Answered by Shaykh Munawwar Ateeq Rizvi
Does wudu become invalidated if one touches their private parts or anus with the inside part of one’s bare hand? The reason I am asking is because in “The Saheefa” prepared by Sheikh Muhammad bin Yahya Ninowy it states “Touching the male and/or female genital organs or anus with the inside part of the bare hand.” A young British scholar said about this: “As to what you asked, this point is correct according to the Hanafi school, the great Imam Ahmad Rida Khan (rad) of al-Hind who I have been honoured to have been given Ijazah through, says in his great Fatawa that if a person touches his private parts at all with his bare hands, then this would invalidate his Wudu. Also the great encyclopedia of hanafi Fiqh, Bahare Shariat which was written by one of the most learned scholars of his time, a direct student of Imam Ahmad Rida Khan (rad), Sadrush Shariat, Hadrat Allamah Amjad Ali Razvi (radi allahu anhu). This 18 volume work also states under the chapter on Wudu, that touching the private parts at all with the inner part of the hand will break your Wudu, even in Darr al Mukhtar and Radd al Mukhtar this view is expressed. On SunniPath it says “Touching one’s private parts”, but does not state whether this is with their bare hand.” Is this true and does the Durr al-Mukhtar and Radd al-Muhtar really state the above mentioned ruling?
Wassalamu alaiykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh
The position of the Hanafi school has always been that touching, in any way, does not nullify wudhu unless something exits [in which case the wudhu is nullified due to the fluid and not due to the touch]. This ruling applies regardless of whether the touch is over a cloth, bare handed, with the palm, or with the outer hand.
Allamah Ibn Nujaym (May Allah have mercy on him) states: ‘touching the male organ, the anus or female organ in general does not nullify one’s wudhu’. (al-Bahr al-Ra’iq, Ibn Nujaym)
In Hashiyah Umdat-al-Ria’ayah, it says: ‘and touch does not nullify wudhu even if it is done without a veil’ The commentator mentions that ‘al-sia’yah’ has a lengthy topic regarding it. (Umdat al-Ria’ayah ala sharh al-wiqayah 1:72)
All Hanafi manuals mention that ‘touch’ does not invalidate wudhu and they do not differentiate between cases where there is a cloth or bare skin ‘itlaq wa takhsis’. (see: al-Durr al-Mukhtar 1:25, al-Fatawa al-Hindiyah 1:18, al-Hadyat al-Ala’iyyah, Maraqi al-Falah p 28, Durar al-hukkam 1: 1:16)
In the Shafi’i madhab the ruling is that touch nullifies wudhu if done with the inner hand ‘batin al-kaff’. (Sharh al-Muhazzab, Imam al-Nawawi)
Here is the source of evidence:
Mulazim bin Amar narrates from Abdullah bin Badar, from Qaiys bin Talq bin Ali, from his father, from the Prophet (sallalahu alaiyhi wa sallam): ‘he was once asked about a person who touches his male organ during prayer to which he replied: is it not a part of you?’
This narration is recorded in Sunan Nisai, Abu Dawud, al-Tirmidhi who said: ‘this hadith is the soundest and most authentic narration in this chapter’, Ibn Habban, al-Tahawi who said: ‘its chain is authentic and there is no idhtirab in its chain and neither in its text’. Ahmed in his Musnad and al-Dar Qutni also narrates it. (Nasb al-Ra’yah, al-Zayla’i v1: p60, Nayl al-Awtar, al-Shawkani v1: p198, al-Bahr al-Rai’q, Kitab al-Fiqh ala al-madhahib al-arba’ah, Abd al-Rahman al-Juzayri v1: p84, 85)
Al-Zayla’i mentions that this narration has four different transmissions. Only one is present in the 3 mentioned sunans.
A similar narration is transmitted through Abu Umamata al-bahili who said:
‘the Prophet (sallalahu alaiyhi wa sallam) was asked about touching the male organ to which he replied: surely it is a part of you’. (Tabyeen al-Haqa’iq, al-Zayla’i)
The hadith that Imam Shafi’i took into practice is:
Busrah bint Sufwan narrates that the Prophet (May Allah shower abundant mercy on him) said: ‘when one touches his male genital, he should renew his wudhu’. It is narrated by Malik in hi Muw’atta, Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah with authentic chains.
There are two narrations of Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal’s position:
1- It nullifies wudhu. Ibn Umar, Sa’eed al-Musayyab, Ata, Aban bin Uthman, Urwah, Sulayman bin Yasar, Zuhri, Awza’i and Malik [most famous in his madhab], concur on this. It is also narrated to be the madhabd of Umar bin al-Khattab, Abu Hurayrah, Ibn Sireen and Abu al-Aliyah.
2- It does not nullify wudhu. Ali, Ammar, Ibn Masud, Huzaiyfah, Imran bin Husayn, Abu Darda, Rbee’ah, al-Thawri, Ibn al-Munzir, Zaiyd bin Thabit and Hasan al-Basari concur on this.
Zayla’I, in Tabyeen, mentions that this was the opinion of Umar bin al-Khattab, Ibn Abbas and Sa’eed bin al-Musayyab whereas Nawawi in Sharh al-Muhazzab mentions their opinion was that touch nullifies wudhu.
(See: Tabyeen al-Haqa’iq, al-Zayla’I & al-Mughni, Ibn Qudamah, Sharh al-Muhazzab, al-Nawawi)
The narration of Talq bin Ali (Ra):
Ibn Nujaym speaking on the authenticity of the hadith of Talq states: ‘The hadith of Talq bin Ali cannot be abrogated since it has reasoning ‘ta’lil’ in it i.e. the Prophet (May Allah shower his mercy on him) used his analogy and gave this issue the same ruling as touching any other part of the body. Thus, such narrations cannot be abrogated. This is what is mentioned in ‘Mi’raj al-Dirayah’.
Ibn Nujaym further states: ‘Nawawi (in Sharh al-Muhazzab) mentions that the hadith of Talq is based on touching over a veil since the person who asked the Prophet specifically mentioned ‘touching in prayer’ and that would obviously be over a veil (hence touching bare handed would nullify wudhu). This specification is not valid ‘mardud’ since the Prophetic reasoning ‘ta’lil’ that is ‘it is a part of you’ negates this specification’.
He further mentions: ‘And if we follow a path where both (ostensibly contradictory) hadith are acted upon, the wording ‘the one who touches’ would metaphorically mean ‘if something exits’ and it would be preferable for one who touches his male organ to wash his hand as stated by the author of ‘al-Mabsut’ (i.e. al-Sarkhasi). (al-Bahr al-Ra’iq, Ibn Nujaym, see also: al-Shurunbulaliyah 1:16)
Keep in mind that both ostensibly contradictory hadith are sound ‘hassan’. However, the hadith of Talq, as stipulated by the hanafi jurists, predominates the hadith of Busrah because men narrate it, whereas Busrah is a woman. That is to say, men have more accurate memories which is why where two women witness are a required, only one man is required. Another reason why the hadith of busrah is left is because it is narrated in place of a widespread problem and everybody should know such a basic issue. The latter indicates the unreliability of hadith since it has a hidden flaw ‘illah’ and that is a hidden missing link ‘inqita’ batinan’. (See: Fath al-Qadeer, Ibn al-Hummam 1: 49)
Note: One can see the beauty of the legal methodology of the jurists in conciliating two ostensibly contradictory texts. The methodology used in this case is that of the Hanafi school. Other methodologies may contradict this one. Two methodologies were used in the previous examples and explanations:
1- Predominance ‘tarjih’ of one text over the other with a certain criterion
2- Conciliation ‘al-jam’ between the texts without practicing the methodology of predominance ‘tarjih’.
Ibn al-Hummam refutes the abrogation ‘al-naskh’ methodology of Talq’s narration. Ibn Nujaym also mentions that this methodology is ceased to practice in this topic as I have mentioned previously.
(See: Fat’h al-Qadeer 1: 49, al-Bahr al-Ra’iq)
As for what you mentioned about Imam Ahmed Radha (May Allah have mercy on him) and his student’s opinion, is false. It is not found in the Fatawa itself and neither in Bahar-e-Shari’at. I believe it is misquoted. There are a few reasons why:
1-Imam Ahmad Radha does not even mention the topic in the chapter of Nawaqidh al-Wudhu, Fatawa Ridhawiyah.
2-The topic is not found in any other part of the Fatawa i.e. in the ‘dhimni masa’il. If you do find it, please inform me of the complete reference.
3-Radd al-Muhtar explicitly mentions along with al-Durr al-Mukhtar that touch does not nullify wudhu and Imam Ahmad Radha doesn’t even have a footnote on it in his Jadd al-Mumtar! Whereas, he does have a footnote on an issue (that is durr’s sentence: ‘lakin bi sharti admi luzumi irtikab’) regarding touching the genitals but nothing contrary to the Hanafi position. (Jadd al-Mumtar, Imam Ahmad Radha v1: p108).
4-The issue is not found in Bahar-e-shariat, chapter ‘Nawaqidh al-wudhu. If you have a reference for what you mentioned please reply.
Finally, the transmitted position of the Hanafi School in this topic has been the same and none of the jurists have opposed it. Radd al-Muhtar including all of imam Ahmad Radha’s fiqh manuals transmit the same ruling.
And Allah knows best.
Wassalamu alaiykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh.
Munawwar Ateeq Rizvi