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

The questioner: Allow me a question: In your commentary on the book *Risalah* of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) regarding fasting, you mentioned that touching the private part is...The Shaykh : Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) says: The command in the hadith of Basrah bint Safwan is for recommendation. You said: It is for obligation. And after that, you detailed that if it is with desire, it is for obligation, and if it is not with desire, it is not? That is to say: A question arises: Can we not apply the principle of jurisprudence: "The command from the Lawgiver indicates obligation, unless there is a factor that diverts it from obligation"? So we say: Did the hadith of Talq divert the hadith of Basrah to recommendation? And what is the evidence for the distinction?

The Shaykh: This is not said here; because the hadith of Talq contains a very strong indication that touching the organ without desire does not break the ablution; because he said: , and especially - and in some narrations - that...The questioner : He asked that he would be in prayer, so he would extend his hand under the garment and scratch himself, touching his organ. This confirms that this touching, about which the question was asked by Talq ibn Ali of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), is a touching that does not involve desire, because first, it is in prayer, and can one imagine a Muslim in prayer touching his organ with desire? A person might play with himself outside of prayer, as do those who commit the ugly habit we spoke about recently, and then the answer came from the Messenger (peace be upon him) confirming that this touching is not accompanied by desire, when he said: , and this was confirmed by some of the Companions, specifically Abdullah ibn Mas'ud... All of this compels us to understand that the hadith of Talq is speaking about touching that does not involve desire. So when we return to the hadith: - and especially in another narration - : , at that time, this hadith alone indicates that the touching is with desire, and that hadith alone indicates that the touching is without desire. Therefore, in my opinion, the reconciliation that Ibn Taymiyyah adopted is not correct, but rather we say: This has its scope, and that has its scope. The scope of this is when the touching of the organ is like the touching of another organ, which is the nose in the expression of Ibn Mas'ud. The scope of that is when the touching is an unnatural touching, a touching to arouse desire; in that case, ablution is obligatory.