Why do we not say that touching a woman does not invalidate the ablution?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Yes, Abdullah?
The questioner : Why did we not make it an example, meaning, if he touches his private part with desire and nothing comes out, why do we not say that it does not invalidate the ablution, just as we said, for example, regarding touching a woman, meaning?
The Shaykh : This is good, meaning he says: Why do we not say that the ablution is not invalidated by desire, just as if he touched a woman?
There is no evidence regarding the obligation of ablution for touching a woman, meaning there is no command for ablution from touching a woman, but for touching the private part, is there a command for ablution or not?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Well, this is it, this is the difference, otherwise your analogy is undoubtedly correct. We say: If the operative cause is touching for desire, then let touching a woman for desire invalidate the ablution. But we say: There is no command for ablution regarding touching a woman.
The questioner : Why did we not make it an example, meaning, if he touches his private part with desire and nothing comes out, why do we not say that it does not invalidate the ablution, just as we said, for example, regarding touching a woman, meaning?
The Shaykh : This is good, meaning he says: Why do we not say that the ablution is not invalidated by desire, just as if he touched a woman?
There is no evidence regarding the obligation of ablution for touching a woman, meaning there is no command for ablution from touching a woman, but for touching the private part, is there a command for ablution or not?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Well, this is it, this is the difference, otherwise your analogy is undoubtedly correct. We say: If the operative cause is touching for desire, then let touching a woman for desire invalidate the ablution. But we say: There is no command for ablution regarding touching a woman.