How do we reconcile the two hadiths: (the thigh is 'awrah) and the fact that he (peace and blessings be upon him) was visited by Uthman while his thighs were uncovered?

The questioner : Excuse me, Shaykh, no offense, just a brief aside.

The Shaykh : Please, go ahead.

The questioner : We read in the hadiths in the past that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) uncovered his thigh. When Abu Bakr and 'Umar entered upon him, and then when Uthman entered, he put on his cloak. Does this not indicate that uncovering the thigh is permissible?

The Shaykh : First, this incident is not a basis for a system of life, may Allah reward you. This is an incident that stands on its own. We are talking about the general social life that the Muslim youth must live, always, meaning: when the Messenger (peace be upon him) was sitting with his companions, traveling with them, and praying with them, were his thighs uncovered? Of course, the answer is no. They were not uncovered and they did not pray like that, especially during play or when they needed to catch up on a missed prayer. This is part of the knowledge that must be revived. We take from the Messenger (peace be upon him) his general approach to life. As for what happened to him rarely, it may have had a reason or an occasion that required the Messenger to depart from his predominant habit, and this is our current example. The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), God forbid, lived among his companions, entered the mosque, and sat in any place, whether traveling or resident, with his thigh uncovered. Yes, this story certainly happened, but from a jurisprudential perspective, it does not indicate that it is permissible for a Muslim to live his general life with his thighs uncovered. It may or may not indicate that in a special circumstance, like the circumstance in which the Messenger was sitting to cool off, it is permissible. You know that he (peace be upon him) had his legs dangling in the well, and the atmosphere in Madinah was hot, so he was cooling off, lifting his garment, and uncovering part of his thigh. This does not represent the life of the Messenger (peace be upon him); rather, it represents the guidance of that specific incident. Nevertheless, there is a scientific aspect here: if the Messenger (peace be upon him) performed an action, while the Shari'ah of Allah for His Ummah is contrary to his action, and in the expression of the jurists, if his saying and his doing conflict, which takes precedence?
The scholars said: The saying takes precedence over the action, because the saying is general legislation, while the action may be due to an excuse, may be a specific circumstance, or may have been before the arrival of the Shari'ah. For example, we have a hadith that the Messenger preached to the people while wearing a gold ring. Do we now say that a gold ring is permissible because the Messenger wore it? No, he wore it at a time when it was permissible. It actually happened, and you know that the senior Companions used to drink intoxicants. There is a very strange story, not well known to people, which is in Sahih al-Bukhari: the Companions were gathered in a house and were intoxicated. When 'Ali arrived and his camel knelt in front of the house, his uncle Hamzah came out and slit the camel's belly. When 'Ali saw this state, he lost his mind, ran to the Messenger (peace be upon him), and recounted the story. The Messenger (peace be upon him) came to his uncle Hamzah and rebuked him for it. What was Hamzah's position? He said a word that, if he had said it after the prohibition of intoxicants, would have made him a disbeliever and taken him out of the religion. He said to him: "Are you not but slaves to our fathers?" Hamzah said to his cousin and his Prophet: "Are you not but slaves to our fathers?" Why? Because he was not aware; he was drunk. This was in a stage of the legislative history of Islam. Therefore, if a saying from the Messenger (peace be upon him) contradicts his action, we rely on the saying because it is Shari'ah. As for the action, it is left to him (peace be upon him), either by way of an excuse, or by way of a specific circumstance, or by way of it being before the saying, before the legislation, as in the story of intoxicants and the like.
This is of the same nature as the Messenger (peace be upon him) sitting on the edge of the well with his legs dangling. When Abu Bakr entered, and then 'Umar entered, he did not change his position until Uthman entered, at which point he hastened. Lady Aisha said to him: "So-and-so and so-and-so entered and you did not change your position, but when Uthman entered, you hastened and threw a garment over you?" He said: This may have been before he (peace be upon him) said: It may have been after that, but he had an excuse. It may have been that there was no excuse, and this was a specific circumstance for him. In any case, my research regarding some Islamic groups is how they live a life that has no connection to Islam. What is the reason? Because they did not study Islam. I do not mean that every individual Muslim must be a scholar, or must perform the duty of purification. No, this requires specialists. So where are the specialists, people, so that the group can be raised on this basis of purification?