for one night ... [the rest of the hadith]. In a version recorded by Muslim, it says: “a day.” Al-Hafiz judged this version anomalous, even though it was Shu‘bah who differed from the others in this instance. See al-Fath (4/274) and Sahih Abi Dawud (2137).

Further supporting its anomalous nature is the report Muslim recorded in this chapter through Abu al-Zubayr, who heard Jabir ibn ‘Abd Allah say: Abu Humayd al-Sa‘idi told me:

“I came to the Prophet with a cup of milk from al-Naqi‘ that was uncovered, and he said: ‘Why did you not cover it, even if only by placing a stick across it?’”

Abu Humayd said: “The command concerning waterskins was only that they be tied up at night, and that doors be closed at night.”

I say: Abu Humayd’s statement is explicit in restricting this to the night. However, al-Nawawi rebutted it in his Commentary on Sahih Muslim, saying:

“What Abu Humayd said, restricting both of them to the night, is not indicated by the wording. The preferred view of the majority of the scholars of legal theory—and it is the position of al-Shafi‘i and others—is that a Companion’s explanation, when it conflicts with the apparent meaning of the wording, is not proof, and other independent legal scholars are not required to concur with his explanation. But if there is nothing in the apparent wording that contradicts it—such as when it is unelaborated—then his interpretation is to be followed, and the report must be understood accordingly. For when it is unelaborated, he cannot lawfully understand it in a particular way except on the basis of a textual directive. Likewise, according to al-Shafi‘i and the majority, the general import of a text may not be restricted on the basis of the narrator’s legal opinion. The command to cover a vessel is general, so its restriction on the basis of the narrator’s legal opinion is not accepted; rather, the general import is maintained.”

I say: This is not a case of restricting a general text on the basis of the narrator’s legal opinion; rather, it is a case of restriction by textual evidence. For Abu Humayd’s words, “It was commanded,” being in the passive form, have the status of a report attributed to the Prophet, as is established in the science of hadith terminology, as in al-Nawawi’s own al-Irshad (1/161–163–