The Ruling on Touching and Its Effect on the Validity of Wudu

The questioner : The questioner asks here: Does touching the private part of a child or infant invalidate the wudu? With evidence.

The Shaykh : It does not invalidate the wudu, even if it is an adult.

The questioner : This issue, even regarding an adult, has some ambiguity.

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : There is some ambiguity regarding the adult. We were discussing this as we were coming, so perhaps we can clarify it a little?

The Shaykh : Some of you all remember that the issue of touching has two hadiths that appear to contradict each other. The first, which is more famous and more authentic, is: "Whoever touches his penis, let him perform wudu." The other is the hadith of Talq ibn Ali, or Ali ibn Talq—I am uncertain now—who asked the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) about a situation where he would be in prayer, extend his hand to scratch something on his body, and touch his private part. The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) answered: "Is it not just a piece of your flesh?"
The apparent meaning of the first hadith contradicts the apparent meaning of the second. The first indicates that wudu is invalidated absolutely by touching, whether with desire or without desire, whether with a barrier or without a barrier. The other hadith does not give this ruling, neither negatively nor positively, absolutely; rather, it is restricted by the condition implied in the question asked by the questioner and answered by the one asked. That is because the questioner is asking about touching his private part incidentally, while standing before his Lord, in a state where it is not conceivable that a person would touch his private part with desire. So the answer affirmed this state when he said, "Is it not just a piece of him?" Meaning, it is not conceivable that a person would touch any part of his body with desire accompanying that touch. So the summary of the second hadith is that if the touch is without desire, it is as Ibn Mas'ud said in what is authentic from him: "Whether you touch it or touch your nose," because touching the nose is not accompanied by desire. So touching that private part without desire is the same in that regard. The first hadith, which is the narration of Basrah, remains. It is necessary, in the way of reconciling the two hadiths, as is obligatory in the science of hadith principles and jurisprudence alike, to reconcile them by applying the absolute to the restricted. "Whoever touches his penis" is absolute, covering with desire and without desire. But the other hadith clarifies that if the touch is without desire, it does not invalidate the wudu, just as if he touched his nose. And thus we arrive at the following result and summary: If one touches his penis with desire, let him perform wudu. And if one takes a path other than this, he falls into contradiction or into opposing the principles on which they agreed. Perhaps you also know that the first hadith was taken in its absolute sense by Imam al-Shafi'i and his followers, who said that touching invalidates the wudu even without desire. And the other hadith was taken by the Hanafis and their followers, Abu Hanifa and his companions, who said that touching does not invalidate the wudu even with desire. Then each group tried to refute the argument of the other group, and each claimed something like the other's claim regarding another hadith. The Shafi'is claimed the abrogation of the second hadith and held to the first hadith. The Hanafis did the opposite, claiming the abrogation of the first hadith by the second. And there is no evidence for either of these claims, because claiming abrogation requires knowing the earlier and later date, and this is not possible except by conjecture, whereas resorting to claiming the abrogation of one of the two contradictory proofs is...
...the second step in reconciling two contradictory hadiths. This is because the matter, as al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani summarized in his book al-Nukhba, is: If two acceptable hadiths from the same category contradict each other, it is obligatory to reconcile them by one of the many ways of reconciliation. Al-Hafiz al-Iraqi explained this in his commentary on the introduction of Ibn al-Salah, bringing it to about a hundred ways, a hundred ways of reconciling two contradictory hadiths. Ibn Hajar points out that the first step that a student of knowledge should take in the way of reconciling two contradictory hadiths is to reconcile them by one of those many ways. If he is unable to do so, he descends to the second stage, which is considering the abrogating and the abrogated of the two. If that is not feasible, he resorts to the third stage, which is taking the stronger in chain and establishment. Meaning, if a person cannot apply the first two stages mentioned in these two hadiths, the obligatory thing then is to take the hadith of Basrah, because as I mentioned earlier, it is more famous and more authentic. He said: If that is not possible, meaning if they are equal in strength and authenticity, then one should suspend judgment, and one should not say, as the Hanafis say in some hadiths, "They contradicted each other, so they both fell."

The questioner : What takes precedence, the one who forbids or the one who permits? In this state, what takes precedence?

The Shaykh : This is one of the ways of reconciliation. Yes, yes. The important thing is the final stage: if it is not possible to mean that the stronger is preferred over the strong, and they are equal in strength, Ibn Hajar says: "Refer the knowledge to the scholars," and says "I do not know," and does not say, as the Hanafis say, "They contradicted each other, so they both fell." Using this scientific usuli principle, we see the obligation of reconciling these two hadiths first, which is easy as we mentioned earlier, by applying the absolute to the restricted. So we say: "Whoever touches his penis with desire, let him perform wudu." This is the meaning of the hadith of Basrah, which confirms the indication in some hadiths.
In the wording: "Whoever touches his penis or his private part without a barrier, let him perform wudu." So the negation of the barrier here in the invalidation is an indication that desire is usually without a barrier. And thus, the addition in some narrations of the hadith meets the reconciliation by which we reconciled the two previous hadiths. And thus, the problem of the question that is frequent is resolved: that a woman is holding her son and touches his private part; does her wudu become invalid? No, not even if it is an adult; it does not invalidate the wudu. Rather, it is the desire that moves the soul. Perhaps something may be released from it without one knowing or feeling it. At that time, wudu is obligatory. In anything else?