and before he was commissioned as a prophet). He then went on to cite—through Muslim’s chain—the previously mentioned hadith of Jabir containing the words, “After that he was never seen naked.”

Abu Hanifah and al-Shafi‘i, however, held that the thigh is ‘awrah, and they relied on the report, “The thigh is ‘awrah.” They answered the hadith of ‘A’ishah by invoking Muslim’s version, which hesitates between the exposed part being the thigh or the shin. In al-Majmu‘ he states:

“There is no proof in it that the thigh is not ‘awrah, because we are uncertain about what was actually uncovered.”

I reply: We have already shown that every other account of this incident definitively states that the part exposed was the thigh; therefore Muslim’s report must be interpreted in that light.

Al-Nawawi further said:

“Our colleagues hold that, even if it were certain that the thigh had been uncovered, we would interpret it to mean that only part of his clothing was lifted, not the entire thigh itself. They also say that it was a single, specific occurrence and therefore carries no general applicability and provides no legal proof.”

I respond: The act itself is proof, because it proceeded from our Prophet ﷺ, who is our model and exemplar in everything—save what some other evidence has expressly excepted—by virtue of Allah’s statement, “You have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful example” (Al-Ahzab 21). Since no valid evidence of particularization exists, as will be shown, the general obligation to follow him ﷺ remains in force here for the whole ummah, and the desired ruling stands established.

As for the claim that he merely shifted part of his garment, it is of no benefit whatsoever, for it concedes that a portion of his thigh was exposed; and if the thigh were ‘awrah, how could such exposure ever be permissible?