What is your answer regarding the athar of Ibn 'Umar (we used to eat and drink while standing)?

The questioner : ... We used to eat while walking and drink while standing ...?

The Shaykh : ... Do you think that the fact that the Companions used to do this is stronger as proof for the permissibility of drinking while standing, or what is authentic from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) that he used to drink while standing?

The questioner : The Prophet

The Shaykh : Yes, the answer has become clear to you.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : If the answer has become clear to you from the hadith of Ibn 'Umar, then it is all the more so.

Another questioner : ... in a specific context

The Shaykh : This is a good question. This can be answered in several ways. One of them is that their drinking while standing was either after the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) had forbidden drinking while standing, or that those who were drinking while standing were unaware of the Messenger's (peace and blessings be upon him) prohibition of drinking while standing. Therefore, the texts in the Sunnah that speak of what was done in the time of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) differ among hadith scholars as to whether they are considered marfu' (traced to the Prophet) or not. There is no doubt that the correct view is that they are considered marfu' except in cases of conflict. Here, in the hadith , in the hadiths we mentioned earlier, drinking while standing was forbidden, and it was said to the one who drinks while standing, "Vomit." Therefore, it is not correct to oppose the authentic prohibitions issued by the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) with something like Ibn 'Umar's report about the Companions. It is known that no person of intellect or understanding can interpret Ibn 'Umar's words to mean all the Companions, who number in the thousands. This is self-evident and does not occur to anyone's mind. But he means certain individuals from the Companions, without a doubt, whom he saw drinking while standing. We know necessarily that a large number were drinking while standing because this is the original state. And every matter in which there is no prohibition, or in which a prohibition has not yet come, is on the presumption of original permissibility, as al-Shawkani and others say. It is permissible. So when a report like this comes to us, speaking of some of the Companions or an individual among the Companions, that contradicts a hadith traced to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), it is said from the practical jurisprudential aspect that the Muslim should adhere to, but this benefits us in knowing that this was the case for people at some point. This is noted. As we also find, for example, in some hadiths that some of the Companions sealed with a gold ring and wore silk, but no one finds this problematic because the authenticity of the hadiths forbidding it is established in their minds. So if it were asked how you reconcile their action with what their Prophet forbade, the answer is one of two things: either they did it during the time of permissibility, or the prohibition had not reached them. This is the way to reconcile the reports. And when an explicit text in ruling conflicts with a non-explicit text, the explicit text takes precedence over the non-explicit one. The hadith of Ibn 'Umar is not explicit in tracing to the Prophet, while the hadiths are explicit. So in case of conflict, and if reconciliation is not possible, the explicit is preferred over the non-explicit. Peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah.

The Shaykh: Yes.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : He is truthful, and what goes beyond our previous discussion is truthful in that he saw the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him).

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : What do we say about the prohibition if it contradicts the text?

The questioner : Reconciliation takes precedence over preference...

The Shaykh : May Allah bless you... Not absolutely as you are stating. I did not understand you. Do not rush. If you critique, you must clarify the critique. So I am telling you now: reconciliation takes precedence over preference. This is a correct statement. But reconciliation between what and what?

The questioner : Between the two pieces of evidence.

The Shaykh : Okay, you are not reconciling between two pieces of evidence. You are reconciling between a piece of evidence and an understanding.

The questioner : Reconcile between... Did you not understand my words?

The Shaykh : I understood your words. But I now think that you are reconciling between a piece of evidence and an understanding, not between a piece of evidence and a piece of evidence. For example, if you reconciled between the prohibition of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) of drinking while standing and drinking while standing, your statement would be correct, but it would be correct in result. It would be correct if it were necessary to reconcile between a piece of evidence and a piece of evidence. When I told you that the hadith of Ali, this is where the answer became clear from what came before. I said, but his understanding. So you are reconciling between Ali's understanding and a piece of evidence that contradicts it. Is that correct or not? Ali's understanding is a piece of evidence. It is .

The questioner : No, it is not a piece of evidence.

The Shaykh : So your question is not in its proper place. When you say, "Is not reconciliation between two pieces of evidence the principle, and not preference?" I told you, "Exactly." But it is a piece of evidence opposed by an understanding of a piece of evidence, and not a piece of evidence opposed to a piece of evidence. In any case, reflect on this statement, if Allah wills, so that the matter becomes clear to you, if Allah wills.
Abu Layla : Regarding eating while standing, is it like water?

The Shaykh : We do not have a text forbidding it. But Anas ibn Malik (may Allah be pleased with him)... when he narrated the hadith about the prohibition of drinking while standing, he was asked this question and answered by saying: And we do not find anyone among the Companions who contradicted him. So we follow him in this, especially since eating while standing has become a trend of the modern era. Chairs are widely available, and they stand up. This is a Western custom. So it is confirmed in opposing them by leaving off this standing during meals.

The questioner : We want a sermon, O Shaykh.

The Shaykh : So what are we in, Professor?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : May Allah reward you. Is it permissible or not permissible? As for it being the best, my brother Abu Anas reminds us of a sermon that some of us deliver to one another, if Allah wills. What comes to mind is that we speak in this area about the hadith that is well known to you all, but we must comment on an aspect of that hadith, namely his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): Our Prophet (may the prayers and peace of Allah be upon him) makes entering Paradise contingent upon the realization of love. And this love realizes the faith that is the basis for entering Paradise, for Paradise is forbidden to disbelievers. Our Lord (Mighty and Majestic) said in the noble Qur'an: So the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) makes the direct cause of entering Paradise faith in Allah and His Messenger. But he clarifies that this faith is not complete until love is realized among the believers. Here is a point of exegesis of this hadith, and there is no harm in addressing it. Faith is a fundamental condition for entering Paradise, regardless of the strength or weakness of that faith. Because entering Paradise, as you all know, if Allah wills, is on levels and stations. According to the strength of the believer's faith and the weakness of the believer's faith, he will have precedence in entering first or delay in entering second. Then, according to the strength of faith and weakness, will be his station in Paradise. We all know that there are people who enter Paradise without reckoning and without punishment, meaning, as it is said today, transit immediately. But these are a very, very rare few among the people, whose number no one knows except Allah. It came in the authentic hadith... that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said to his Companions one day: "Seventy thousand from my Ummah will enter Paradise without reckoning and without punishment, their faces like the full moon on the night of the full moon." Then he (peace be upon him) entered the chamber, and his Companions began to discuss among themselves who these seventy fortunate ones would be who enter Paradise without reckoning and without punishment. Some said: "Who will these be other than us, the Muhajireen, who emigrated in the cause of Allah (Mighty and Majestic) and left their lands and homelands?" Others said: "Rather, we are the Ansar who supported their Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) in a time of hardship." A third said: "Neither these nor those, but rather their sons who come after them, who believe in their Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and did not see him." Then the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) came out to them again to say to them: "They are those who do not seek healing by ruqyah, do not use cauterization, do not take omens, and they rely upon their Lord." Then a man from the Companions named Ikamah or Ikashah (with the khaf lightened) stood up and said: "O Messenger of Allah, call upon Allah to make me one of them." He said: "You are one of them." Then another stood up and asked him for the same request. He said: "Ikashah has preceded you to it." Here is a long discussion, not the subject of this moment. The point is that entering Paradise is on degrees and layers, and after entering, people like these seventy thousand enter Paradise without reckoning and without punishment. People who must have a reckoning, even though the outcome of the reckoning will be their entering Paradise without punishment, but they must have a reckoning. And to this reality our Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) points by his saying: Why? Because the rich will be asked, as came in the authentic hadith: So entering Paradise, even for those who will not be punished, requires a reckoning in the gathering, for as many years as Allah wills. As for those who committed sins and crimes and thereby deserved the punishment of Allah on the Day of Resurrection, speak of them, there is no harm. They enter the Fire and are punished, but they must come out of the Fire one day because of their faith, as he (peace and blessings be upon him) said: Meaning, they do not remain in the Fire eternally. The point of all this speech is to clarify his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): So the faith intended here is absolute faith, whether it is weak or strong; it is the cause of entering Paradise. As for whether he entered Paradise without reckoning and without punishment, the first generation we mentioned, or entered Paradise after reckoning without punishment, or entered Paradise after punishment, and the duration of staying in punishment varies, all these types are included in the generality of his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): But what about his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): Is this second faith mentioned in the hadith the same as the first faith? The answer is: No. The answer is: No. The intention here is complete faith, unlike the faith in the first place, where it says: "Do not enter Paradise until you believe," even if it is incomplete faith. The important thing is that it saves him from eternal abode with the disbelievers in the Fire. As for "and do not believe until you love one another," meaning: You do not have complete faith unless you love one another. Now comes the completion of the hadith. What do we do? The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) mentions a cause of creating this love, which is one of the many causes by which the believer completes his faith. He says: You are now, the sun has come down upon you. Get up, O Abu 'Abd Allah.
Abu Layla : Let's go back a little.

The Shaykh : There is still space there, but do not constrain yourself.

The questioner : ...

The Shaykh : May Allah reward you with good. So he (peace and blessings be upon him), in the way of explaining the method of attaining complete faith, so that the believer may attain the high stations in the Gardens of Eternity, mentioned in that way a cause of completing faith. I say "a cause" to indicate that the hadith is that merely loving for his brother what he loves for himself is the wording of the hadith in the two Sahihs. But in some authentic narrations of this hadith, the addition "of good" came, and it is an important addition that clarifies and explains. Because a foolish person or one who argues in falsehood might say: "Well, I love to enjoy myself, for example, in what is forbidden. Should this be loved for the Muslim?" The answer is in this important addition: And not everything that is loved; the loved thing might be disliked by the Shari'ah, or the loved thing might be forbidden. Is it permissible for him to love for his brother what he loves for himself of that disliked thing or that forbidden thing? The answer is: No, because the hadith intends good, and that is what is explicitly stated in that authentic narration, which is in the book Al-Adab al-Mufrad.