How do we reconcile his prohibition (peace and blessings be upon him) of drinking while standing with the established fact that he drank while standing?

The questioner : We find that some scholars.

The Shaykh : Raise your voice.

The questioner : We find that some scholars who explain the hadith, such as al-Nawawi, for example, in what I mentioned regarding the contradiction between the hadiths about drinking while standing and his action (peace and blessings be upon him and his family), al-Nawawi says this: We mention the correct view in this issue, which is that his prohibition (peace and blessings be upon him) indicates a disliked act of the recommended kind (makruh tanzih), and that his action (peace and blessings be upon him) and his command to fetch water are for the sake of recommendation, so there is no problem or contradiction. And we find that when there is a text that prohibits and a text that permits, they say: the permitting text is given priority... and that his action (peace and blessings be upon him).

The Shaykh : I did not hear your last statement, but the first part is clear, is it not?

The questioner : If a prohibiting and preventing text comes, and a permitting text comes from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him); then the permitting text and his action (peace and blessings be upon him) mitigate the prohibition of this thing, so it transitions, for example, from being forbidden to being disliked of the recommended kind, or it transitions from being obligatory to being recommended if the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) left this thing that he had commanded?

The Shaykh : I understood you, and the answer was implied in what I said earlier, which is that some scholars interpret some texts to reconcile the prohibiting and the permitting, so they fall into some interpretation that is not permissible, and now it is necessary to detail the statement on this brevity after this question has come.
First: It can be pointed out that such an interpretation is valid if it is established for us that his drinking (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) was after the prohibition, and I think that no one can prove to us that his action and drinking while standing was after his prohibition (peace and blessings be upon him and his family). This is first, and that it was not for a need or necessity, second. And I do not say, and third: that this was a special privilege for him, but I say: it is not possible to prove that his drinking while standing was after the prohibition and without a need on his part. This cannot be proven, meaning two things here: the delay of the action after the prohibition, and with the delay, the action was done without an excuse. If these two conditions are met: the delay of the action contrary to the prohibition, and with the delay it was not for an excuse; then this interpretation is valid. But in my belief, there is no way—and let whoever has knowledge share it—there is no way in my belief to prove these two matters. And I hope you pay attention to what I am saying so that no one surprises us by saying, for example: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) drank from Zamzam while standing, and this is supposed to be at the end of his life. So I say two conditions: that the action is delayed, and that it is proven that this action was not for a need, let alone that it was for a necessity.
A second thing, very important: this interpretation is acceptable only if there is just a prohibition. But there are other things that stand between us and resorting to such an interpretation, despite the ignorance I mentioned earlier regarding the delay of the action, and that it was done without a need. Is this clear up to here?
Well, as for this thing, first: every jurist can interpret the prohibition of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) of something as being for the recommended kind of dislike and not for prohibition, with some doubt from those doubts. But if a text stands before him that prevents him from the aforementioned interpretation, then at that time he will be forced to stand with us in what we mentioned of standing with the prohibiting text and leaving the permitting text for one of the three reasons. , and I know and am aware that scholars sometimes interpret the prohibition as for prohibition and sometimes as for the recommended kind of dislike, but I do not know that they can, let alone I do not know that they did so and interpreted the strong prohibition (zajr) with what they interpreted the prohibition with; because the strong prohibition (zajr), as I understand, is more emphatic than the prohibition. So the strong prohibition (zajr) of something is an exaggeration of the prohibition. If the strong prohibition (zajr) has come in the authentic narration about drinking while standing, this wording stands between them and interpreting the text as being for the recommended kind of dislike, because the recommended kind of dislike may be prohibited, but one is not strongly prohibited (zajr) from it.
A second and final thing: It has come in "Musnad Imam Ahmad" and others that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) saw a man drinking while standing and said to him: He said: No, O Messenger of Allah. He said: , this is an indication that this is from the work of Satan. And what is apparent from such a text in this situation is that this expression cannot be interpreted as being for the recommended kind of dislike. Then, finally, the completion of the hadith comes, and the Messenger (peace be upon him) says, as Abu Hurayrah said to this man or another: ; meaning: pour out, expel this water that you drank while standing; because Satan shared in it with you. Is it also said of this heavy command that it is also for the recommended kind of dislike? I strongly doubt this. And therefore, some Hanafi scholars, who are the most lenient people in interpreting the prohibition to dislike, explicitly stated that this hadith indicates the prohibition of drinking while standing, "this is for one who is not excused." And accordingly, what came in some hadiths that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) drank while standing is to be understood as him being excused, or that it was before the prohibition; because the original state is the innocence of the conscience, as we said, and the original state of things is permissibility. And the Shari'ah did not come all at once; rather, the forbidden alcohol, which is forbidden by the consensus of the Ummah, you all know the stages that went through in its prohibition. So what about drinking while standing? Was it among the first obligations for the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to prohibit people from drinking while standing?
No, I believe that this only came in the later times, i.e., in the Medinan period; because it is not among the matters related to creed and the oneness of Allah. This is the answer to what you asked about some scholars interpreting the prohibition to dislike, and two things stand between them and this interpretation, in brief:
The first matter: that we do not know that the action was after the prohibition and the strong prohibition (zajr), and after his saying (peace be upon him) to the one who drank while standing: .
And secondly: that some wordings of the hadith stand between them and interpreting the prohibition as for the recommended kind of dislike.
Other than that?