Did it become established that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) performed an act that is disliked? And what is an example of that?

The Shaykh : Here, a questioner asks: Did it become established that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) performed an act that is disliked with a non-prohibitive dislike? And what is an example of that?
Some jurists may say something like this, and their statement requires clarification of the correct view. The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) may perform an act from which he prohibited his Ummah, in order to clarify that the prohibition is not for the sake of prohibition. However, we must add to this answer—namely, that he performed it to clarify that the prohibition is not for the sake of prohibition—that when he performed it, it was an act of worship for him, not a disliked act. Because when we say he did it for clarification, this clarification falls within the general meaning of our Lord’s (Mighty and Majestic) statement in the Qur’an: . His clarification of the rulings of the Shari’ah is an act of worship and obedience to Allah on his part. Therefore, it is not described as a disliked act on his part. Rather, he clarified that it is disliked for the Ummah. This is the explanation of those who say that the Messenger (peace be upon him) may perform an act that is disliked with a non-prohibitive dislike in order to clarify that for people. So we say that on his part, that act is not disliked, because he did what he was commanded to do, which is clarification. As for an example, I do not actually recall one at the moment; although I say that such an example is difficult to establish or find in terms of the principles of jurisprudence. This is because we must establish certain matters before we can say that the Messenger (peace be upon him) performed this act to clarify that the prohibition is only for dislike. We must first establish that the act occurred after the prohibition, and the prohibition is, of course, a statement. So when the Messenger prohibited something and it is then established that he performed it, it is explained that he only did so to clarify that the prohibition is not for the sake of prohibition for the Ummah. It is necessary that the act occurred after the prohibition so that we can conceive of this statement that he did it for clarification. Otherwise, if the act preceded the prohibition, then the interpretation we mentioned from the scholars is not valid.
Then we must establish something else. The first thing we said was to establish that the act occurred after the prohibition. If something of this is found, we must establish that this act did not occur from him (may Allah’s prayers and peace be upon him) due to a specific circumstance for him, or due to an excuse that occurred for him. This is the most difficult thing to gather.
We now have three things. First—before anything else—we must establish that the act occurred after the prohibition. Second, we must establish that he did not do it for a specific circumstance for him. Third, we must establish—if we say it is not a specific circumstance—that he did not do it for an excuse. If these are negated; that is, if the possibility that it was a specific circumstance is negated, and it is negated that it occurred from him for an excuse, and it is established that the act occurred after the prohibition; then it is said: this is a clarification that the prohibition is only for non-prohibitive dislike and not for prohibition. And within the limits of my knowledge and reading, I do not know of anything that meets these conditions in an act that contradicted a prohibition. As for acts that contradicted many prohibitions from the Messenger (peace be upon him), there are many, and very many. However, the act may have occurred after the statement, but a specific circumstance was established. For example, who does not know that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) married more than four women? And that he died with nine women under his protection? So this necessarily occurred after his statement to that man who embraced Islam and had nine women under his protection, when he said to him (peace and blessings be upon him): .
This is an example of an act occurring after a prohibition, but the two previous conditions were not met, which are that it not be a specific circumstance, and that it not be done for an excuse. This is a specific circumstance for him (peace and blessings be upon him).
Likewise, for example, “he prohibited drinking while standing,” but in reality, we do not have a date, and we do not have a text that specifies for us when the prohibition was and when the drinking while standing was. It is mentioned in Sahih al-Bukhari that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) drank from the water of Zamzam while standing. It may come to mind that the prohibition preceded the act; because the act occurred at the end of his life (peace and blessings be upon him) during the Farewell Pilgrimage; meaning about four months before his death. But is it not possible that the prohibition came during these four months? It is possible; therefore, we cannot say that this is an example of an act that contradicts a prohibition occurring after it. However, it is more likely that the prohibition preceded it; it is more likely, not because of definitive proof that it preceded the act. So at that time, do we say that the act of the Messenger (peace be upon him) drinking while standing was done to clarify that the prohibition is for non-prohibitive dislike?
Remember that we should establish that he did not drink while standing for an excuse, establish that it was not a specific circumstance for him, and establish that he did not do it for an excuse. Without this, it is like spinning the thorns of the thornbush, as they say! Because we do not know, first of all, why the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) drank from Zamzam while standing, for example. Second, it is strongly possible that he drank out of necessity due to the severe crowding at the well of Zamzam during the Hajj season, as you see today. And it was from his way (peace and blessings be upon him), and from his conduct and character, that he mingled with his Companions and did not distinguish himself from them in any way. So he did not walk among his Companions as a king walks among his retinue; rather, he walked in front of them and they were behind him, clearing the way for him. Therefore... some of the Companions, when the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) was on his way to the Jamarat during the Farewell Pilgrimage in this severe crowd, said that he (peace be upon him) was walking among his Companions, “so no pushing—this Companion said—no pushing, and no ‘make way, make way’”; meaning, move away from the Messenger, clear the way for him, as if he were one of his Companions. Therefore, when he drank (peace and blessings be upon him), he drank in the midst of the severe crowd, so it is reasonable that he could not sit in that situation and would drink while standing for an excuse.
In summary: if an example is found for the previous answer, then he only did it to clarify that the prohibition is not for the sake of prohibition, and that he did not commit a disliked act; because he did what he was commanded to do, which is conveying the message.

The questioner : ... .