In your commentary on the book *Risalah* by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) regarding fasting, you mentioned that touching the private parts is that Shaykh al-Islam (may Allah have mercy on him) says that

The questioner : In your commentary on the book *Risalah* by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) regarding fasting, you mentioned that touching the private parts is that Shaykh al-Islam (may Allah have mercy on him) says that the command in the hadith of Basrah bint Safwan is for recommendation. You said it is for obligation, and then you distinguished: if it is with desire, it is for obligation, and if it is not with desire, it is not? That is, he is answering a question: we cannot apply the usul principle that a command from the Lawgiver indicates obligation unless there is a factor that diverts it from obligation. So we say the hadith of Talq diverted the hadith of Basrah to recommendation. What is the evidence for the distinction?

The Shaykh : This cannot be said here, because the hadith of Talq contains a very strong indication that touching the organ without desire does not break the wudu. He said and especially in some narrations, the questioner asked that he would be in prayer, extending his hand under the garment to scratch himself, touching his organ. This confirms that this touching, about which the question was asked of Talq ibn Ali of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), is touching without desire. First, it is in prayer, and can one imagine a Muslim in prayer touching his organ with desire? A person might fiddle with himself outside of prayer, as those who commit the ugly habit we spoke about recently do. Then the answer came from the Messenger (peace be upon him), confirming that this touching is not accompanied by desire, when he said Then it was confirmed by some of the Companions, specifically Abdullah ibn Mas'ud. This and that compel us to understand that the hadith of Talq is speaking about touching without desire. So when we return to the hadith and especially in another narration , at that point, this hadith alone has an indication that touching with desire [is the case], and that hadith alone has an indication that touching without desire [is the case]. Therefore, in my opinion, the reconciliation that Ibn Taymiyyah adopted is not correct. Rather, we say this has its place and that has its place. This has its place if the touching of the organ is like touching another organ, which is the nose in the expression of Ibn Mas'ud. That is its place if the touching is unnatural, touching to arouse desire. In that case, it is necessary.