Specifying the general statement or action of a Companion.

Mashhur: If we go back... to shed more light on the possibility that sometimes an action that comes to mind as specifying the general, and according to the rule of generality is understood according to the understanding of the Salaf, might be a contradiction by this Companion of the general, because it did not reach him, or because the criterion in a Companion's contradiction of the general is that this specific action was understood by the Companion, so we specify the general with such an action?

The Shaykh : By Allah, what appears to me is that the previous answer is the answer to the subsequent question, which is that the thing this Companion did and by which he specified a general text should be widespread and known to have occurred in the era of the Companions and the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) approved it. In that case, it is suitable to be a qualifier for the general text, which is from the speech of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). Otherwise, it is not.
Mashhur: For example, if... after the fistful, it was specified because it contradicted the text. Otherwise, if the Salaf understood that the generality of the text is the generality of the text qualified by Ibn 'Umar's action, there is no need to say about Ibn 'Umar, because the generality of the text leads to that. If an objector said this?

The Shaykh : What does the generality of the text lead to?

The questioner : The generality of the text leads to Ibn 'Umar's action, so there is no need for Ibn 'Umar's action.

The Shaykh : No, the generality of the text leads to the opposite of what Ibn 'Umar said. My tongue slipped.

The questioner : The generality of the text leads to this, but what is established in our minds, and from their guidance established with them, is that they take what is after the fistful. So Ibn 'Umar's specification, some claim and say, that Ibn 'Umar's specification of taking after the fistful, what is the meaning of this specification except contradicting the customary practice in his time, in the time of the Salaf.

The Shaykh : You are saying specification? I don't think you are saying that, and you believe in the correctness of the expression.

The questioner : I say the text is general.

The Shaykh : The issue of specification, you are quoting from others, what is the reason for Ibn 'Umar's specification by mention? Are you not saying this about them?

The questioner : I say that Ibn 'Umar, why was he mentioned in his conduct and his manner? If taking after the fistful was established in their minds, there is no need for this mention of Ibn 'Umar.

The Shaykh : Glory be to Allah! This is what I am asking. You are a transmitter, not an adopter of the meaning. That means your transmission of this is to refute the doubt. Otherwise, I believe that, as is said in some lands, this deceased does not deserve this condolence. This transmission is weak, my brother. How do we know that so-and-so Companion was taking or was not taking? Is it not by the transmission of individuals? Well, this is a singular transmission from Ibn 'Umar that he was taking less than the fistful. Here arises a problem: why was it transmitted from Ibn 'Umar? So, even though this problem is not applicable, where do they get this problem arising in their minds except if it was established in their minds that the Salaf, and at their head the Companions, were not taking? If something of this were the case, I would excuse them at that time when this problem arises in their minds. And the reality is that the doubt is very great, and it is that those who act upon this general text with the command to let the beard grow have established in their minds that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him)...