hadithical point, a circle with a point in the middle, the important thing is, I said, the prohibition can be interpreted as being for discouragement, but a stronger reprimand, like this. Also, I do not forget my foreignness, here I am saying, drawing from all sincerity and truth, perhaps I am mistaken. Do I understand that a stronger reprimand is more than a prohibition? Are you with me on this? We will strengthen your back with your brother.

The questioner : That Arabic is also with us.

The Shaykh : In you is goodness and blessing.

The questioner : What appears is what you went to.

The Shaykh : May Allah bless you, this is what appears to me, and Allah knows best. But I have another, which may be better than the first. A reprimand against drinking while standing; we do not find in the speech of the jurists who reconcile the prohibition and the action, because this prohibition is for discouragement, we do not find in their speech a reprimand for discouragement. This is certain, this is certain. Good, this supports that there is another authentic hadith in the Musnad of Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) from Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (may Allah bless him and his family and grant him peace) . Do you see that this can be interpreted as being for discouragement? I do not understand it, I do not understand this. But also a third and final matter, he said to him . Is this in discouragement? This is in disturbing the soul and exposing it to some intestinal and contagious problems, and so on. So I, the gathering of these three indications, prevents interpreting his (peace be upon him) speech because of his action, which is without doubt, especially since there is the hadith of Ibn 'Abbas in Sahih al-Bukhari that the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) drank Zamzam while standing, Zamzam while standing, and this was at the end of his life. And this helps those who say it is for discouragement more, because it is later, because it is later. But here one of two things responds: first, either as some say, this is a specificity for the water of Zamzam, because it is blessed water, excepted from the other waters, or the matter is as I claim, I claim and mean what I say, that this was due to the intensity of the crowd, and that from the humility of the Messenger (peace be upon him) and the nobility of his character, as came in his biography in his Hajj, 'Abdullah ibn Qudamah or Ibn Abi Qudamah, a Companion, describes how the Messenger would walk, he says, "No pushing and no 'make way, make way'." So he walks among the people, not like the rulers of the end of times, no pushing. So when he came to drink, "Open the way for the prince, let him enjoy drinking the water of Zamzam," no, the crowd was packed around him, and so on. So I imagine that his drinking from the water of Zamzam was also for an excuse, just as that can be interpreted similarly in some of the hadiths that are authentic that he drank while standing, as is in Sunan al-Tirmidhi, that he came to a suspended water skin, so he untied it and drank from it while standing, a water skin whose lowering involves some difficulty, so he drank while standing. So if we assume that these hadiths of speech have no excuse for the Messenger (peace be upon him), we say that it is a specificity, and we follow his command or prohibition, but we see that some of these matters can be interpreted. So whoever is convinced with us of its interpretation, so be it and it is good, and whoever is not, the speech is our end with him. Finally, if reconciliation between it and the action is not possible, the speech is preferred over the action, a rule. Just as the action of the Messenger, if it is not contradicted, is our model and our example in it. This is our answer, and we ask Allah for success for us and for you.