Some scholars classified the Prophet’s (peace and blessings be upon him) drinking while standing as one of his specific attributes, claiming that the companion who was with the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) had become a Muslim.

The questioner : Praise is to Allah; we praise Him, seek His help, seek His forgiveness, and seek His guidance. We seek refuge in Allah from the evil of our own souls and from the badness of our deeds. Whom Allah guides, none can mislead, and whom He misleads, none can guide. As for what follows...

The Shaykh : There is no god but Allah

The questioner : The first issue: As you know, some scholars of knowledge have prohibited drinking while standing. They considered the hadith of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family and companions) to be specific to him, and so on... They answered that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), yes, had a devil with him, but he had become a Muslim. Therefore, the devil with him does not harm the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), so interpreting this as specific to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) is valid from this perspective. The problem is: what is the evidence for this claim that the companion mentioned in that hadith is the same devil mentioned in the other hadith?

The Shaykh : Yes, is that all?

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : What we believe and testify to Allah is that the ruling you began your speech with, which is prohibition, is what is established by the Shari'ah. However, I do not see it as certain that what is established from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) regarding his drinking while standing was one of his many specific attributes. I do not see this for one reason or more. But we believe in the principle, or the two principles, which state: first, if a present command and a permissive matter conflict, the present command takes precedence over the permissive matter.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : The other principle states that if the action of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) conflicts with his statement, his statement takes precedence over his action. This is because his statement (peace and blessings be upon him and his family and companions) is a general Shari'ah for all people, whereas his action is subject to the possibility of three scenarios, one of which is what I mentioned earlier: that it is a specific attribute. But I cannot be certain that it is a specific attribute; I only say it is possible, so that we do not use this possible scenario to negate the explicit text of his prohibition (peace be upon him) against drinking while standing. In the other narration that confirms the prohibition, it says: "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family and companions) forbade drinking while standing." And in the third narration, it says that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family and companions) saw a man drinking while standing and said to him . Then he did not stop with this explanation (peace and blessings be upon him), but followed it with a command that confirmed the prohibition contained in his first statement, saying to that man who was drinking while standing: . We do not find in the Shari'ah that Islam commands a Muslim to intentionally vomit because he did something contrary to what is best, as those who do not accept the apparent meaning of these three pieces of evidence say: "He prohibited, he forbade, and the devil was with him." He did not stop there but also said "vomit," to confirm that the prohibition is absolute prohibition.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : As for his action (peace be upon him), although we do not have what confirms that it is a specific attribute, we have what makes it more likely that the matter is not a specific attribute, but rather due to an excuse, first, or because that was during the time of permissibility, second. And I say to our brothers, in order to educate them in knowledge and train them in research, independent legal reasoning, and understanding of religion, and to warn them against following men and relying on their opinions without knowing their evidence: I say to them that we must always and forever keep in mind that when we stand before a prohibition from the Wise Lawgiver regarding a certain matter, we should keep in mind that this matter was once permissible, because it was not prohibited except because it was a real matter, except for shirk (associating partners with Allah), in which the Shari'ahs do not differ at all. For example, we know that he prohibited gold, he prohibited silk, he prohibited drinking intoxicants, and so on. All these things were originally permissible, as al-Shawkani says in many disputed issues, and then the prohibition came later. Before that, they were on the original state, which is permissibility. Therefore, we should not establish a conflict between a command and an action that indicates permissibility, because this command indicates obligation more than permissibility. And we should not support the conflict between an action he (peace be upon him) performed and his prohibition of it, because this prohibition actually implies that this matter was previously permissible. We find in some hadiths that his drinking (peace be upon him) was due to an excuse. For example, in Sunan al-Tirmidhi: . That is, this was suspended, and it is not easy to untie the knot, bring it down, sit, and drink from it. Here, there is an excuse that made the Messenger (peace be upon him) drink while standing, although he prohibited drinking while standing. Similarly, in Sahih al-Bukhari, regarding the Farewell Pilgrimage: . But the answer to this is from two angles. The first angle is that his drinking from Zamzam while standing is very clear due to the heavy crowd. And because we know from the guidance of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) his great humility, as some of the Companions said, and in the Farewell Pilgrimage, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was walking and the people were in front of him, without pushing or saying "make way, make way" as your rulers do today. This is part of his humility. Do you think that when the Messenger came to drink from Zamzam, they would move away from the Messenger, from Muhammad? No, he drank in this crowd. This is the first answer. The second answer is that in some authentic narrations, he drank while on his camel, which is considered like standing; he drank on his camel. Therefore, one should not argue with his drinking (peace be upon him) from the water skin that this indicates absolute permissibility, but rather it was due to an excuse, which was that it was suspended. And one should not argue with his drinking (peace be upon him) while standing in the Farewell Pilgrimage, even if we overlook the other narration where he drank while riding, but due to the heavy crowd. So, what came from the Messenger (peace be upon him), to summarize the speech: what came from the Messenger (peace be upon him) regarding his drinking while standing, either it was during the time of permissibility before the prohibition, or it was due to an excuse. Finally, we say: either it was a specific attribute for him (peace be upon him), and this is the weakest of the answers in terms of critique. This is what I have.

The questioner : Yes, but there is some correction regarding the issue of the conflict between statement and action, where we prioritized the statement. Then, this is possible to be specific in reality. As you know, these are called principles of preference, and we always act according to the word of Allah the Exalted: . This requires us to act according to the principle of combining, taking both the statement and the action. If combining is impossible, we resort to preference. But if we start with this speech you mentioned, it appears to us that we started with preference because we said: statement and action, we prioritized the statement over the action. This is preference, and we start with combining.

The Shaykh : What is combining?

The questioner : Combining is that we lower the command to the level of dislike (makruh), as al-San'ani and al-Shawkani do.

The Shaykh : The answer has already been given. There is no room for interpreting the prohibition as dislike of the recommended kind (makruh tanzi). Of course, it is not dislike of the prohibited kind, is it?

The questioner : Yes, exactly.

The Shaykh : There is no way to that, because if it were possible here to interpret the prohibition as the recommended kind of dislike, the second narration that surprised you prevents us from this interpretation, so that you do not surprise me with what I said earlier. I told you: "The Messenger of Allah forbade." Forbidding (zajr) does not accept this interpretation that is said regarding prohibition (nahy) in many prohibitions. I think you, as a pure Arab, understand, and your origin is not foreign like mine, I do not know, by Allah.

The questioner : May Allah reward you with good, you are a Qahtani.

The Shaykh : A Qahtani, what Allah willed. So, you know better than me that forbidding (zajr) is more emphatic than prohibiting (nahy). Do you agree with me on this so that I can cite you, and you are a Qahtani?

The questioner : Allahu Akbar, and by Allah, it appears to me that forbidding (zajr) is like the stage of prohibiting (nahy).

The Shaykh : This is political speech, the word "stage."
Al-Halabi : Like

The Shaykh : Hmm.
Al-Halabi : Like

The Shaykh : And like

The questioner : Meaning, in the position that he prohibited:

The Shaykh : Do you not feel that forbidding (zajr) is more emphatic than prohibiting (nahy)? If it is said that so-and-so forbade (zajr) so-and-so, do you not feel that this is more emphatic than if he said he prohibited (nahy)?

The questioner : May Allah reward you with good. We accept that it is forbidding (zajr) at the highest degree of prohibition.

The Shaykh: Okay

The questioner : But what came from his action (peace and blessings be upon him) contradicts that. So, we lower it. If we say, if we accept the view of those who say it is severe dislike, we say severe dislike, but it does not reach the level of prohibition.

The Shaykh : Ah, as they say, there is no dispute over terminology. But what does "severe dislike" mean? Is one rewarded? Or punished? Or neither rewarded nor punished? If you say that one is punished, we agree, whether you call it "prohibitive dislike" or "severe dislike." But if you do not mean that, and instead say it is like "disliked for a reason" (tanzihiyyah), meaning it is recommended that one not commit this disliked act, and in your earlier expression, it is not befitting for a Muslim to commit a severely disliked act, but if he does, there is no sin on him.

The questioner : It is the latter.

The Shaykh : Okay, it is the latter. So, you have come to us with this terminology. Has anyone said this terminology?

The questioner : No, I do not recall.

The Shaykh : In my opinion, and I have reached the age of old age, I have not known of anything but prohibitive dislike or disliked for a reason (tanzihiyyah). As for "severe dislike," it is a middle ground between two things. Nevertheless, we say, and in the spirit of dialogue and understanding, and so that we do not impose our opinion on others, for each has his own opinion, yes, but with strong emphasis on following the correct evidence, we say: suppose this is disliked with severe dislike, and we understand that it is better to leave it. Well, what are the rulings in the Shari'ah if a Muslim does not leave what is better? Is he punished such that it is said, "Satan drank with you"? Is there an act where the Wise Lawgiver explicitly states that Satan participated with a person in something, yet it remains permissible?