What is the authenticity of the hadith: "Whoever touches the private part of another, let him perform wudu," and an explanation of the ruling on one who touches his own private part: does it invalidate the wudu or not, with discussion

The questioner : May Allah reward you with good. There is a small question in it, which is narrated by al-Tabarani.

The Shaykh : The hadith in this wording is anomalous (shadhdh), and the hadith whose chains are multiple is only . Then, if the correct understanding of the authentic, preserved hadith is . The intended meaning is when one touches the private part of another in order to arouse desire in himself; in that case, the operative cause understood from the authentic hadith is realized, in addition to the hadith of Talq ibn 'Ali, in which the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was asked about a man who, while praying, extended his hand and scratched his body and touched his private part; does he have to perform wudu? He said: . By combining the first hadith with this other hadith, we understand from their combination that the touch that invalidates wudu is when it is with desire, because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) in the second hadith rebukedThe questioner : that wudu is obligatory from touching the private part if the touch of it is like touching a piece of his body. One of the Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), namely 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him), clarified this meaning, about whom the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: . This Ibn Mas'ud, the son of Umm 'Abd, was asked the same question that came in the hadith of Talq ibn 'Ali: does a man who touches his private part have to perform wudu? He said: . It is as if he is indicating that one only touches his nose or any part of his body where it is not conceivable that desire would exist in such a touch. Likewise, if the touch is of the private part of another, which is usually the place of desire, and if the touch is ordinary and not accompanied by desire, there is no difference between touching it or touching any part of your body, such as the nose. If this is the meaning of the authentic hadith , then a fortiori, a fortiori, a fortiori, that the intended meaning of the other hadith, which we said is anomalous, is .
In some of the established hadiths, "the private part" (al-farj) is used instead of "the penis" (al-dhakar), and al-farj here is broader than al-dhakar because it includes the female. If we can imagine that a man played with his wife's breast, just as we can imagine that a wife played with her husband's penis, if the intended meaning of both is to arouse and stir up desire, that is what invalidates [the wudu], and not merely as some women imagine when they ask, "I washed my infant son and touched his private part." Glory be to Allah, what is there in this? There is nothing in this, nor in anything higher and more understandable than this, as long as it is not accompanied by the intention to arouse desire. This is sufficient.
Perhaps that is enough.

The questioner : May Allah reward you with good.

The Shaykh : May Allah preserve you. Yes.

The questioner : ..

The Shaykh : Established, may Allah bless you. A man is praying, and when they were praying in shirts or in waistcloths, there were no trousers, so he extended his hand to scratch his body, and unintentionally touched his private part.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : So he asked the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), and he said: , meaning was there desire? The answer is: "A part of you." So the athar of Ibn Mas'ud: . This is the evidence, because if we stop at the first hadith , there is no doubt that the general term "touch" means all touch, whether with desire or without. But what do we do with the other hadith ? Does this statement align with the scientific principles of usul al-fiqh? Is the default to combine the two conflicting hadiths, or to abrogate one with the other? What is the default? The default is combination.

The questioner : If combination is possible.

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : If combination is possible.

The Shaykh : And it was possible, especially with the understanding of one of the righteous Salaf, namely 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ud, and I saw it wise to mention the saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) in his praise: . And there are some other hadiths that command holding fast to the guidance of the son of Umm 'Abd.

The questioner : The response to the statement: "It is about dreams."

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : Those who said that the hadith raised that hadith from obligation to recommendation.

The Shaykh : This is the view of the doctor now; we refute the statement he quoted from some of them with this statement that some of them quoted.

Those present: Hehehehe

The Shaykh : I mean, why do they insist on the position of abrogation, when combination is the default?

The questioner : ... The hadith , the hadith of Talq ibn 'Ubayd, then ... Talq ibn 'Ubayd narrates the hadith . More Companions, more than ten Companions, narrate the hadith . Then he narrates that ... with the hadith of Busr.

The Shaykh : Where are you, Doctor, if you noticed in your speech three times "then, then, then"? Every "then" requires separate research. Are you repeating your first "then" so that we can stop at it and look at whether what you quoted is authentic or not? What is the first "then"?

The questioner : I forgot.

Those present : Hehehehe.

The Shaykh : So, if you forgot, then I am the first.

The questioner : Excuse me, I mean, truly, I want the truth.

The Shaykh : I do not doubt what you want.

The questioner : May Allah reward you with good.

The Shaykh : Because I do not doubt what you want; I want you to convince us by raising objections to what you heard.

The questioner : First, the hadith of Talq ibn 'Ali.

The Shaykh : This is it, yes.

The questioner : It was said that it is abrogated.

The Shaykh : It was said.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : It was said from the formulations of abrogation.

The questioner : May Allah reward you with good ... .

The Shaykh : I am afraid of the second "then," which comes before its time.

The questioner: May Allah bless you.

The Shaykh : As long as you say "it was said."

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : What is the value of this "it was said"?

The questioner : I mean, it is not established as authentic.

The Shaykh : Get rid of it and discard the first "then."

The questioner : And what indicates abrogation is the following.

The Shaykh : Fine, go ahead.

The questioner : First, that most of the Companions narrate a hadith that agrees with the hadith of Busr ibn Safwan, about seven or eight of the Companions.

The Shaykh : Where in the science of usul al-fiqh is it said that a hadith that is mass-transmitted (mutawatir)—I do not say seven narrated it from the Companions, that it is mass-transmitted from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him)—that it is not permissible to reconcile it with a good hadith? I do not say a correct hadith either, I do not say a good hadith; there is nothing of this in the principles at all. Rather, what exists is the exact opposite, as I remember well in Sharh al-Nukhba by al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani, when he speaks about reconciling hadiths, he says: "If the hadith is from the category of acceptable, and it is opposed by a hadith like it, in that case, it is obligatory to reconcile the two hadiths by one of the ways of reconciliation." This is what he says briefly, because his treatise is concise, as is known. I have not finished my speech; a note on what has passed, not what we have finished. I said last that al-Hafiz al-'Asqalani says this briefly: reconcile the hadith if it is from the category of acceptable. The category of acceptable includes good and above, up to mass-transmitted. Reconcile by one of the ways of reconciliation. What are the ways of reconciliation? More than a hundred ways. If the jurist scholar is unable to reconcile two conflicting hadiths, and each is from the category of acceptable, in that case, he proceeds to seek abrogation, knowing the abrogating from the abrogated. If he is unable to do that, he proceeds to preference (tarjih). Here, this is useful: this hadith is good and that hadith is correct, or this hadith is correct and that hadith is widely transmitted (mustafid) or famous, or this hadith is correct, widely transmitted or famous, and that hadith is mass-transmitted. Here, preference is resorted to, and it is said: the mass-transmitted hadith is stronger than the correct, widely transmitted or famous hadith, or the widely transmitted, famous hadith is stronger and more authentic than the correct, singular hadith, or the correct, singular hadith is stronger than the good hadith in itself, and the good hadith in itself is stronger than the good hadith for another reason. When is this resorted to? When the ways of reconciliation are blocked before us, and they are more than a hundred ways, and then the way of knowing the abrogating from the abrogated is blocked before us, in that case, one of the hadiths is rejected in favor of the other by the criterion of the more authentic. So we now say: the hadith is a mass-transmitted hadith, not just the narrator following you, and it is ten or twenty, and so on.

The questioner : Hypothetically.

The Shaykh : Hypothetically, and it is so.
Now, it is contradicted by the hadith of Talq ibn Ali. What do we do? Do we reject it on the grounds of abrogation, or do we try to reconcile them? We try to reconcile them. So, since we are currently in the process of reconciliation, why do we not reconcile the two hadiths before saying that this one is the abrogating and that one is the abrogated? It is known that each of the two contradicting schools claims the opposite of what the other claims. The Hanafis claim that the hadith of Basrah is the one abrogated by the hadith of Talq, and that desire is less than that. And as it is said, "Everyone claims a connection to the night, but the night does not confirm it for them." The truth is that there is no way to know which is earlier and which is later except through mere claims. Then, is it a condition, merely for knowing which is earlier and which is later—if we could find a way to do so—that we do not return to reconciliation even with the knowledge of which is earlier and which is later? The principle is reconciliation. If we know which is earlier and which is later, our knowledge of that does not mean we claim that the later one abrogates the earlier one, as long as it is possible to reconcile them between the two. Now, your question regarding this topic.

The questioner : I have understood.

The Shaykh : You have done well and excelled. May Allah preserve you.
Ali: There is a point we want to mention.

The Shaykh : Please go ahead.
Ali: Our Shaykh, mere delay or precedence in Islam is not evidence of abrogation, as evidenced by the fact that the Companions narrated mursal reports from one another.

The Shaykh : Authentic
Ali: So this is not a proof; their claims are self-serving.

The Shaykh : That is, if it were established.
Ali: Yes, if it were established.

The Shaykh : Well done.