Reconciling the Prophet’s (peace and blessings be upon him) prohibition of drinking while standing with the reports that he drank while standing

The Shaykh : The hadiths that report the Messenger drank while standing are established facts, there is no doubt about their authenticity. However, the following points need to be clarified: First, did these incidents where the Messenger (peace be upon him) drank while standing occur before the prohibition or after it? I think your mind is not empty of the fact that there are hadiths prohibiting drinking while standing, is that not so? You know there are hadiths: "The Messenger of Allah prohibited drinking while standing." So, in our minds now, there are two categories of hadiths: one category of his actions (peace be upon him): "that he drank while standing," and this is correct; and another category: "that the Messenger prohibited drinking while standing," and this is also correct. Now, if we want to argue that he (peace be upon him) drank while standing, or that he (peace and blessings be upon him) drank while standing, to say that drinking while standing is permissible, we need to know whether this drinking by him (peace be upon him) was before the prohibition or after it. Because if it was before the prohibition, it is not permissible to use his action as evidence, as long as he prohibited what he did. Is that clear up to here? Now, these narrations that say the Messenger drank while standing do not specify at all that it was after the prohibition. There is no specification. But, scientific honesty also requires us to say that there is no specification that it was before the prohibition either. So, we do not say it was before the prohibition or after the prohibition; Allah knows best. The research now is historical: dating the incident or these incidents, did they occur before the incident of the Messenger’s prohibition of drinking while standing? Allah knows best. Since that is the case, what do we do? Here we encounter some rules that we passed by quickly while we were rushing in the car with you: "The prohibitive is preferred over the permissive," "The statement is preferred over the action," and so on. Now we come to the rule: "When two texts conflict, reconciliation between them is obligatory." The methods of reconciliation are very numerous in the science of jurisprudence, the principles of jurisprudence, very numerous. Some scholars of hadith, not jurisprudence, take this as a benefit for the passerby, because scholars of hadith accused us that these are pharmacists, these are pharmacists, whereas the jurists are the doctors and physicians. The hadith scholars are the ones who mentioned that it is possible to reconcile two conflicting texts in more than a hundred ways. So, if the jurist is unable to reconcile two conflicting texts by any of these many ways, then he resorts to preference (tarjih). It is said, "This is more authentic than this... than that authentic one, and we took the most authentic one." Now we have hadiths, all of them authentic: "He drank while standing" in Muslim, "The Messenger of Allah prohibited drinking while standing" in Muslim. What do we do? Reconciliation is required. Now, among the ways of reconciliation: ... Sometimes it comes with the meaning of prohibition, which is the default, and sometimes it comes with the meaning of disapproval (tanzihi), which is contrary to the default. So, in the way of reconciling his action (peace be upon him) and his statement, which is the prohibition, it is necessary for us to say, but what is its meaning? We will say, it is necessary for us to say initially, in order to apply the rules, it is necessary for us to say: So, the Messenger of Allah prohibited drinking while standing, meaning the prohibition is for disapproval (tanzihi) and not for prohibition (tahrim). Why? Because the Messenger (peace be upon him), may he be kept safe from doing anything forbidden. But here something stops us, which I referred to earlier, until we say the prohibition is for disapproval.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Here, for it to be for disapproval, we must have knowledge that the Messenger drank while standing after the prohibition, so that we consider his action as an explanation of his statement, i.e., disapproval of disapproval (karahah tanzihiyyah). But we said earlier that we do not know whether his drinking while standing was before the prohibition or after it. So, the textual statement remains superior to the textual action. And from here comes the rule: "When the statement and the action conflict, the statement is preferred over the action." This is a solution or a way to remove the conflict between his drinking while standing and his prohibition of drinking while standing. Let us assume now that his drinking while standing came after the prohibition. It came after the prohibition. Can we remain with the first reconciliation, which is that the prohibition is for disapproval, because he drank while standing after the prohibition? In the previous solution, we assumed it was before the prohibition. Why? Because we do not have knowledge that he drank after the prohibition.