The issue of exposing the thigh: Is there a contradiction between the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) exposing his thigh and his saying: “Cover your thighs; for the thighs are an awrah (part of the body that must be covered)”?

The Shaykh : A question was asked of Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) was sitting with his thigh exposed. Abu Bakr asked for permission, and he gave it to him while he was in that state. Then 'Umar asked for permission, and he gave it to him while he was in that state. Then Uthman asked for permission, and he drew his garments over himself. When they left, I said: “O Messenger of Allah, Abu Bakr and 'Umar asked for permission, and you gave it to them while you were in your state, but when Uthman asked for permission, you drew your garments over yourself!” He said: . Ahmad narrated it, and al-Bukhari mentioned it as a suspended narration. From Muhammad ibn Jahsh, he said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) passed by Ma'mar with his thighs exposed, and he said: . Ahmad, al-Hakim, and al-Bukhari in his "History" narrated it, and he suspended it in his "Sahih."
Is there a contradiction between the two hadiths? Or is it understood from the first hadith that the thigh is not an awrah (part of the body that must be covered); because if it were an awrah, the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) would not have exposed it?
Answer: If the second hadith were not in this chapter, the first hadith would indicate that a man’s thigh is not an awrah (part of the body that must be covered) with respect to a man. But since this second hadith has come, and there are many hadiths to the same effect that explicitly state that the thigh is an awrah (part of the body that must be covered), the ruling is not taken from the first hadith, which mentions that the Messenger exposed his thigh in the presence of Abu Bakr and 'Umar. Rather, the ruling is taken from the second hadith. The reason is that there is a jurisprudential principle which states: If two hadiths contradict each other, and one is from his saying (peace be upon him), like the hadith of Ma'mar, and the other is from his action (peace and blessings be upon him), like the hadith of Aisha; in this case, the saying is given precedence over the action. This is a principle of usul al-fiqh (the principles of jurisprudence); whoever understands it will have a great deal of fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) opened to him, and he will be able to reconcile many hadiths. It is: “The saying is given precedence over the action in case of contradiction.”
The point in this is that the saying issued by the Messenger (peace be upon him) directed to the ummah (the Muslim community) is a general law. As for the action he performs, it may be a general law when there is no contradiction to it, and it may be a matter specific to him (peace and blessings be upon him). It is also known among the scholars that they say: “When a possibility arises regarding evidence, the argument based on it falls away.” So any action the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) performed may be a general law, and it may be a ruling specific to him (peace and blessings be upon him) = -- And peace be upon you, and the mercy of Allah and His blessings -- =, and it may be that the thing the Messenger (peace be upon him) did was due to an excuse. Since the action of the Messenger (peace be upon him) allows for many reasons that make this action not a general law, and since his saying (peace be upon him) has come that contradicts it, in that case the saying is given precedence over the action. There are many examples of this; for instance, it is known that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) used to continue fasting (wasal), continuing the fast of the day with the night, and the night with the day, and the day with the night, like this. His Companions saw him doing so and continued fasting with him; meaning there was no breaking of the fast in the evening, but rather twenty-four hours, twenty-eight hours, and so on, the number increasing. The Companions continued with him until they became weak; they could no longer keep up with the continuous fasting. So the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade them from continuing the fast. They said: “O Messenger of Allah, you continue fasting!” He said (peace and blessings be upon him): , I am not like you; meaning I have energy and I have a divine ability, Allah (Mighty and Majestic) enables me by it to continue fasting and persist in it, and you are not like me, so you do not continue fasting.
So here we take the wisdom of the previous rule that the Messenger (peace be upon him) may perform an action that is specific to him. Since he forbade ... from something while he did it, we do not do it because his action was specific to him, and his saying is a general law for all Muslims. Likewise, for example, one of the famous examples among all people is that the Messenger (peace be upon him) died with nine women under him, while it came in an authentic hadith that a man in the pre-Islamic age of ignorance (jahiliyyah) had married nine. When he became a Muslim, he came to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and mentioned that to him. He said to him: . He did not say to him, “You are married to so many,” because he knew that he had specific circumstances.
So if the saying of the Messenger (peace be upon him) differs from his action, the saying is given precedence over the action. So the hadith of Aisha here does not contradict the hadith of Ma'mar: is the one relied upon in this issue, not the hadith of Aisha; because it is an action of the Messenger (peace be upon him). This may have been before the prohibition of exposing, and it may have been a specific circumstance for the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him).
So the reliance is on his saying (peace be upon him) in this incident, not on his action.