Actions or commands stronger?

Please note that there are many ways that two ahaadeeth may SEEM to contradict themselves and there are many different ways that scholars use when reconciliating between these evidences.

ONE situation of seemingly conflicting evidences is the one asked about here... that the prophet - sall Allaahu 'alayhi wa sallam- forbids something and then another hadeeth states that he performed that action. OR perhaps that the Prophet - sall Allaahu 'alayhi wa sallam- commanded something and then did what seems to contradict that command. Different scholars have different Usool and thus may have different ways of reconciliating between these apparent differences.

If I remember correctly, in the Usool AlFiqh class we took with AlMaghrib, we studied that one way of recongizing a "makrooh" action was if the Prophet - sall Allaahu 'alayhi wa sallam - forbade the action but performed it. That was the chosen method of reconciliation in that case.

Perhaps Sh. Muhammad can enlighten us further.

I would also like to add that the purpose of this forum is for students of the Usool AlFiqh class to ask questions that can be answered by the instructor or discussed with fellow Usool AlFiqh students. We must all take care to participate only in those discussions that we have studied and can share some of the knowledge we have acquired properly and in a systematic way.

Wallaahu A'lam.

We will leave the answer for the shaikh then, inshaa'Allaah.

[strangerpakistan]

Sister UmmSarah when i first started to practice 5 years ago i wanted to learn about the contradictions that are found in Authentic Hadeeth, and how scholers dealt with it.

I found that scholers have compiled books just on contradictions in hadeeth and they have reconciliated these hadeeth and explained them in their right context. As far as i am aware these books haven't been translated and are only available in the arabic language.

strangerpakistan

Assalam alaiykum sis stranger notice you live in birmingham will be down your part of the world this weekend.
Emaan

Originally Posted by ibnulMubarak

Jazakallaahu Khairan Umm Sarah! I think you have answered a different question though.

My question was, assuming all other aspects are equal, does an action take precedence, or a command? I.E. With valid difference of opinions.

...

From our studies if there seems to be a contradiction between the Prophet (salAllahu a'laihee wa salam)'s actions and speech the precedent is given to his SAYING, because the specific ACTION could be specific to HIM only whereas his SAYING is a prohibition or commandment to the entire Ummah.

This might be helpful:

Originally Posted by Usool ul-Fiqh by Shaykh 'Abdur-Rahmân ibn Nâsir as-Sa'dî

Chapter 6..

Naasikh and Mansookh...

...

Amongst the texts are the naasikh (abrogating) and the mansookh (abrogated) The abrogated texts in the Qur‘aan and the Sunnah are few in number. Whenever there is the possibility of harmonising two texts, with the possibility of each one being acted upon in its own particular circumstance, then it is obligatory to do so. One may not turn to abrogation, except with a text from the Lawgiver, or an apparent contradiction between two authentic texts concerning which there is no possible way to resolve this contradiction such that each text is acted upon in its own particular circumstance. In this case, the later text abrogates the earlier one. However, if it is impossible to determine which is the earlier text and which is the later, we then turn to other means of tarjeeh (prefering one text over another).For example, when there is an (apparent) contradiction between the Prophet sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam’s statement and his action, then precedence is given to his saying. This is because his statement represents either a command or a prohibition to his Ummah, whereas his action is, in this case, interpreted to be something particular to him alone. So the khasaa‘is (particular and unique rulings) pertaining to the Prophet sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam are actually based upon this asl (fundamental principle).

Likewise, when the Prophet sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam does something as an act of ’ibaadah (worship), but he does not command its performance, then what is correct is that this action of his is indicative of it being mustahabb (recommended). If he does something as an act of ’aadah (custom or habit), then it is indicative of it being mubaah (permissible).

Whatever the Prophet sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam acknowledges of statements and actions, then the ruling is one of ibaahah (permissibility), or other than it, according to the manner in which he acknowledged such statements and actions.

I had a similar question that might clear it up it was regarding the two principles:

There are two forms of usool based on this:

a) the principle of the prohibition is precedent over a commandment, and
b) the prohibition is precedent over a commandment and is dependent on the reason(s) for prohibtion.

And Shiekh As-Sa'di (hafidhAllahu ta'la) mentions a little of it in Chapter 5:

Originally Posted by Usool ul-Fiqh by Shaykh 'Abdur-Rahmân ibn Nâsir as-Sa'dî

Chapter 5

The asl (fundamental principle) concerning commands in the Book and the Sunnah is that they are indicative of a wujoob (obligation), except if there is an evidence to indicate to it being mustahabb (recommended) of mubaah (permissible) The asl concerning prohibitions is that they are indicative of tahreem (forbiddance), except if there is an evidence indicating it being makrooh (hated).

...

You can find the book in its entirety online HERE:
http://www.ahya.org/amm/modules.php?...icle&artid=236

I hope this was clear inshAllah..

And Shiekh Muhammad or anyone can correct me inshAllah ta'la if I've made a mistake..

WAllahu A'lam
WAssalaamu'alaikum wa rahmatAllah

[Omar Khan]

Assalaamu'Alykum,
This might not answer the brothers question as the shaykh can probably answer it the best. But just for anyone interested in the concept of contradicting ahadith, one thing is that at times some ahadith might seem contradictory, but in reality just represent two different ways of doing something that are both accepted.

Also, as one person stated above, there are instances where the prophet (SAW) forbade or did not allow something and than his actions were opposite (contrary) to his statements. In these cases the ruling takes a lower level from the original command. Like for examples no talking after isha, but he (SAW) talked after isha... thus it's not haram but makrooh. Or no praying after asr a law by mouth and than the prophet (SAW) prayed after asr in one instance, and some scholars view this as it being an exception to the rule. Or going to the bathroom standing up. There was Aisha's (RA) narraration that the prophet (SAW) never ever stood up. And then one campanion narrarated that in one instance in like I believe a place with dirty things like garbage etc. the prophet (SAW) did not sit down. Or another example of not being allowed to face the qibla when going to the bathroom and then once he (SAW) did it. These two cases from what I studied have a difference of oppinion on whether makrooh or forbidden or even mubah based on the scholars viewing of context and circomstance.

All this just to remind us that two seemingly contradictory ahadith can actually be the means of which laws are made. That's is also why we really need to stick close to scholars in order to truly understand.

I hope I didn't confuse anyone with my really limited understanding, or disgust anyone by using going to the bathroom as examples. Also, if I said something wrong please correct me.

Wa Alykum Assalaam