How to reconcile the Prophet's (peace and blessings be upon him) prohibition of drinking while standing with his own drinking while standing from Zamzam and elsewhere?

The Shaykh : The point here regarding his (peace be upon him) drinking while standing is that this is an action, which is contradicted by his statement, as mentioned in that hadith. It is also similar in Sahih Muslim, but there is a man in its chain who has been criticized, though it is cited as evidence and added to these hadiths in which the Messenger (peace be upon him) prohibited drinking while standing. However, Abu Hurayrah hesitated regarding this addition, as he said to him: This is how it was reported in some narrations. The point is that here his action contradicts his statement. This is the first rule we can apply: we prefer the statement over the action. Furthermore, his action is permissive, while his statement is prohibitive, meaning it prevents, so the preventive factor is preferred over the permissive one. Similarly, we said regarding facing the qiblah that it was reported in some hadiths that he (peace be upon him) was seen doing something contrary to what came in the hadith, and on that basis we said we prefer his statement, because that is a general legislation, and the action may have had certain circumstances, or perhaps it was a specific characteristic of the Messenger (peace be upon him). Scholars resorted to reconciling these possibilities in order to preserve the text, which is a general legislation. So now, you are asking whether the Messenger drank from the water of Zamzam while standing. We say: Yes, he drank, and even from water other than Zamzam. If you do not visualize the crowding that used to occur in the past when workers would stand pulling water with buckets, and then people would crowd together in a very strange crush. But now, what Allah willed, what do they call it, a "zabiz"? We call it faucets. So with complete ease, a person drinks this water. So it is possible that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), when he drank from the water of Zamzam while standing, did so because he was unable to perform the Sunnah. And in the other incidents I mentioned, this same possibility applies, and one of them is explicit in that, as it came in Sunan al-Tirmidhi: "That the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) came to a suspended water skin, untied its knot, and drank from it." So it was suspended, and it is not easy to untie it and drink from it, especially since I do not know, perhaps this water skin, or what do we call it, could have been very large, so it is not easy to untie and lower it, and for the Messenger (peace be upon him) to sit down to drink from it. And they say, and we do not need such a statement here: "When a proof is affected by possibility, the argumentation is invalidated by it." This is if it were free from contradiction by statement, so we would try to reconcile it, but how so when both factors are present here? So at that time we say: his (peace be upon him) statement is preferred, especially since it is prohibitive, and it is preferred over the action which is permissive. This is my answer to this last question.