4 – Touching the
private parts (TN: for whom we are allowed to touch the private parts of – i.e.
oneself, spouse, one’s own children, washing the deceased through a barrier etc.)
nullifies the Wudhoo. Uthaymeen explains that there is a difference of opinion
on this issue:
-Some of the scholars stated that it must be skin for skin in order for
the Wudhoo to be invalidated. This is because (مس) or
touching cannot be affirmed through a barrier.
-Others stated it must be the palm that touches the private part. So if
one touches his private part with his thigh or his elbow, then the Wudhoo is
not invalidated. They use the Hadeeth, “If one touches his private parts
without there being a barrier than the Wudhoo has become obligatory” [reported
by Ahmad (2/333), Ibn Hibban (1118), ad-Daaraqutnee (1-147) and al-Bayhaqee
(2-131) from Aboo Hurayrah]
-Others said it breaks Wudhoo in all cases (the Hanbalees). Their
evidences are as follows:
- The Hadeeth of Busrah bint Safwaan, “Whoever touches his private parts
then they must make Wudhoo.” [Aboo Dawood (181), at-Tirmidhee (82), an-Nasaa’ee
(163) and Ibn Maajah (489)]
- The Hadeeth of Aboo Hurayrah, “If one of you touches his private parts
with his hands, without a barrier, then they must perform Wudhoo” [Ibn Hibban
(246)]
- By touching the private parts one may stir desire or extract something
impure -thus carrying the same reasoning for sleep being a nullifier of Wudhoo.
-Others said that touching the private part doesn’t nullify the Wudhoo.
Their evidences are as follows:
- The Hadeeth of Talq bin ‘Alee where the Prophet was asked about
touching the private parts to which he replied, “It is merely a part of your
body.” [Reported by Aboo Dawood (182), an-Nasaa’ee (165), at-Tirmidhee (85) and
Ibn Maajah (483)]
- The origin of purification is that it remains except with proof that
it has been nullified.
- There is a third opinion which states that Wudhoo is nullified if one
touches his private parts if the touching is done with desire (the majority).
If there is no desire, then the Wudhoo has not been nullified. This view
reconciles all the evidences presented above, and this is what must be done so
as to not neglect some Hadeeth whilst acting upon others. Additional proofs:
-The saying of the Prophet, “It is merely a part of your body” shows
that touching any part of your body doesn’t nullify the Wudhoo, except if there
is desire.
- As for the argument that one
may not know what exits if he touches his private part, then if we attach the
ruling of touching to desires then this is more appropriate. Thus we are saying
if you touch your private parts then the Wudhoo is not broken, but if it is
coupled with desires then there is a chance that something has exited.
-Others from the scholars have stated that touching the private parts
never invalidates the Wudhoo, even if desires are present, rather the Ahadeeth
express a recommendation to repeat Wudhoo and not a nullifier of it. There
evidences are as follows:
-You Hanbalees claim that touching women without desires doesn’t nullify
the Wudhoo but here you are saying that touching your private parts with
desires does nullify your Wudhoo. This seems to be a contradiction.
-The Hadeeth of Busrah is an obligation and the Hadeeth of Talq negates
Wudhoo, so combining them together shows that the command has been lessened to
mean recommended (Mustahab).
-The correct opinion is the opinion of the
Hanafees and Ibn Taymiyyah, is that touching the private parts never
invalidates the Wudhoo even if one touches it with desire. Rather, it is
Mustahab to do Wudhoo again in all cases. His evidences:
- The Ahaadeeth can
be combined to this interpretation.
- The evidences which say we should perform Wudhoo again mean that it is
better in order to be on the safe, not proving obligation or nullification of
Wudhoo.
- The Hadeeth of Talq came before the Hadeeth of Busrah, and was acted
on for a large period of time without there being any retraction.
- Also, the Hadeeth of Talq shows the reason for the ruling, so as long
as the reason is described then the ruling must be connected to it.
- Some scholars stated that if two narrations or opinions of the
Companions contradict each other, then sometimes we take the opinion of the one
who came later as his opinion or narration is closer to when Islaam was
completed. However this rule can’t always be applied in this way, because what
this implies is that the first ruling has been abrogated by the latter, but as
long as reconciliation is possible then this is a must.
Uthaymeen summarises this
ruling:
-If a person touches his private parts then it is Mustahab for him to
preform Wudhoo and it is not a nullifier of the Wudhoo. This is irrespective of
whether he touched it with desire or without desire. Those who stipulate desire
have a very strong reasoning also, so I say it is better to act upon this opinion.
-Uthaymeen adds that
the ruling in this issue is connected to the private part and not the organs
around it, so if one touches his private parts from the front or the back, then
this is what is being discussed here.
-Uthaymeen also points
out that genitals which have been amputated are not included in the ruling
either.
-Uthaymeen also adds
that the ruling doesn’t include hermaphrodites as they have no clear gender. So
if one touches them from the front or the back, the Wudhoo is not invalidated.
-The Hanbalees stated that if one touches the genitals of a hermaphrodite
with desire, then the Wudhoo is broken, but if it is touched without desire
then the Wudhoo is correct.
-They also stated that if one touches both the front and the back of a
hermaphrodite
then the Wudhoo is also broken.
-The only exception is if one touches the private part of a hermaphrodite but they
have two gender organs but one is dormant. If one touches the dormant one then
the Wudhoo is not broken.
No comments:
Post a Comment