something else he had done, and that his words of censure were not intended to prohibit everything he had done. The proof of this is that he was not referring to the first matter, as has already been established; it is therefore equally possible that he was not referring to this third matter either.

Although this reading runs counter to the apparent meaning, scholars are often obliged to set aside the apparent sense of a text when it conflicts with another text whose indication is decisive—for example, abandoning the implicit meaning (mafhūm) of one text because of the explicit wording (manṭūq) of another, or restricting a general text in light of a specific one, and so forth. In my view, our present case belongs to this category. The apparent scope of the hadith—covering bowing outside the row—clashes with the specific, clear-cut ruling established by the hadith of ʿAbdullāh ibn al-Zubayr. When two proofs stand opposed, one must then prefer one of them over the other, and no scholar doubts that an explicit text has greater weight in a conflict than the merely apparent indication of another, for the latter is only probabilistic whereas the former is definitive.

Among the criteria the scholars mention for weighing competing reports is that the ruling set out explicitly in one hadith is preferred over the merely possible implication of another. It is likewise beyond dispute that the indication of the present hadith in this issue is not conclusive but merely probable, whereas the indication of the aforementioned hadith of Ibn al-Zubayr is categorical. This, then, is one of the factors that give it precedence over the present hadith.

There are further reasons that strengthen this preference:

1. Ibn al-Zubayr delivered his hadith from the pulpit before the largest congregation assembled in the Sacred Mosque, declaring that the practice was part of the Sunnah, and no one objected to him.

2. Leading Companions—such as Abū Bakr, Ibn Masʿūd, Zayd ibn Thābit, and others mentioned earlier—acted upon it. In legal theory this consensus of practice counts among the recognised grounds for preference. By contrast, with regard to the present hadith we know of no Companion who followed what its apparent wording suggests on this question. All of this is strong evidence that its indication here is outweighed, and that the hadith of Ibn al-Zubayr is therefore the one to be preferred in