Is there a contradiction between the two hadiths, or does the first hadith imply that the thigh is not an awrah (part of the body that must be covered), because if it were an awrah, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) would not have exposed it?

The Shaykh : The question is about the hadith from 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 to enter, and he was granted permission while the Prophet was in that state. Then 'Umar asked for permission, and he was granted permission while the Prophet was in that state. Then 'Uthman asked for permission, and the Prophet covered himself with his garments. When they left, I said: O Messenger of Allah, Abu Bakr and 'Umar asked for permission, and I granted it to you while you were in that state, but when 'Uthman asked for permission, you covered yourself with your garments. He said: . It was narrated by Ahmad, 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, and his thighs were exposed, so he said: . It was narrated by Ahmad, al-Hakim, and al-Bukhari in his Tarikh, where he suspended it in his Sahih.
The question is: Is there a contradiction between the two hadiths, or does the first hadith imply that the thigh is not an awrah, because if it were an awrah, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) would not have exposed it?
The answer: If the second hadith did not exist in this chapter, the first hadith would indicate that the man's thigh, with respect to a man, is not an awrah. But since this second hadith has come, and there are many hadiths with the same meaning that explicitly state that the thigh is an awrah, then the ruling is not taken from the first hadith, which mentions the Prophet exposing 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 (peace be upon him) speech, like the hadith of Ma'mar, and the other is from his (peace be upon him) action, like the hadith of Aisha, then in this case, the speech is given precedence over the action. This is a principle of usul al-fiqh (the principles of jurisprudence); whoever understands it will find that a great deal of fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) opens up to him, and he will be able to reconcile many hadiths. The principle is that speech is given precedence over action in case of contradiction. The evidence for this is that the speech issued by the Messenger of Allah (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 contradicting evidence, and it may be a matter specific to him (peace be upon him). It is also known among the scholars that they say: if a possibility arises regarding a piece of evidence, the argument based on it falls away. So, any action performed by the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) may be a general law, or it may be a ruling specific to him (peace be upon him) , or it may be that the thing the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) did was due to an excuse. Since the action of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) allows for many reasons that would make that action not a general law, and his (peace be upon him) speech has come that does not contradict it, then the speech takes precedence over the action. There are many examples of this. For instance, it is known that the Messenger of Allah (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 that. His Companions saw him doing this, so they 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 and could no longer keep up with the continuous fasting. So the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) forbade them from continuing the fast. They said: O Messenger of Allah, you do continue the fast. He (peace be upon him) said: , I am not like you, meaning I have the capacity and divine ability; Allah the Exalted enables me to continue fasting and persist in it, and you are not like me, so you do not continue the fast.
So here we take the wisdom, the previous principle that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) may perform an action that is specific to him. Since he forbade ... from something that he himself did, we do not do it because his action was specific to him, and his speech is a general law for all Muslims. Similarly, one of the famous examples among all people is that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) died with nine wives under him, while it came in an authentic hadith that a man in the pre-Islamic age of ignorance (jahiliyyah) married nine. When he became a Muslim, he came to the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) and mentioned that to him, so he said to him: . He did not say to him "you are married to so many," because he knew that he (the Prophet) had specific privileges.
So, if the speech of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) differs from his action, the speech is given precedence over the action. So the hadith of Aisha here does not contradict the hadith of Ma'mar ; it is the one relied upon in this issue, not the hadith of Aisha, because it is an action of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). This may have been before the prohibition of exposing the awrah, or it may have been a specific privilege for the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him).
So, reliance is placed on his (peace be upon him) speech in this incident, not on his action.