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

The Shaykh : Yes, raise your voice.

The questioner : For example, regarding the contradiction you mentioned in the hadith about drinking while standing and the action of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family), al-Nawawi says: We will mention the correct view in this issue, which is that the prohibition of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) indicates a recommended discouragement (karahah al-tanzihiyyah), and that his action (peace and blessings be upon him) and the command to seek water are for the sake of recommendation (mustahabb). Therefore, there is no problem and no contradiction. Is there no problem and no contradiction?

The Shaykh : I did not hear your last statement. As for the first one, is it all understood?

The questioner : If a text that prohibits and prevents comes, and a text that permits comes from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)? Then the permitting text, and his action (peace and blessings be upon him), lightens the prohibition of this thing, so it moves, for example, from being forbidden to being a recommended discouragement, or it moves 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 implicitly included 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 came. First: It is possible to resort to such an interpretation 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 the prohibition of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family). This is first. Second: That it was not for a need or dire necessity. And I do not say, third: That it 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 not for a need from him. This cannot be proven. It means two things here: the delay, i.e., the delay of the action from the prohibition, and with the delay, his doing it without a need. 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. As for whoever has knowledge, let him offer it. In my belief, there is no way to prove these two things. And I hope you pay attention to what I am saying so that no one surprises me by saying, for example, that 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 dire necessity. Another thing, which is very important: This interpretation is acceptable if there is only a prohibition. But there are other things that prevent us from 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 it clear up to here? Good. As for this thing, any jurist can interpret the prohibition of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) against something as being for recommended discouragement rather than prohibition, with a doubt from that doubt. But if he stands before a text that prevents him from the aforementioned interpretation, then 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. For example, we have a hadith in Sahih Muslim where the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) prohibited drinking while standing. It can be interpreted that the prohibition is for recommended discouragement. But what do we say about the other narration, which is in Sahih Muslim, which is ? And I know and am aware that scholars interpret the prohibition sometimes as prohibition and sometimes as recommended discouragement, but I do not know that they can, let alone that I do not know that they did, interpret the warning (zajr) with what they interpreted the prohibition with, because in what I understand, the warning is more emphatic than the prohibition. The warning against something is an exaggeration of the prohibition. So if the warning came in the authentic narration about drinking while standing with this wording, it prevents them from interpreting the text as being for recommended discouragement, because recommended discouragement may be prohibited against, but not warned against. Another thing, and finally, it came in the Musnad of Imam Ahmad and others that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) saw a man drinking while standing and said to him: O so-and-so, He said: No, O Messenger of Allah. He said: This is an indication that this is from the work of Satan. The obvious meaning of such a text in this situation is that this expression cannot be interpreted as being for recommended discouragement. Then, finally, the completion of the hadith comes, and the Messenger (peace be upon him) says, as Abu Hurayrah said to this one or another, meaning, pour out, expel this water that you drank while standing, because Satan participated with you in it. Is it also said that this heavy command on the nature is also for recommended discouragement? This is what I strongly doubt. And therefore, some Hanafi scholars, who are the most lenient in interpreting the prohibition to recommended discouragement, went to explicitly stating 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 of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) drank while standing is to be understood that he was 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 intoxicants, which are forbidden by the consensus of the Ummah, you all know the stages that went through in their prohibition. So what about drinking while standing! Was it among the first obligations for the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) to prohibit people from drinking while standing? No, I believe that this came in the later periods, 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 going to interpret the prohibition as recommended discouragement. Two things prevent them from this interpretation, in brief:
The first thing: That we do not know that the action was after the prohibition and the warning, and after his saying (peace be upon him) to the one who drank while standing .
And second: That some of the words of the hadith prevent them from interpreting the prohibition as recommended discouragement. Other than that.