All right, O Shaykh... on the same topic; Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) said: Al-Abd al-Razzaq narrated to us, saying:

The questioner : All right, O Shaykh... on the same topic; Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) said: Al-Abd al-Razzaq narrated to us, saying: Ma'mar narrated to us from al-Zuhri from a man from Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him), who said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: . And Ahmad said: Al-Abd al-Razzaq narrated to us from Ma'mar from al-A'mash from Abu Salih from Abu Hurayrah from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) with a similar hadith, similar to the hadith of al-Zuhri; is this another route?

The Shaykh : It is another route in which there is a man who was not named. From whom did this man narrate? Repeat it for me.

The questioner: Ahmad's chain of narration?

The Shaykh : No, no, the entire chain, from a man?

The questioner : From a man from Abu Hurayrah.

The Shaykh : From Abu Hurayrah...

Another questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Yes?

Another questioner : The unspecified man here...

The Shaykh : It is not far-fetched, but it is possible that it is Abu Ziyad.

The questioner : The chain came again, and I recall that Ibn Hibban also produced this hadith with a valid chain.

The Shaykh : And he gave him the kunyah Abu Salih.

The questioner: And it is Abu Salih.

The Shaykh : Yes, for this reason we say that the hadith is valid. As for this chain... the man who was not named may be identified by tracing the routes, and he says that it is Abu Salih, and the one who memorizes—or at least the one who recalls—has an argument over the one who does not recall.

The questioner : May Allah preserve you. Is it established that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) drank while standing... from Zamzam during...

The Shaykh : Of course, this is established; that he drank while standing, not only there, but in several narrations he drank while standing. But this, as we discussed in the issue before we prayed 'Isha, is the issue of facing the qiblah with urine or excrement. Hadiths have come, some in "al-Sahihayn": The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade facing the qiblah with urine or excrement, and among them is the hadith of Abu Ayyub al-Ansari, agreed upon byThe Shaykh : the two Shaykhs: .
Of course, this is with regard to Medina, yes. Its narrator, Abu Ayyub al-Ansari, said: Then we came to Sham and found the latrines facing the qiblah, so we seek forgiveness from Allah.
So the narrator of the hadith believes that there is no difference in this ruling regarding the prohibition of facing the qiblah with urine or excrement between the desert and buildings; where some scholars, both past and present, have permitted buildings and specified the hadith for the desert. We spoke about this topic in some detail. What concerns us now, on the occasion of this question about drinking, the drinking of the Prophet while standing, we say: If a prohibitive and a permissive conflict, and it is not possible to reconcile them by any of the many methods of reconciliation, the most comprehensive of which al-Hafiz al-Iraqi mentioned in his commentary on "Introduction of Ibn al-Salah" in the sciences of hadith, to more than a hundred methods, then if the researching scholar is unable to reconcile between two hadiths; then at that time, this rule is applied: If a permissive and a prohibitive conflict, the prohibitive is given precedence over the permissive; likewise, if his (peace be upon him) action conflicts with his statement, his statement is given precedence over his action; because his (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) statement is general legislation, and his action has several possibilities. And here, the point regarding his (peace be upon him) drinking while standing is an action, which was opposed by his statement as it came in that hadith; and it is also similar in "Sahih Muslim," but in its chain there is a man who is criticized; however, it is cited as evidence and added to these hadiths in which the Messenger (peace be upon him) forbade drinking while standing. But Abu Hurayrah uniquely added that he said to him: like this... in some narrations.
The point: So here his action opposed his statement, meaning: the first rule we can apply is to prefer the statement over the action. Then his action is permissive and his statement is prohibitive; meaning: preventing, so the preventing is given precedence over the permissive. Likewise, we said in the topic of facing the qiblah, it came in some hadiths that he (peace be upon him) was seen doing the opposite of what came in the hadith, and on that basis we said we prefer his statement; because that is general legislation, and the action may have some circumstances or perhaps it is one of the specific matters of the Messenger (peace be upon him). Scholars resort to directing these possibilities in order to preserve the text, which is general legislation. So here, you are asking regarding whether the Prophet drank... however the scholars stand, they draw water with buckets and then people crowd in a very strange way. But now, what Allah wills, what do you call this... or what? We call itAl-Halabi : taps, because everyone can drink this water. So there is a possibility that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), when he drank from the water of Zamzam while standing, it was because he was unable to perform the sunnah. And in the other incidents I mentioned, the same possibility applies, and one of them is explicit in that; where it came in "Sunan al-Tirmidhi" that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) came to a suspended water skin, untied its stopper, and drank from it. It is suspended, and it is not easy to remain in a place where he can untie it and come to drink from it, especially I do not know, perhaps this water skin or what do we call it? It might be large and heavy, so it is not easy to untie it... for the Messenger (peace be upon him) to drink from it while sitting.
And they say—and we do not need such a statement here—if a possibility befalls the evidence, the argumentation falls with it. This is if it were free from contradiction by statement and by the prohibitive. How then, when both factors are present here? So at that time we say his (peace be upon him) statement is given precedence, especially since it is prohibitive, and it is given precedence over the action which is permissive.
This is my answer to this last question.