Does Touching Invalidate Your Wudoo?
The Fourth Invalidator of Wudoo: Touching the Private Parts - Scholarly Analysis and Legal Reasoning
Summary
This lecture discusses the fourth invalidator of wudoo (ablution) in Islamic jurisprudence, specifically focusing on whether touching one's private parts breaks wudoo. Sh. Ali Mashhour analyzes two seemingly conflicting hadith narrations on this topic, examining their authenticity and the scholarly differences of opinion (ikhtilaf) regarding their validity. The lecture clarifies that the invalidation only applies to intentional, skin-on-skin contact with the penis (for men) or front private part (for women) with sexual arousal, not accidental or clothed contact.
Sh. Ali Mashhour employs a detailed legal methodology to reconcile the narrations, arguing that touching the private parts sexually is likely to result in the discharge of pre-seminal fluid (madhi), which definitely breaks wudoo. He draws parallels to other Islamic legal principles, such as how travelers shorten prayers based on the likelihood of difficulty rather than certainty. The conclusion presented is that the strongest scholarly opinion is that intentional sexual touching of the private parts invalidates wudoo, provided the conditions of intention and skin-on-skin contact are met.
Note: This transcript was generated using YouTube's automatic captioning, with AI-assisted cleanup for readability. It may contain inaccuracies due to background noise, audio quality, or limitations of the transcription software — particularly during Arabic recitation. Listener discretion is advised; please refer to the original video for precise wording.
Alhamdulillah. Continuing.
[Silence]
With the fourth invalidator of for.
[Silence]
So here the author takes us into the first invalidator of wudoo that is strongly debated amongst the scholars of Phil which is that a person touch his member whilst on wulu. And in order for us to understand the difference of opinion, we need to understand exactly what is meant by invalidating a person's wuboo with a touch. So,.
[Silence]
And so what's intended here by the type of touching that will break a person's wool or is purported to break a person's wool is touching the penis specifically without any barrier, some cloth or glove or piece of clothing. So, it's skin on skin contact directly and it is with the inside of the hand, not the outside. It's the inside of the hand. So, it's the inside of the fingers and the palm to the wrist. This is what is meant by touching and it is intentional. Person intends to touch and this takes out a lot of misconceptions with respect to this because many people will hear the narration of the prophet sallall.aii Whoever touches his penis, then he is to make woo. And they'll understand this to mean if a person is drying off after they get out of the shower and they act inadvertently brush against themselves or if a person has their clothing on and so forth. And this all roots back to two narrations. These two narrations seemingly conflict directly with each other. And these narrations are highly debated. Some scholars view both narrations as inauthentic. And this is a very strong opinion because both narrations have weakness in them. Others view v both narrations to be authentic. Others view one narration to be more authentic than the other. Whilst others view one narration to be authentic with the other inauthentic. If we were to choose, we have along with the majority of the scholars who view that the strongest of the two narrations. Now notice the wording here, the strongest of the two. Does that mean that either of them is authentic? this statement, the strongest of the two. Does that mean that one of them is authentic? Not necessarily. It just means compared to one another, one is stronger than the other doesn't necessarily mean either of them is authentic. only in comparison to one another. The strongest of the two is the narration of whoever touches his penis then he is to make this is the strongest of the two. This is the opinion of that this is the stronger of the two. However, whether or not the narration is even authentic at all is hotly debated. Ali views the exact opposite. Alim Ahmed is with Albkari along with the majority of scholars. However, for our intents and purposes, let's assume or let's say that we were to say both of them are authentic, acceptable. How would we how would we harmonize between two narrations like this? So, we've got one that says a man asked the prophet sallall.aii. He said a man touches his private part whilst he is in salah. And the prophet sallall.aii wasallam responds and says meaning is that anything more than just another part of your body? The rhetoric here is that no this doesn't break your woo. Then we have another narration. Whoever touches his penis then he has to make woo. If a person is in salah are they going to be touching their private part skin on skin? No. This is highly unlikely. highly unlikely. Second of all, even if they were, what makes the private part specifically of a man his penis? Because that's the exact wording of the narration which means the testicles or any other part of the private parts does not break your according to the consensus of the scholars. What makes that part of your body different than your arm or your chest or your cheek or your chin? What makes it different? always its function.
[Arabic recitation]
That's a place of that can be sexually geared, right? Cuz it has more than one function. It's either just another part of your body or it is a very critical part of the body when it comes to sexual you know sheha when it comes to sexual intercourse and so forth. So this is the only time that that part of your body is different than the rest of the parts of your body. The only time when that part of your body is different than any other part of your body is when it is viewed or touched sexually. And for this reason, the best opinion is that it is an invalidator of wool. If a person intentionally touches skin on skin, the penis specifically and for the woman her front private part with arousal out of arousal. This is when it invalidates a person's woo. If we were to say it does, why not? Because touching in itself breaks a person's woo. Because the breaking of wudoo is for what comes out of the body. That's what really breaks wudoo. Even deep sleep or you know intoxication or unconsciousness. Why does it break a person's wuboo? Because it itself breaks the wuboo or because of what could have escaped the body during unconscious state? The second. Right? So really the essence of what breaks a person's woo is what? What comes out of the private parts what comes out of the body not what touches interacts or goes into the body. And that is correct. And if we are to look at that pattern and see it true, then this is because touching the private parts specifically in a sexual manner, skin on skin is going to break your woo or is going to likely break your woo by something coming out of the private parts. Which one is it? Likely. Just sleep, right? Likely because when a person has that and they have reached to the point of touching then now this is what is called meaning that pre-perm and these other things start to come out of the body and so it is likely strongly likely to break. The scholars of Islam, they have a principle and they say Islamic law takes that which is most likely or highly likely and gives it the ruling of that which is definite.
[Silence]
And so this is why sleeping deep sleep breaks a person's woo based on this right and we could give many examples of this for instance Why does a traveler shorten his prayers in essence? Why why I didn't ask what it is. What why is it why do we have this?
[Arabic recitation]
Is every travel a difficulty? Every single one? No. It is most likely going to be difficult but not necessarily. Therefore, right? Likewise, sleep breaking a person's wudoo. Does it definitely break your woo or is it highly likely that your woo was broken? Highly likely. And we know this for a fact. Why? Because the prophet sallallah.aii wasallam would often times wake up and not make wudoo. Therefore, if deep sleep broke a person's wudoo, he would make wudoo. However, that's not what breaks a person's woo. What breaks a person's woo is And we could go on and on and on. There are many examples of this all through the legislation. And so this is no different. If this were to be authentic and if the narrations are authentic, what is the best thing to do? The best thing to do is that if a person touches directly his penis or a woman her sexual parts, then they are to make.
[Arabic recitation]