Discussion of the issues of drinking while standing and exposing the thigh in light of the rule of reconciling a statement with an action.

The Shaykh : One benefit of this rule and its application to some texts that appear contradictory 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 between which he lives do now? Now, let us try a second experiment: we prioritize the statement over the action, and 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 the sake of disapproval (tanzihi). Why do we say or interpret the prohibition in this sense, which is a disapproval of disapproval (kara'hat tanzihiyyah)? 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 is for the sake of disapproval of disapproval, 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 legislation, 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 disapproval because the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) drank after the prohibition, that would be possible. But I say no, 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 history mentioned above. So 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 to be compared with one who does not have an excuse. This is a very self-evident matter. Finally, we say it is possible that this was a specific privilege for him (peace be upon him). For this, there is also a response to 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 and his family) raided Khaybar, and he was on a horse of his, the garment slipped from his thigh (peace be upon him). And it has two wordings. Undoubtedly, one of them—and this brings us back to our morning lesson—those who say that there is nothing in the two Sahihs whose authenticity is certain. 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. And here a new ruling appears, while Muslim's wording is , meaning he had no control over it because he was chasing and galloping on his horse. And naturally, the garment falls with the wind and the thigh is exposed. If we want to return and say that Muslim's narration is more authentic than al-Bukhari's 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 narrators of the Sunan narrated, and so on to the end of the musnads. This is a rule, but it is not consistent. Perhaps a hadith that was not narratedThe Shaykh : If it was narrated by Imam Ahmad in his Musnad, it is more authentic than many of the hadiths that al-Bukhari and Muslim both narrated in the two Sahihs. This rule is a rule that is not consistent, but we can say that it is a rule of the majority. So now, if we assume that al-Bukhari's narration is the garment, and not the stronger one , the garment slipped. We assume 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 community, and this action contradicted it, even though this action has that issue: do you think it was intentional from him or unintentional? But let us assume it was intentional from him. If so, this action may have been based on the original permissibility, or it may have been for an excuse where he was tight and chasing, so the garment was exposed and the garment slipped from his thigh. Or it may have been a specific privilege. 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 at the door, who was Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, asked for permission. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) said, "Let him in." He entered and sat to the right of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him and his family), and lowered his legs in the well. And so 'Umar came from his left, and 'Uthman came, and the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) covered [his legs] according to the different narrations. There is also a narration that says the garment was exposed from his knees, in a narration from his thighs, 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 authentic narration outside

The questioner : of his leg?

The Shaykh : No, I want to say the opposite. From his thigh, outside the authentic [narrations], so it is the one that makes one of the two statements that the narrator doubted between—his thigh or his leg—more likely. The point is, we also assume that the authentic 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 righteous daughter of al-Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with them both)—and this is from her jurisprudence and her eagerness for jurisprudence, and she was a woman who was veiled—was watching 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 hurried to cover your thigh?" He (peace be upon him) said . 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 a general legislation. 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 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 free from such an adjustment that has no justification after we have known that the scientific rule orders 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 and the rules to know how to reconcile contradictory hadiths, and there are many and very many rules in that, and praise be to Allah. But what is appropriate to our topic concerning his prohibition (peace be upon him) of fasting on the day of Saturday is based on this jurisprudential rule: if the statement and the action contradict, the statement is prioritized over the action. Please.

The questioner : That they are two stories: the story of the entry of Abu Bakr and 'Umar, then 'Uthman followed them. This was in the house of 'A'ishah, meaning in this case he was exposing his thigh, and 'A'ishah asked this question. As for the story of the hadith of Abu Musa and the lowering of the legs of the Messenger and his companions 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, and then he said, "Give good news to 'Uthman of a calamity 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.