What should we do if two hadiths contradict each other, one prohibiting an action and the other describing the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, doing it?

To determine the ruling of a jurisprudential matter, one must gather evidence. If there appears to be a contradiction between them, one resorts to reconciliation, then to preference, then to abrogation, if the chronology is known.

Reconciliation: It is preferred to work with reconciliation whenever possible, even if by a single interpretation. Preference: This occurs when reconciliation is not possible, and the stronger evidence is chosen. Abrogation: This is done when the earlier and later evidence are known.

If the Prophet's (peace be upon him) statement contradicts his action, the following steps are taken: 1. Verification of Authenticity: Priority is given to what is established in proof and has an authentic chain of narration. 2. Specificity of the Action: If the action was specific to the Prophet (peace be upon him), there is no contradiction. 3. Reconciliation: If both the statement and the action are general, they are reconciled as follows: An command to abandon something is interpreted as an order of recommendation, and the abandonment as permissibility. A prohibition of an action followed by its performance is interpreted as the prohibition being one of dislike (makruh), and the action as permissibility. The action may particularize a general statement. 4. Preference: If reconciliation is not possible, one of them is preferred based on contextual indicators (such as the practice of the Companions). 5. Abrogation: If the chronology is known and reconciliation is not possible, the later abrogates the earlier. 6. Precedence when Chronology is Unknown: When the chronology is unknown and reconciliation is not possible, scholars differ on whether to give precedence to the statement or the action, or to withhold judgment.