Discussion of the scholars' statements regarding touching a woman, touching the private parts, and the likelihood of ritual impurity

The questioner:
Do we hear that the head of a young child invalidates the ablution?

The Shaykh:
Yes, touching, whether by an adult or a child, invalidates the ablution. It invalidates the ablution whether by an adult or a child. For example, if a mother touches her child’s private parts directly without a barrier, her ablution is invalidated, even if the child is very young.

The questioner:
And the Shaykh said that he interpreted the combining of the statements regarding the ruling on touching the mosque, because the mosque is inside a general time, and not a general time.

The Shaykh:
The hadith does not contain a distinction, because it said, "Whoever touches his private parts, let him perform ablution," and it did not restrict it to sexual desire. But they reasoned that it is a likelihood, and a likelihood is treated as the reality, whether with sexual desire or without sexual desire. Yes. Also, it means that he is holding his private parts with a shower; this is not conceivable or is far-fetched. Imagine a person touching his private parts with sexual desire, desiring his private parts but not desiring himself; that is not correct.

The questioner:
Whoever did not have sexual desire, and his private parts became erect without sexual desire, then his ablution is invalidated.

The Shaykh:
No, there is no evidence for this. The erection of the private parts with sexual desire is not negated, because there is no evidence for it, and the default is the continuation of the ablution. Ablution became obligatory from touching by evidence. But if it were the case that his private parts became erect and something came out of him, and he felt something coming out of him, his ablution is invalidated, if he is certain, or by likelihood if he is certain of what came out. Yes.

The questioner:
If a man doubts whether something came out of him or not, outside the mosque, is it analogized to if it was in the mosque?

The Shaykh:
It is all the same, whether in the mosque or outside the mosque, or in prayer or outside prayer. Certainty is not removed by doubt. This is a great principle upon which the jurists built many rulings.

The questioner:
And he followed up.

The Shaykh:
It includes if he was in prayer or if he was sitting waiting for prayer; it includes that. In some hadiths, it does not turn away, it does not turn away until he hears or finds; this includes the one who is in prayer and outside prayer, and the one who is in the mosque and outside the mosque, as long as he is in a state of certainty of ablution and doubts the occurrence of the invalidator, he remains in his state of purity. Yes.

The questioner:
And in the case where it is said that mere emission is not accepted, because there is no explicit evidence for interpreting it as with sexual desire or without sexual desire.

The Shaykh:
This resembles his own self. Yes.

The questioner:
Why does it not enter the grave? Because what passes in the self does not enter.

The Shaykh:
Meaning, if you adopt this, you nullify the second evidence, which is His saying, the Exalted, "or you have touched women." If you adopt the hadith, despite its weakness, you nullify the application of the verse "or you have touched women." So they combined the evidences; they combine them by this. Yes. Or is the closer one?
The closer one means the statement of the one who says that the ablution is invalidated absolutely, with sexual desire and without sexual desire, is stronger than the statement of the one who says it is not invalidated absolutely. Because the one who says it is not invalidated absolutely took some of the evidence and took a weak evidence and left the noble verse. So the ranking of the statements is like this: first, the statement regarding sexual desire or the absence of sexual desire; then the statement that touching absolutely invalidates the ablution; then the statement that touching absolutely does not invalidate the ablution. This is the weakest of them in the poor one. Yes, and even if in his book some scholars, but all of them are less than his statement regarding the ablution for the evidence. Yes.

The questioner:
The surprise of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him).

The Shaykh:
This is the madhhab of Imam Ahmad. As for the Shaykh’s choice, I have not come across it, but this is the madhhab of Imam Ahmad, even in the summaries. Yes.

The questioner:
And other than the thing. And I say, may Allah have mercy on him, that the stronger position in the issue of the self is the statement of that or the choice of the Prophet Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him.

The Shaykh:
Or the choice of the madhhab of Imam Ahmad.

The questioner:
And he is from the people to the Shari'ah. Imam Ahmad.

The Shaykh:
The one who has a madhhab is not the one who has a preference and a choice. The one who has a madhhab, yes.

The questioner:
And he may have regretted with sexual desire, he accepts it because he is Khalid standing with his hand. But he pointed to Allah that there is a big difference between the deputy and the self with sexual desire, because the deputy, if he comes out of the house or the morning, he does not know about it, whether he was in sleep or after standing up, while the self with sexual desire is different from the deputy, because if he comes out from the outside, he would find that in his clothes. What is his statement in these issues?

The Shaykh:
This is not an analogy; this is a comparison. There is a difference between a comparison and an analogy. We only analogized the one who sat on the sleeper, and no one said this. This is only from the chapter of comparison; we say that the likelihood of a thing is treated as its place. And there are parallels to this, including the sleeper, including touching with sexual desire, including to the end of it. These are parallels, including touching the private parts.

The questioner:
Welcome.

The Shaykh:
There is a principle derived from the evidences: the likelihood of a thing is treated as the place of the thing.

The questioner:
What? Ha?

The Shaykh:
There is no doubt as a cause for the exit, because if the private parts are moved and played with, especially by a young man and a person of the hair, he moves this upon him.

The questioner:
Around you, O Shaykh, regarding the council, does it need the descent?

The Shaykh:
The one who is touched does not have his ablution invalidated. There is nothing upon the one who is touched; his ablution is not invalidated. Only the one who touches has his ablution invalidated. Yes.

The questioner:
And if it was clear that he had a sexual desire, is this confirmation, for example?

The Shaykh:
No, until something comes out of him, because he did not touch his private parts, so the hadith does not apply to him. But he did not touch his private parts; we think with the touching, he is with the touching of his private parts. Yes.

The questioner:
Yes.

The Shaykh:
No, it is treated as the reality if he did something he did not do, he did not sleep, he did not touch, and he was not forced; there is no cause until we translate what is not from the cause of the causes. The likelihood is treated as the reality with the action of a cause, with the action of a cause that created this likelihood. Yes. The cause is from other than that, and therefore we obligated the other with clarity.

The questioner:
And whoever attributed that the hadith exceeded the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), so if the narrations, would the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) have said them all, or that the mercy of the Prophet is authentic, or with a correct opinion.

The Shaykh:
This is according to the study of the chains of narration. So if you study the chains of narration, it becomes clear that they are equal, so it is necessary to do the preference or the abrogation as mentioned by the scholars. But if it becomes clear that the chains of narration are not equal, the strong one is preferred over what is below it. This is a rule in argumentation: the conflict of evidences, the preference, the abrogation, the specification, and the restriction. It requires scientific efforts that only those firmly established in knowledge can perform. As for the beginner and the person who has nothing of the principles and the rules, he is not suitable to prefer or to issue a fatwa without learning. Yes.

The questioner:
Of course, if it is a mosque, then there is no other.

The Shaykh:
From the generality of His saying, "Whoever touches his private parts, let him perform ablution," whether the toucher is the same person or another. Although, if he touches the private parts of another, this is questionable. But if he touches his own private parts, this is the place of touching. So the analogized thing is the external toucher upon the one who touched his own private parts. Calculate it by analogy, because all of it is true for him as touching the private parts. Even they said, if the private parts were of a very small child with the engineer or something similar, for the generality.