Among the conditions of the prayer is his statement, in the discussion on covering the ʿawrah (the parts that must be concealed), after presenting the proofs of the two camps: “Anyone who examines the matter may choose whichever of the two opinions he prefers, although the safer course is for the worshipper to cover the area between his navel and his knees as far as possible….”

I say: There are several points here that must be clarified.

First: Adopting the safer course is not obligatory; it belongs to the realm of pious precaution, and not every legally responsible person seeks to practice such scrupulousness, as is well known.

Second: The author restricted this precaution to the prayer, which implies that outside the prayer it is not considered the safer course—a point that will be explained below.

Third: The choice to which he alluded must rest on the principles of uṣūl al-fiqh, so that it is not a matter of whim dictated by custom and desire.

It is evident to anyone who studies the proofs the author cited that the evidence of those who hold the thigh not to be ʿawrah is, on the one hand, based on actions and, on the other, permissive; whereas the evidence of those who maintain that it is ʿawrah is textual in nature and prohibitive.

Among the legal-theoretical maxims that assist in weighing the proofs and selecting without bias are two rules:

1. A prohibitive text takes precedence over a permissive one.
2. A verbal statement takes precedence over an action, because the action may have been specific to the Prophet or carry some other particularity. Moreover, in some of the narrated actions just mentioned—such as the ḥadith of Anas and the report from Abū Bakr—it does not appear that the conduct was deliberate. Add to this that they are individual, non-generalizable incidents, whereas the verbal evidences constitute universal legislation on which Muslims, early and later, have acted consistently, such that no