My question: “Drinking while standing” and “exposing the thigh” in light of the rule: “The conflict between the statement and the action”?

The Shaykh : One of the benefits of this rule and its application to some texts that appear to contradict each other is that it is established in the authentic Sunnah that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) drank while standing, and it is also established in the authentic Sunnah that he forbade drinking while standing. What does the jurist who seeks the truth and is not influenced by the atmospheres and customs in which he lives or among which he lives do now? Now, let us try a second experiment: we prioritize the statement over the action. We will naturally hear many objections, but these objections are based on a contradiction of the rule: . Some of the early and modern scholars say that this prohibition is for discouragement (tanzihi). Why do we say or interpret the prohibition in this sense, which is a tanzihi dislike? Because it is certain that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) drank while standing. I say: It would have been possible to say that this prohibition was for tanzihi dislike if we had a historical certainty that his action was after the prohibition, so that his action would be an explanation of his statement. And we know that it is also one of the rules of the Shari'ah that his action (peace and blessings be upon him) is an explanation of the Shari'ah, whether it is a statement or otherwise. This is stated in the Qur'an, as you know, . So his explanation (peace be upon him) is sometimes by his statement, sometimes by his action, and sometimes by his approval. If we had a correct history that he drank after the prohibition, and someone said that this prohibition is for tanzihi because the Messenger drank after the prohibition, that would be possible. But I say no, also, and you will hear the reason. We will apply the rule as we applied it in some of the previous examples. It is possible that his drinking (peace be upon him) was based on permissibility, as long as we do not have the date mentioned earlier. We can say that his drinking was based on permissibility and before the prohibition. The second answer or second possibility is that he drank while standing for an excuse. And one who has an excuse is not equated with one who does not have an excuse. This is a very self-evident matter. Finally, we say: It is possible that this was one of his specific characteristics (peace be upon him).
Similarly, this is how we answer the hadith of al-Bukhari and Muslim, which is in the “Two Sahihs,” from the hadith of Anas when the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) went to war at Khaybar, and he was on a horse of his, and his lower garment slipped off his thigh (peace be upon him). It has two wordings. No doubt that one of them, and this brings us back to our morning lesson where they say that there is nothing in the “Two Sahihs” whose authenticity is broken. Now, give an answer to this objection present in one hadith narrated by al-Bukhari with the wording: , and narrated by Muslim . So al-Bukhari’s wording is , meaning: intentionally. Here, a new ruling appears. While Muslim’s wording is ; meaning: he had no control over it, because he is pursuing and running on his horse, and naturally the garment falls with the wind and the thigh is exposed. If we want to prefer this second meaning, we say that Muslim’s narration is more authentic than al-Bukhari’s narration in this wording. While we read in the terminology of hadith science that what al-Bukhari narrated is more authentic than what Muslim narrated, and what Muslim narrated is more authentic than what the people of the Sunan narrated, and so on from the Musnads. This is a rule, but it is not consistent. Perhaps a hadith that was not narratedThe Shaykh : by Imam Ahmad in his “Musnad” is more authentic than many of the hadiths that al-Bukhari and Muslim both narrated together in the “Two Sahihs.” This rule is a rule that is not consistent, but rather we can say that it is a majority rule.
So now, if we assume that al-Bukhari’s narration is and not the preferred one , , assuming that this narration is more authentic based on the general rule that what al-Bukhari narrated is more authentic than what Muslim narrated, how do we reconcile this authentic hadith with his statement (peace be upon him): ?
We resort to the rule and we are at ease. The thigh is an awrah (part of the body that must be covered) by a general legislation for the ummah (the Muslim community). This action contradicted it, even though this action has that issue: was it intentional on his part or unintentional? But let us assume that it was intentional on his part. So this is an action. It may have been based on the original permissibility, or it may have been for an excuse where he was tight and pursuing, so the garment slipped and the garment slipped off his thigh. Or it may have been a specific characteristic. Similarly, it is said about the hadith of the well in which the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) lowered his legs, and a knocker knocked on the door, and it was Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, so the Prophet gave permission, saying: “Let him in.” He entered and sat to the right of the Messenger (peace be upon him) and lowered his legs in the well. And so Umar came from his left, and Uthman came, and the Messenger (peace be upon him) covered [his legs] according to the disputed narration, also. One narration says: “The garment had slipped off his knees.” In a narration: “off his thigh.” And in a narration in “Sahih Muslim”: the doubt is from the narrator: between his thigh and his legs. But we followed the narrations and found the correct narration outside.

The questioner : of his leg?

The Shaykh : Yes?

The questioner : of his leg?

The Shaykh : No, I want to say the opposite. “Off his thigh” is outside the authentic [collection]. “Off his thigh” is the one that prefers one of the two statements between which the narrator was in doubt: off his thigh or off his leg. The point is, we assume, also, that the correct narration, as we said, was that he was exposing his thigh, which he mentioned in the hadith of the statement: . And when Uthman entered, he covered his thigh. And the virtuous woman, the daughter of the virtuous man (may Allah be pleased with them both), and this is from her jurisprudence and her eagerness for jurisprudence, and she was a woman who wore the hijab, was observing from the inside, from the outside, what the Messenger was doing. So when the group left, she said: “O Messenger of Allah, Abu Bakr entered and you did not change your position, Umar entered likewise, but when Uthman entered, you hastened to cover your thigh?” He said (peace be upon him): . So he exposed his thigh in front of Abu Bakr, and his thigh in front of Umar. So how is the thigh an awrah in the statement?
We say this is an action and it is possible that it is one of three things: As for his statement, it is the general Shari'ah. And we do not need, in this case, to resort to some of the statements of the Maliki scholars who divided the awrah to reconcile between the hadith of the statement and the hadith of the action into a major awrah and a minor awrah. The major awrah is the two private parts, and the minor awrah is the two thighs. We do not need, when we apply this jurisprudential rule, to be relieved of such an adjustment that has no justification after we have known that the scientific rule commands us to return to his statement (peace be upon him) and leave his action for one of these three possibilities. This is, in reality, something that helps the student of knowledge to know how to reconcile between contradictory hadiths. And the rules in that are many and very many, praise be to Allah. But what suits our topic regarding his prohibition (peace be upon him) of fasting on the day of Saturday is based on this jurisprudential rule: “When the statement and the action conflict, the statement is prioritized over the action.” Please.

The questioner : They are two stories. The story of the entry of Abu Bakr and Umar, then followed by Uthman. This was in the house of Aisha, meaning he was in this state exposing his thigh, and Aisha asked this question. As for the story of the hadith of Abu Musa and the lowering of the Messenger and his companions of their legs in the well; there is in it only that he exposed his leg, and Abu Bakr came and exposed his leg, and Umar came and sat to his left, and exposed his leg, then he said: “Give good news to Uthman of a trial that will befall him.” And he came and did not find a place on the well, so Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib interpreted it as their graves. So this has only the exposure of the legs, and not the exposure of the thigh?

The Shaykh : If that is so; then this reconciliation is good. May Allah reward you with good.