Addendum to the benefits of the hadith (Whoever touches his private part, let him perform wudu).

The Shaykh : If we say the command is for obligation, there is a contradiction between it and the hadith of Talq ibn Ali. If we say the command is for recommendation, there is no contradiction between them. So, do we say in reconciling them: the command in the hadith of Busrah is for recommendation, and the negation of obligation in the hadith of Talq does not contradict the establishment of recommendation? Some scholars have held this view, stating that if one touches his private part, it is recommended that he perform wudu, whether for desire or not, and it is not obligatory, whether for desire or not.
It was also said: If we say the command is for obligation, the reconciliation is to interpret the hadith of Busrah as applying to one who touched it for desire, and the hadith of Talq as applying to one who touched it for other than desire. The reasoning in the hadith indicates this reconciliation. What is the reasoning, my brother?
No, the one on your right.
The student: The hadith of Talq is that whoever touches it for desire.

The Shaykh : No, no, the reasoning in the hadith? It seems your mind is not present. Answer correctly: is it correct or not? Yes?
The student: Correct.

The Shaykh : Correct, no, it is not present, yes?
The student: Because of His saying: .

The Shaykh : Because of His saying: , so if he touched it for desire, he has touched it not as a limb of his body, so he must perform wudu. And if it was for other than desire, it is not obligatory.
But if we say it is not obligatory, can we say it is recommended?
Answer: Yes, we say it is recommended.
If someone asks: How do you say it is recommended when, if someone asked you about a person who touched his ear, would it be recommended for him to perform wudu? We would say: No. So why?
We say: As a precaution, because this, I mean touching the private part, has a command for wudu in it, unlike touching the ear. And on this basis, the summary of the statement is:
If he touched it for desire, he must perform wudu. If he touched it for other than desire, he does not have to perform wudu, but it is recommended as a precaution. And in this case, we have reconciled the two hadiths and do not need to prefer one over the other, because Ibn al-Madini (may Allah have mercy on him) considers it more authentic than the hadith of Busrah, and al-Bukhari says: "The hadith of Busrah is the most authentic thing in this chapter". It is not hidden that al-Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) looked at the hadith of Talq; it was not hidden from him, but he considers this the most authentic thing in this chapter.
And we say: There is no need to prefer one over the other as long as reconciliation is possible.
Now, what remains for us is touching the two private parts. Does it invalidate the wudu?
Answer: No, even if it is for desire, it does not invalidate the wudu.
Also, if one touches the private part of another person, does his wudu become invalid?
We say: The apparent meaning of the hadith is no, and its apparent meaning is even if it is for desire, just as if a woman touches her husband's private part for desire. But here, wudu should be performed.
Issue: If a woman performs wudu for her small child, meaning I intend by wudu to purify him from impurity and she touches his private part, does her wudu become invalid?
It does not become invalid, because she certainly did not touch it for desire, and she is touching her son's private part, so it does not fall under this hadith.
Also, an issue: If he touches the anus, does his wudu become invalid?
His wudu does not become invalid, but in a hadith, in some wordings of the hadith: , and on this wording we say: It is recommended to perform wudu from that, but it is not obligatory.