Two Rules for Reconciling Texts When They Appear to Contradict, Such as the Hadiths on Drinking While Sitting and Standing: "When a Prohibiting Text and a Permitting Text Contradict, the Prohibiting Text Takes Precedence"

The Shaykh : As for the hadiths of the Messenger (peace be upon him) in which he is reported to have drunk while standing, the answer to them comes from several angles. These angles must be known by students of knowledge, because some contradictory hadiths may cross their path, causing them to be perplexed about how to reconcile them.
We should remember two fundamental rules that help any student of knowledge, if he is proficient in them, to reconcile contradictory hadiths. There are many examples similar to this issue that we might mention, but let us stay where we are now. It is authentically established that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) drank while standing in more than one authentic hadith. Here, the jurists state in the two rules:
The first: "When a prohibiting text and a permitting text contradict, the prohibiting text takes precedence over the permitting text". I think the word "prohibiting" (hazir) is known to you; it comes from "hazr," which means prevention. If a text prohibits something with a prohibition that prevents it, and there is another text indicating the permissibility of that thing, how do you reconcile them? When a prohibiting text and a permitting text contradict, the prohibiting text takes precedence over the permitting text.
Now, an example is before you: he prohibited drinking while standing. This is a prohibiting text. Drinking while standing is a permitting text. So, when they contradict, the prohibiting text takes precedence over the permitting text.
A second rule: "When two texts come, one being a statement from him (peace and blessings be upon him) and the other an action of his (peace and blessings be upon him), the statement takes precedence over the action". Why? Because the statement is a general legislation, whereas the action may also be subject to two possibilities. It may be based on the original state, because when the Shari'ah came, as you all know, it did not come with all its rulings and details in one sudden burst. The story of the prohibition of intoxicants is known to all of you. For example, gold, silk, and other things were not prohibited at first when it was said to him (peace and blessings be upon him) This is the foundation of faith. After that, over the course of the legislation, which lasted twenty-three years, the rulings of the Shari'ah were completed gradually in the known manner. So, when there is a statement from him (peace and blessings be upon him) that contradicts an action of his, the action may have been based on the original permissibility, after which the contradicting statement came. It is also possible that the action was due to an excuse that occurred for him (peace and blessings be upon him). Finally, it is possible that it was one of his specific characteristics (peace and blessings be upon him).
Because of these possibilities that may surround his action (peace and blessings be upon him) when it contradicts his statement, the scholars said that the statement takes precedence over the action. This is the example you have now.
And I said that we might mention another example. Peace and the mercy of Allah be upon you. This is a real example, and we should keep it in mind in our handling of such an issue. It was reported from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim his statement: Then authentic hadiths came that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) was seen facing the qiblah or turning his back to it. The scholars and jurists differed on how to reconcile the first hadith of prohibition with the hadiths that appear to permit it, which in this case contradict the prohibition. We have found many houses in reality where this matter from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) was not observed. The answer was that they adopted the opinion of one of the schools of jurisprudence that distinguishes between buildings and the desert. They interpret the first hadith as applying to the desert, and they interpret what occurred from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) as applying to buildings. This is a well-known school of thought.
But another school of thought contradicts this, which is what the method of reconciling evidence requires, as we gave an example of earlier by reconciling the hadiths prohibiting drinking while standing with the hadiths of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) drinking while standing. We presented the two rules mentioned earlier: "When a prohibiting text and a permitting text contradict, the prohibiting text takes precedence over the permitting text" and "When a statement and an action of his (peace and blessings be upon him) contradict, his statement takes precedence over his action". Just as the application of the two rules was valid in the issue of drinking while standing, so here the application of both rules together is valid in the issue of not facing the qiblah with urine or feces. This is by saying that his action (peace and blessings be upon him) that contradicts the hadith may have been before the legislation of the prohibition of facing the qiblah with urine or feces.
It is also possible that the place was narrow and he could not turn around to act otherwise. This is what happened to the narrator of the first hadith, Abu Ayyub al-Ansari (may Allah be pleased with him), who narrated the first hadith with the wording: He said (may Allah be pleased with him): "When we came to Sham, we found the latrines there facing the qiblah, so we seek forgiveness from Allah". This is what the narrator of the hadith said. And here comes a third rule on this occasion, which is also very important.

The questioner : What is the matter, Shaykh, with seeking forgiveness while deviating?

The Shaykh : He cannot. The seeking of forgiveness is for not deviating. If they deviated, for what purpose would they seek forgiveness? Yes.
Yes