The conflict between two of the Messenger's sayings does not occur except in one situation, that is the abrogation (al-naskh), and other than this it would be either a kind of equality and outweighing, or it is possible to conciliate between them. As for the naskh; the talk about it will come in the discussion of it, and the talk about the equality and the outweighing will be in the topic of the equality and the outweighing of the evidences. As for the reconciliation between the two conflicted sayings; it is by scrutinizing each one of them to clarify its circumstances and situations, then the non confliction becomes apparent, that is because the situations in the life differ from each other, so none of its situations should be measured to one another just for the likeness between them, because the likeness may exist in a matter while the difference exist in various matters, therefore the generalization and the abstraction must be avoided in the legislation and the politics, because the legislation is the treatment of the servants actions by clarifying their verdicts, and the politics is taking care of the peoples affairs in their benefits on which their actions are based. And every one of them is related to the life and its circumstances and situations, and they are various, different and disparate, but they often seem to be similar to each other. So there is fear that the disparity, the difference and the variety are not noticed, which leads to generalize the verdict, i.e. issuing one verdict for all those which are of its kind, and may also lead to the abstraction, i.e. by freeing every action or matter from the circumstances and situations related to it, and this is where the mistake happens, and because of that a conflict would be supposed between two treatments of one action or matter, i.e. it seems that the two sayings are in conflict, and from here the supposed conflict between some of the sayings of the Messenger came, but by avoiding the generalization, and by limiting every treatment to the incident that it came for it, and by avoiding the abstraction, i.e. freeing the incident from its circumstances, i.e. by relating the treatment to its incident and relating the incident to its circumstances; it will be noticed that there is a difference between the two incidents, and it will be cleared out that there is no conflict between the two ahaadeeth for the differences in the circumstance and the situation of each one of them, or for the relation of one of them to the other so they are made together as a basis for the treatment viewpoint, or a basis for the incident viewpoint, and none of them is isolated from the other. The scholar or the politician must isolate every incident from the other, so that he can accurately see the difference between them, and he comes to the conclusion that their treatments are different, so he can approach the nearest to the truth and the correct in treating the incidents, and in understanding the legislation or the politics. As for the legislation, the legislative texts are verdicts for the events and the incidents, so they are different from each other by their nature, and they naturally seem to be in conflict, for the little difference between them, and for the definite similarity along with this difference. So the scholar must scrutinize the legislative texts before he issues his decision about them, because they are not literary expressions which denote meanings only, but they are treatments for events, so it is inevitable that he joins their meanings that are in his mind with the events that he senses, so that he pinpoints the reality, in order that he can understand the legislation and perceive the reality he wants to treat, then he perceives the fine differences between the denotations of the texts and the danger of the generalization and the abstraction. The ahaadeeth of the Prophet should be looked at on this basis, and then the non confliction will be perceived.

The observer into the ahaadeeth of the Prophet (SAW) which seem to be in conflict with each other finds that they are all reconcilable after scrutinizing. And there are many examples on this, For example the ahaadeeth in which the Messenger (SAW) commands something, and get conflicted by other ahaadeeth in which the Messenger refuses to accept things he had commanded, which seems to be conflict between them, but the reality is that there is no conflict, because the command of the Messenger is a request to act which does not denote the wujoob, the nadb or the ibaahah without an indication, so being that he (SAW) did something which denotes that he does not do it after the request to do it, that is an indication that the request is for the ibaahah, so his refusal to accept things that he commanded would not be in conflict with his command about it, but it is an indication that his command is for the ibaahah, not for the wujoob nor for the nadb.

From that is what was narrated from Qays Ibn Sa'd that he said: visited) SAW (Allah of Messenger The us in our house …, then Sa'd ordered a ritual wash for him so he washed, then he handed him … a sheet dyed by saffron and wars (a reddish colour dye plant), so he wrapped himself with it" compiled by Ahmad. This hadeeth denotes the permissibility of drying from the ritual wash, and the wadhu' is similar to it, and this hadeeth conflicts what is narrated from Maimunah -that said she then He was given a handkerchief but he did not dry with it" compiled by Al-Bukhari- because it denotes that the Messenger did not dry. Some people attempted to reconcile between the two ahaadeeth by (carrying it on the karaahah) regarding his nondrying as if it is makrooh. If the Messenger (SAW) forbade something and he commanded it; then his forbiddance will be regarded as makrooh, but here did something once and he did not do it the other time, so there is no conflict between the two actions, and supposing that there is a conflict; it should be carried on the ibaahah, because if something nonbeing acted by the Messenger; it does not denote the prohibition, because he frequently used not to do some of the permissible.

And from that is what was narrated from Abd Al-Rahmaan Ibn Ka'b Ibn Maalik that 'Aamir Ibn Maalik the arrowhead player came to the Messenger of Allah (SAW) when he was polytheist and offered him a gift, the Messenger said: I do not accept a polytheist's gift" compiled by Al-Tabaraani. This hadeeth conflicts what is affirmed about the Prophet (SAW) that he accepted the gift from the polytheists and commanded to accept it. From Ali (RAA) that he said: Kisra (the king of Persia sent a gift to the Messenger of Allah (SAW) and he accepted it from him, and Qaysar (the king of the roman) sent a gift to him and he accepted it from him, and kings sent gifts to him and he accepted from them" compiled by Ahmad. And from 'Aamir Bn Abd Allah Bn Al-zubayr from his father that he said: Qutailah Ibnat Abd al-'uzza Ibn Abd As'ad from (the tribe of) Bany Maalik Ibn Hasal came to her daughter Asmaa' Ibnat Abi Bakr with gifts: lizards, cheese and ghee, and she was polytheist, so Asmaa' refused to accept her gift and to let her enter her house. 'Aa'ishah asked the Prophet (SAW), then Allah the Great and Almighty revealed down: Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loves those who are just). So he commanded her to accept her gift, and to allow her enter her house" compiled by Ahmad. So the conflict appears between the Messenger's acceptance the gift from the polytheist and his refusal the gift from the polytheist. The reconciling between them is that his refusal of the gift from the mushrik is an indication that accepting the gift is permissible, and neither a waajib nor a mandoob, because the Messenger used to refuse many of the permissible, he refused to eat from the dab lizard and said what denotes that he detests it, and he refused to eat the rabbit. From that also is what the Bukhari narrated about the believers migrated said he women When Allah sent down about them: (O you who believe, when believing women come to you as emigrants, examine them; Allah knows best as to their faith, then if you ascertain that they are true believers; do not return them back to the disbelievers, they are not lawful (wives) for the them nor are the disbelievers lawful (husbands) for them …) 'Urwah said: 'Aa'ishah told me: that the Messenger of Allah (SAW) used to examine them by this Aayah, (O you who believe, when believing women come to you as emigrants, examine … (to) Allah is Oft-Forgiving, most Merciful. 'Urwah said: 'Aa'ishah said: so any woman of them acknowledges this condition, the Messenger of Allah (SAW) used to tell her: I have taken your pledge (bai'ah), that is by talking he says it to her, by Allah his hand did not touch the hand of any woman while taking the pledge, he only took it by his talk" compiled by Al-Bukhari. And from Umaimah the daughter of Raqiqah that she said: I came to the Messenger of Allah (SAW) with some women whom gave him the pledge (bai'ah) on Islam, they said: O Messenger of Allah, we give you the pledge that we will not associate anything in worship with Allah, we will not steal, we will not commit unlawful sexual intercourse, we will not kill our children, we will not utter slander that we forge it between our hands and our feet (by claiming that unlawful children belong to their husbands), and we do not disobey you in ma'roof (that which Islam commands), then the Messenger (SAW) said: In that which is possible and bearable for you, she said: they said: Allah and His Messenger are more merciful to us than ourselves, let us give you the bai'ah O Rasoul Allah, then Rasoul Allah said: I do not shake hands with women, my talk to a hundred women is like my talk to one woman" compiled by Maalik. Al-Bukhari narrated from 'Urwah from 'Aa'ishah (RA) she said: And the hand of the Messenger of Allah (SAW) did not touch the hand of any woman except a woman that he possessed", so these ahaadeeth conflict that which Al-Bukhari narrated from Um 'Atiyah that said she We pledged the Prophet (SAW) then he recited to us: (… that they do not associate anything in worship with Allah…) and he forbade the loud weeping for us, then a woman from among us withdrew her hand then said: she so-and-so made me happy, and I want to repay her, then he did not say anything". This hadeeth denotes that the Messenger accepted the women's bai'ah by shaking hands for her saying: "then a woman from among us withdrew her hand …" which means that the women who were with her withdrew not their hands, meaning that they performed the bai'ah by their hands, i.e. by hands shake. And the hadeeth of Umaimah says: " I do not shake hands with women …" and says: َ his hand did not touch the hand of any woman …", so there is conflict in that, because the hadeeth of the bai'ah with the hands shake conflicts with the hadeeth that he did not shake hands with women. The reconciliation between this hadeeth and the other ahaadeeth is that the refusal of the Messenger of doing an action is not a forbiddance, so it denotes not the forbiddance of the hands shake, by it is his abstention from one of the permissible, and it is an indication that his action of taking the bai'ah from the women by the hands shake is not waajib, nor is it mandoob, but it is mubaah, because the saying of the Messenger (SAW) that he does not shake hands means not that he forbade the hands shake, so it is definitely not a forbiddance, but possibly he avoided it as he used to avoid many of the permissible, as he avoided to keep a dirham or a dinar overnight in his house, and as he avoided to hear the shepherd's pipe that is in the hadeeth of Naafi' from Ibn 'Omar, and he did not forbid the shepherd nor did he restrain him, which denotes his approval but he avoided hearing it, and as he avoided eating the lizard and the rabbit and the likes. Accordingly there is no conflict between the hadeeth of Umaimah and the hadeeth before it. The attention in the hadeeth of Umaimah should be drawn to that, the suspicion of the conflict in it is only because of the hadeeth of Um Atiyah about the bai'ah by the hands shake, because it is specific for the bai'ah, and those ahaadeeth are also specific for the bai'ah, therefore there is a conflict suspicion, and as for the evidences that denote the permissibility of touching Aayah the like or you have been in contact with women …" and in a recitation: or you have touched the women …" 43 Surat Al-Nisaa', it denotes by the signal denotation the permissibility of touching the woman by the man, so there is no conflict suspicion between the hadeeth of Umaimah and this Aayah because this is general for every touch, and the hadeeth of Umaimah is specific in the bai'ah.

Accordingly, if a hadeeth denotes the abstention of the Messenger from doing something, and his statement that he does not do it, that is not forbiddance nor does it denote the forbiddance, so it does not conflict with his deed of that action in another time, nor does it conflict with his command to do that thing, and the whole matter is that it is a qareenah (indication) that the action which the Messenger did or commanded is mubaah, not waajib nor mandoob, and the Messenger (SAW) abstained from many of the permissible.

From among the ahaadeeth that seem to be in conflict with each other but it is possible to conciliate between them, there are ahaadeeth in which the Messenger (SAW) forbids something and he commands it, from that, there are ahaadeeth that forbid to cure by the impure or forbidden things, from Wa'il Al Hadhrami Al Suwaid ibn taariq that Ja'fi asked the Prophet (SAW) about the intoxicant, and he forbade him, or he detested that he makes it. Then he said: I only make it for medication, he said: it is not a medication but it is a disease", compiled by Muslim. And from Abu Al Dardaa' that the Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: and ,cure the and disease the down sent Allah " He made a cure for every disease, so do cure your selves, but do not cure your selves by a forbidden" compiled by Abu Dawood. And from Abu Hurayrah said of Messenger the Allah (SAW) forbade the impure medicine, means the poison" compiled by Ahmad. These ahaadeeth are in conflict with other ahaadeeth in which the Messenger commands to cure by the impure and the forbidden things. Qataadah Anas from narrated َFrom people That 'Ukal and 'Urainah came to the Madeenah to the Prophet (SAW) and talk about Islam, they said: O Prophet of Allah, we were owners of cattle but we are not from the country, and they detested to stay in the Madeenah for a disease they caught, then the Messenger of Allah (SAW) ordered a dthawd (three to nine camels) and a shepherd, and commanded them to go out riding them and to drink from their milk and urine" compiled by Al-Bukhari. And from Anas that ُ:(SAW (Prophet the ِ" allowed Abd Al-Rahmaan ibn Awf and Al- Zubair ibn Al-Awwam to wear silk for an itch they had" compiled by Ahmad. And Al-Tirmidthi narrated saying it :That Abd Al-Rahmaan ibn Awf and Al-Zubair ibn Al-Awwam complaint the lice to the Prophet (SAW) during an incursion they were in, so he allowed the silk shirts for them. Anas said: I saw it on them" so these two ahaadeeth permit to cure by the impure and the forbidden. The first hadeeth permits to cure by drinking the urine which is impure, and the second hadeeth permits to cure by wearing the silk which is forbidden, and the ahaadeeth before them forbid to cure by the forbidden and the impure, and here is where the conflict falls. The gathering between them is that the prohibition should be carried as (karaahah) hatred, because the prohibition is a request to keep away from, and it needs a qareenah (indication) to show if it is decisive or indecisive request, so being that the Messenger permits to cure by the impure and the forbidden, while he prohibits to cure by them is a qareenah that his prohibition to cure by them is not decisive, so it is makrooh.

And from the ahaadeeth that seem to be in conflict but they can be conciliated with each other, are the ahaadeeth which are united in their subject but their circumstances differ. From that is what is narrated from Zaid ibn Khaaled Al-Juhany that the Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: " Shell I tell you who is the best witness, it is he who brings the testimony before he is asked for it" compiled by Muslim. It conflicts what is narrated from ibn Omar that he said:

"Omar delivered a sermon to us in the Jaabyah, he said: O people, I stood for you the way the Messenger of Allah (SAW) stood for us, then he said: I recommend to you my companions, then those who come after them, then those who come after them, then telling lie will spread until the man would swear without being asked to do so, and he would testify without being asked to give a testimony" compiled by Al- Tirmidthi. In this hadeeth the Messenger dispraises the witness who gives a testimony without being asked for it, and in the hadeeth before it the Messenger praises the one who gives his testimony before being asked to give it, so it appears that they are in conflict. The gathering between these two ahaadeeth, is that the first hadeeth in which he praised the witness who gives his testimony before he is asked for it, is in the issue of al-hisbah testimonies, which are testimonies concerning the right of Allah Ta'ala, like the slavery freeing (al-ataaq), the entailment (al-waqf), the general will (al-wasiyah al-'ammah) and the likes. So this witness which is the hisbah witness (shaahid al-hisbah) is the best of witnesses, because if he does not clarify it (by witnessing) a verdict of the religion and a principle of the shariah may get lost, and like this is who has witnessed a right for a person that he does not know about it, so he goes to him and tells him about it. As for the second hadeeth in which the Messenger dispraised the witness who gives his testimony before he is asked for it, that is concerning the rights of the human being, and that is how the circumstances of the ahaadeeth differed despite that their issue is one.

And from the ahaadeeth that seem to be conflicting each other but it is possible to conciliate between them are the ahaadeeth that their issue is united but their situations are different. From that is what is narrated from 'Aa'ishah (RA) the wife of the Messenger (SAW) that she said: The Messenger of Allah (SAW) went out towards Badr. When he reached Harrat al Wabrah, a man attained him, his courage and rescue were mentioned, and so the companions of the Messenger of Allah (SAW) became happy when they saw him, so when he came to the Messenger (SAW) he said: I came to follow you and gain with you. The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said to him: do you believe in Allah and His Messenger? he said: no, he said: then go back, I never seek the help of a polytheist, she said: then the Messenger kept going until when he reached the tree the man came to him and said as he said the first time, then the prophet (SAW) said to him as he said the first time, he said: go back I never seek the help of a polytheist, she said: so he returned, then he came to him in the desert, then he said to him as he said the first time: do you believe in Allah and His Messenger? he said: yes, then the Messenger of Allah said to him: go ahead" compiled by Muslim. And from Khubaib from Abd al- Rahmaan from his father from his grand father who said: came with a man of my people to the Messenger of Allah (SAW) while he wanted to invade, we had not embrace Islam yet, and we said: we are ashamed that our people get involved in a scene (battle) and we are not with them, he said: have you believed? We said: no, he said: we do not seek the help of the polytheists against the polytheists, he said: we then embraced Islam and got involved with him" compiled by Ahmad. And from Anas that he said: The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: seek not Do light from the fire of the polytheists, and do not engrave your rings in Arabic" compiled by Ahmad. And from Abu Hameed al-Saa'idy that he said: The Messenger of Allah (SAW) went out (in a raid), when he passed Thaniyat Al-Wadaa' a battalion (troop) came by, he asked: who are they? They said: banu qainuqaa', they are the group of Abd Allah ibn Salaam, he asked: have they embraced Islam? They said: no, but they are still on their own deen, he said: tell them to go back, we seek not the help of the polytheists" compiled by Al-Haafidhth Abu Abd Allah and the author of Nail Al-Awtaar mentioned it. These ahaadeeth conflict with the other ahaadeeth that came with the permissibility to seek the help of the polytheists. From dthy Makhbar he said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (SAW) saying: You will make a peaceful treaty with the Romans, and you will invade with them an enemy from behind you" narrated by Abu Dawood. Al-Tirmidthi compiled from Al-Zouhri: That the Prophet (SAW) gave a share (of the spoils) to people from the jews who fought with him" and it is narrated: that Qazmaan went out (fought) with the Prophet (SAW) on the day of 'Uhud and he was polytheist, and he killed three of Bani Abd al-Daar the carriers of the polytheists banner" transmitted in Nail al-Awtaar from the authors of the (siar) biographies. These ahaadeeth denote the permissibility of seeking the help of the polytheists, and the previous ahaadeeth denote the non permissibility of seeking their help, so they seem to be in conflict with each other, and the following is the conciliation between them: In the hadeeth of 'Aa'ishah, there is the negation by the Messenger that he seeks the help of the polytheist, and the refusal of the Messenger to do an action does not denote its forbiddance, because it is possible that he avoids it as he used to avoid any permissible, but it is an indication that the matter is contrary to it, or acting in contrary to it is not waajib, nor is it mandoob, or mubaah, so there is no conflict with this hadeeth. As for the hadeeth of Abu Hameed Al-Saa'idy, he said in it: "we do not seek the help of the polytheists", it is common for him and for the Ummah, therefore it denotes the forbiddance, but its subject was that a battalion wanted to fight under its own banner, not an individual person, so the forbiddance is for seeking the help of an army who fight under their own banner, and the ahaadeeth in which the Messenger accepted the help, he accepted the help of the individuals, so the situation of the two ahaadeeth is different, so the forbiddance is for seeking the help of the army that fights under its own banner, and the permissibility is for seeking the help of the individuals. And as in the hadeeth of Anas, the fire is a metaphoric of an entity, because the tribe lights the fire as a sign of declaring the war, and seeking the light of its fire is entering under its entity, and this is forbidden. And the hadeeth of the Romans means that they pay us the jizyah and entered under our protection, because the treaty necessitates that, so that they become fighting under our banner, and accordingly there is no conflict between these ahaadeeth, because the forbiddance is for seeking the help of the polytheist in the situation of seeking his help as he is an army and under his banner, and the permissibility of seeking the help of the mushrik is but in the situation of being an individual or an army under the banner of Islam. From the ahaadeeth that seem to be in conflict but it is possible to conciliate between them are the ahaadeeth in which the Messenger forbids something in general and allows it in a specific situation, so the specific situation becomes an exception, so the matter contrary to the situation that allows it becomes the illah of the forbiddance. And from that is what is narrated from Abu Khaddash from a man of the companions of the prophet (SAW) said: The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said:

"The Muslims are partners in three: the water, the pasture, and the fire" compiled by Ahmad. This hadeeth conflicts that which is affirmed from him (SAW) that he permitted for the individuals the possession of the water springs as individual ownership for themselves in the Taa'if and the Madeenah. But it is possible to conciliate between them, for the water that the Messenger permitted to be owned by individuals were not needed by the society (jamaa'ah), so they are a remainder over the need of the jamaa'ah. The daleel on this is the other hadeeth in which the Messenger (SAW) says: "A remainder of the water should not be prevented if it is not needed" compiled by Ahmad. It means that the water which is permitted to be individually owned; the jamaa'ah has no need in it, so its contrary, that is the water which the jamaa'ah needs is what the people are partners in it, so this is the illah of making the people partners in it, and accordingly there is no conflict between the two ahaadeeth.

And thus all the ahaadeeth that seem to be in conflict, it becomes clear after scrutinizing in them that they are not in conflict for the differences in them, and it becomes clear that there is no conflict between the sayings of the Messenger except in one situation, which is the abrogation.