This is an excerpt from ‘The Comprehensive Book of the Rulings on Prayer’ by Abu Iyas Uwaydah

The opinion presented here is predominately the Hanafi opinion but other scholars also adhere to it. If someone follows a different mazhab (school of thought) such as the Shafi’i school then they need to follow the opinion of their respective mazhab, and not mix opinions without consulting with a scholar first.

Introduction

Imams and jurists differed on whether touching a woman invalidates wuḍūʼ or not.

There are several opinions:

Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, Abdullah ibn Umar, al-Zuhri, Rabi’ah, and al-Shafi’i held that touching a woman invalidates wuḍūʼ.

Ali ibn Abi Talib, Abdullah ibn Abbas, Ubayy ibn Ka’b, al-Hasan, Mujahid, Qatadah, Sa’id ibn Jubayr, al-Sha’bi, Ata’, Tawus, Abu Hanifa, Abu Yusuf, and Ibn Jarir al-Tabari held that it does not invalidate wuḍūʼ.

Abu Hanifa and Abu Yusuf said: “Unless the private parts are touched and the penis is ejaculated, even if no semen is emitted.”

Malik, Ahmad, and Ishaq ibn Rahawayh held that touching with lust invalidates wuḍūʼ.

To clarify the truth on this issue and determine the most correct opinion, we will review all the evidence.

The Sharia Evidences

1- The Almighty’s saying:

أو لامَسْتُمُ النِّسَاءَ فلم تجِدُوا ماءً فتيَمَّمُوا

“Or you have had contact with women and do not find water, then perform tayammum”[1]

This is the reading of Nafi’, Ibn Kathir, Abu Amr, Asim, and Ibn Amir.

It was also read:

أو لَمَسْتُم

“Or you have touched”

This is the reading of Hamza and Al-Kisa’i.

2- On the authority of Muadh ibn Jabal who said:

«أتى رسولَ الله – صلى الله عليه وسلم – رجلٌ فقال: يا رسول الله ما تقول في رجلٍ لقي امرأةً لا يعرفها، فليس يأتي الرجل من امرأته شيئاً إلا قد أتاه منها غير أنه لم يجامعها؟ قال فأنزل الله عزَّ وجلَّ هذه الآية {أَقِم الصَّلاةَ طَرَفيِ النَّهارِ وزُلَفاً من الليلِ إنَّ الحَسَناتِ يُذهبنَ السَّيِّئاتِ} الآية، قال: فقال له النبي- صلى الله عليه وسلم -: توضأ ثم صلٍّ، قال معاذ فقلت: يا رسول الله أَلَه خاصةً أم للمؤمنين عامةً؟ قال: بل للمؤمنين عامةً» رواه أحمد والترمذي والدارقطني والبيهقي والحاكم.

“A man came to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, what do you say about a man who meets a woman whom he does not know, and he does not do anything to his wife except that he does it to him, except that he does not have intercourse with her?’ He said: ‘Then Allah, the Almighty, revealed this verse:

أَقِم الصَّلاةَ طَرَفيِ النَّهارِ وزُلَفاً من الليلِ إنَّ الحَسَناتِ يُذهبنَ السَّيِّئاتِ

“Establish prayer at the two ends of the day and at the approach of the night. Indeed, good deeds do away with misdeeds.”[2] [3]

The Prophet ﷺ said to him: ‘Perform wuḍūʼ and then pray.’ Muadh said: ‘I said: O Messenger of Allah, is it for him specifically or for the believers in general?’ He said: ‘Rather, for the believers in general.’”[4]

3- On the authority of Urwah ibn al-Zubayr, on the authority of Aisha,

أن رسول الله – صلى الله عليه وسلم – قبَّل بعض نسائه، ثم خرج إلى الصلاة ولم يتوضأ، قال عُروة: قلت لها: مَن هي إلا أنتِ؟ فضحكت» رواه أحمد وابن ماجة والدارقطني.

“The Messenger of Allah ﷺ kissed one of his wives, then went out to pray without performing wuḍūʼ. Urwah said: I said to her: ‘Who is she but you?’ And she laughed.”[5]

4- On the authority of Aisha, she said:

إنْ كان رسولُ الله – صلى الله عليه وسلم – لَيُصلِّي، وإني لَمعترضةٌ بين يديه اعتراضَ الجنازة، حتى إذا أراد أن يُوتِر مسَّني برجله» رواه النَّسائي وأحمد.

“The Messenger of Allah ﷺ would pray, and I would stand in front of him like a funeral procession, until when he wanted to perform the witr, he would touch me with his foot.”[6]

5- On the authority of Aisha, she said:

قدتُ رسول الله – صلى الله عليه وسلم – ليلةً من الفراش، فالتمسته فوقعت يدي على بطن قدميه وهو في المسجد، وهما منصوبتان وهو يقول: اللهم إني أعوذ برضاك من سَخَطك، وبمعافاتك من عقوبتك، وأعوذ بك منك لا أُحصي ثناءً عليك أنت كما أثنيتَ على نفسك» رواه مسلم والترمذي وأبو داود والنَّسائي وأحمد.

“I missed the Messenger of Allah ﷺ one night in bed, so I looked for him and my hand fell on the soles of his feet while he was in the mosque, and they were raised and he was saying: ‘O Allah, I seek refuge in Your pleasure from Your wrath, and in Your pardon from Your punishment, and I seek refuge in You from You. I cannot count Your praises. You are as You have praised Yourself.’”[7]

6- On the authority of Aisha, she said:

كنت أغتسل أنا ورسول الله – صلى الله عليه وسلم – من إناء واحد، تختلف أيدينا فيه من الجنابة

“The Messenger of Allah ﷺ and I used to perform ghusl from one vessel, and we would take turns in it to remove impurity (janabah).”[8]

It was narrated by Ibn Abi Shaybah with the wording:

كنت أغتسل أنا والنبي – صلى الله عليه وسلم – من إناء واحد نضع أيدينا معاً

“The Prophet ﷺ and I used to perform ghusl from one vessel, placing our hands together.”

It was narrated by Al-Nasa’i with the wording:

… من إناء واحد نغترف منه جميعاً

“…from one vessel, from which we would both draw water.”

He also narrated with the wording:

قالت لقد رأيتُني أُنازع رسول الله – صلى الله عليه وسلم – الإناء أغتسل أنا وهو منه

“She said: I saw myself disputing with the Messenger of Allah ﷺ over the vessel, and he and I would perform ghusl from it.”

It was narrated by Ibn Hibban with the wording:

إني كنت أغتسل أنا ورسول الله – صلى الله عليه وسلم – من إناء واحد تختلف أيدينا فيه وتلتقي

“The Messenger of Allah ﷺ and I used to perform ghusl from one vessel, and our hands would take turns in it and meet.”

7- On the authority of Umm Salamah,

أن رسول الله – صلى الله عليه وسلم – كان يُقَبِّلها وهو صائم ثم لا يُفطر ولا يُحدث وضوءاً

“The Messenger of Allah ﷺ used to kiss her while he was fasting, and then he would not break his fast or perform wuḍūʼ.”[9]

8- On the authority of Aisha, she said:

كنت أنام بين يدي رسول الله – صلى الله عليه وسلم – ورجلاي في قِبْلته، فإذا سجد غمزني فقبضتُ رجليَّ، فإذا قام بسطتهما

“I used to sleep in front of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and my feet were in his direction. When he prostrated, he nudged me, so I closed my feet. When he stood up, I spread them out.”[10]

Authenticity of the ahadith on wuḍūʼ

The second hadith is interrupted because Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Laila did not hear it from Muadh. At-Tirmidhi said, “The chain of narration of this hadith is not continuous. Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Laila did not hear it from Muadh ibn Jabal.” Therefore, the hadith is weak (da’if) and cannot be used as evidence. I mean the hadith which contains the additional command to perform wuḍūʼ and prayer.

The third hadith was deemed weak by some and authenticated by others. The truth is that this hadith was deemed weak because they considered the mentioned Urwah to be Urwah al-Muzani, as mentioned in Sunan Abu Dawud, and al-Muzani is unknown. However, Ahmad, Ibn Majah, and al-Daraqutni clearly stated that this Urwah was Urwah ibn al-Zubayr, thus negating their view that this hadith was weak. As for the view of some that the hadith was weakened by the fact that Habib did not narrate it from Urwah, this is not accepted, because Abu Dawud included an authentic hadith narrated by Habib from Urwah. Thus, it becomes clear that the weakening of this hadith is not authentic, so it is acceptable and valid to use it as evidence.

Regarding the fourth hadith, Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar said, “Its chain of transmission is authentic.”

The fifth hadith is also authentic.

The last three hadiths are also authentic.

Therefore, only the second [part] of the second hadith is discarded, leaving the others.

Explanation of the Qur’anic Verses on wuḍūʼ

We begin with the first text because it is the original, the Almighty’s saying:

أو لامَسْتُمُ النِّسَاءَ فلم تَجِدُوا ماءً فتيمَّمُوا

“Or you have had contact with women and cannot find water, then perform tayammum”

which appears in verse 34 of Surah An-Nisa and in verse 6 of Surah Al-Ma’idah.

The verse of An-Nisa is:

يَـٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوا۟ لَا تَقْرَبُوا۟ ٱلصَّلَوٰةَ وَأَنتُمْ سُكَـٰرَىٰ حَتَّىٰ تَعْلَمُوا۟ مَا تَقُولُونَ وَلَا جُنُبًا إِلَّا عَابِرِى سَبِيلٍ حَتَّىٰ تَغْتَسِلُوا۟ ۚ وَإِن كُنتُم مَّرْضَىٰٓ أَوْ عَلَىٰ سَفَرٍ أَوْ جَآءَ أَحَدٌۭ مِّنكُم مِّنَ ٱلْغَآئِطِ أَوْ لَـٰمَسْتُمُ ٱلنِّسَآءَ فَلَمْ تَجِدُوا۟ مَآءًۭ فَتَيَمَّمُوا۟ صَعِيدًۭا طَيِّبًۭا فَٱمْسَحُوا۟ بِوُجُوهِكُمْ وَأَيْدِيكُمْ ۗ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ كَانَ عَفُوًّا غَفُورًا

“O believers! Do not approach prayer while intoxicated until you are aware of what you say, nor in a state of ˹full˺ impurity (junub) – unless you merely pass through ˹the mosque˺—until you have bathed (ghusl). But if you are ill, on a journey, or have relieved yourselves (al-gha’it), or been in contact (lams) with women and cannot find water, then purify yourselves (tayammum) with clean earth, wiping your faces and hands. And Allah is Ever-Pardoning, All-Forgiving.”[11]

The verse of Al-Ma’idah is:

يَـٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوٓا۟ إِذَا قُمْتُمْ إِلَى ٱلصَّلَوٰةِ فَٱغْسِلُوا۟ وُجُوهَكُمْ وَأَيْدِيَكُمْ إِلَى ٱلْمَرَافِقِ وَٱمْسَحُوا۟ بِرُءُوسِكُمْ وَأَرْجُلَكُمْ إِلَى ٱلْكَعْبَيْنِ ۚ وَإِن كُنتُمْ جُنُبًۭا فَٱطَّهَّرُوا۟ ۚ وَإِن كُنتُم مَّرْضَىٰٓ أَوْ عَلَىٰ سَفَرٍ أَوْ جَآءَ أَحَدٌۭ مِّنكُم مِّنَ ٱلْغَآئِطِ أَوْ لَـٰمَسْتُمُ ٱلنِّسَآءَ فَلَمْ تَجِدُوا۟ مَآءًۭ فَتَيَمَّمُوا۟ صَعِيدًۭا طَيِّبًۭا فَٱمْسَحُوا۟ بِوُجُوهِكُمْ وَأَيْدِيكُم مِّنْهُ ۚ مَا يُرِيدُ ٱللَّهُ لِيَجْعَلَ عَلَيْكُم مِّنْ حَرَجٍۢ وَلَـٰكِن يُرِيدُ لِيُطَهِّرَكُمْ وَلِيُتِمَّ نِعْمَتَهُۥ عَلَيْكُمْ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَشْكُرُونَ

O believers! When you rise up for prayer, wash your faces and your hands up to the elbows, wipe your heads, and wash your feet to the ankles. And if you are in a state of ˹full˺ impurity (junub), then take a full bath (ghusl). But if you are ill, on a journey, or have relieved yourselves, or been in contact (lams) with women and cannot find water, then purify yourselves (tayammum) with clean earth by wiping your faces and hands. It is not Allah’s Will to burden you, but to purify you and complete His favour upon you, so perhaps you will be grateful.

The verse in Al-Nisa’ is addressed to the believers not to approach the places of prayer – meaning the mosques – while intoxicated, and not to approach them if they are in a state of major ritual impurity (janabah), except just passing through until they have washed themselves. This is the beginning of the verse.

As for the second half, it wanted to clarify to the Muslims the ruling on performing tayammum when water is not available. So it mentioned the situations in which a Muslim needs to perform tayammum when water is not available.

The second half says, وَإِن كُنتُم مَّرْضَىٰٓ “And if you are ill” meaning ill, أَوْ عَلَىٰ سَفَرٍ “or on a journey” meaning traveling, أَوْ جَآءَ أَحَدٌۭ مِّنكُم مِّنَ ٱلْغَآئِطِ “or one of you comes from the toilet” meaning in a state of minor ritual impurity, أَوْ لَـٰمَسْتُمُ ٱلنِّسَآءَ “or you have touched women” meaning in a state of… and you do not find water, then perform tayammum.

Anyone looking at the context of the verse will find that the gap following أَوْ لَـٰمَسْتُمُ ٱلنِّسَآءَ “or you have touched women” only applies to the case of major ritual impurity (janabah), not the case of minor ritual impurity. By placing the case of major ritual impurity in the gap, all the cases of tayammum when water is unavailable are completed.

However, if we place the case of minor ritual impurity in the gap, the cases are not completed, and the verse becomes repetitive and does not convey a new meaning.

Therefore, the original and most honorable interpretation of the Qur’an is that it be interpreted in a way that conveys completeness and perfection.

The correct thing to say, then, is that the gap should be filled with the case of major ritual impurity, or the case of major ritual impurity here. If this is the case, then لَـٰمَسْتُمُ “you have touched” can be interpreted as referring to sexual intercourse, not touching a woman’s body.

Indeed, the structure and style of the verse require that what is meant by touching is sexual intercourse, for Allah Almighty counted coming from the toilet as a requirement for tayammum, as a warning of minor ritual impurity, and He counted touching as a warning of major ritual impurity. This is in contrast to His Almighty’s statement in the command to wash with water:

ولا جُنُباً إلا عابري سبيلٍ حتى تغتسلوا

“And do not wash yourself while you are in a state of major ritual impurity, except when passing through, until you have washed yourselves.”

If touching were to be interpreted as touching that invalidates wuḍūʼ, it would be a warning that dirt replaces water in removing major ritual impurity.

The verse of Al-Ma’idah makes the subject clearer and strengthens this interpretation of the verse of An-Nisa’.

The beginning of the verse requests wuḍūʼ and explains it. Then it requests the removal of major ritual impurity, i.e., it requests the removal of minor and major ritual impurity, by using water.

Then the second half of the verse came to explain the ruling on tayammum when water is not available, and to complete the entire discussion.

The verse says,وإن كنتم مرضى “And if you are ill” i.e., in a state of illness,أو على سفرٍ “or on a journey” i.e., in a state of travel, أو جاء أحد منكم من الغائط “or one of you comes from the toilet” i.e., in a state of minor ritual impurity, أو لامستم النساء “or you have touched women” i.e., in a state of major ritual impurity or major ritual impurity,فلم تجدوا ماء فتيمَّموا “and you do not find water, then perform tayammum” i.e., perform tayammum for the states of major and minor ritual impurity, which are the two states mentioned in the beginning of the verse, and water was used in them, and the two excuses that permit tayammum were added to them, which are the state of illness and the state of travel.

Thus, the verse is complete, covering all the cases and excuses for tayammum. This interpretation excludes the deficiency in mentioning the cases if أَوْ لَـٰمَسْتُمُ “or you touched” was interpreted as touching with the hand.

It would have been possible to imagine a verse in which the cases of tayammum were missing. However, since both verses came to explain the ruling on wuḍūʼ, major ritual impurity, and tayammum, and they mentioned the cases in which earth is used instead of water, and they were in the same order, then the missing cases in the two verses are completely unlikely.

Therefore, if you touched, the only appropriate interpretation is to refer to sexual intercourse.

Among those who adopted this interpretation were Ali ibn Abi Talib, Ubayy ibn Ka’b, and Abdullah ibn Abbas, who were the most knowledgeable companions of the interpretation of the Book of Allah. It was also interpreted by Abu Hanifa, Mujahid, Tawus, al-Hasan, Sa’id ibn Jubayr, al-Sha’bi, Qatadah, al-Tabari, and al-Shawkani, who were among the most famous interpreters of the Book of Allah from the early and later generations, and among the most famous jurists.

Touching can linguistically refer to sexual intercourse or physical touching

This interpretation, in addition to being a jurisprudential interpretation, is also an interpretation that the language allows, and similar examples are found in several verses of the Holy Quran, such as the verse in which Allah the Almighty says: ثم طلَّقْتُمُوهُنَّ مِن قَبْلِ أَنْ تَمَسُّوهُنَّ “Then you divorce them before you have touched them” meaning you have had sexual intercourse with them, and His saying: وإنْ طلَّقْتُموهنَّ مِن قَبْلِ أِنْ تَمَسُّوهُن “And if you divorce them before you have touched them” meaning you have had sexual intercourse with them, and His saying: ولم يَمْسَسْني بَشرٌ “And no man has touched me” meaning he has not had sexual intercourse with me.

Similar or close to it is the verse in which Allah the Almighty says: فالآن باشروهن “So now have sexual intercourse with them” meaning you have had sexual intercourse with them.

It is mentioned in the hadith about a woman who commits adultery: لا تردُّ يدَ لامس “She should not reject the hand of the toucher,” as a euphemism for fornication. The Holy Qur’an and the Sunnah of the Prophet ﷺ mentioned touching, groping, and direct contact in the sense of sexual intercourse. This is linguistic, Shariah, and fiqh.

The two noble verses have two readings: لامَسْتم “you have touched” and لمسْتم “you have kissed”.

Muhammad ibn Zayd distinguished between them in meaning, saying: “The linguistic view is that لامستم means “you kissed” or something similar, because each of them has an action. He said: لمستم means “you covered” and “you touched,” and women do not have an action in this regard. So the two verses have both meanings linguistically.”

Since touching can linguistically refer to sexual intercourse, just as touching with the hand can also linguistically refer to sexual intercourse, the context determines which of the two meanings of this word is appropriate.

The juristic context we have mentioned is evidence that the intended meaning of “you touched” is sexual intercourse, and this is what people find comforting.

Interpreting it as touching with the hand is a linguistic interpretation without examining the context or closely examining the two verses.

What is striking is that those who interpreted it as touching with the hand cited hadiths proving that touching linguistically refers to touching with the hand, as if this were a disputed issue requiring proof. We agree with them that touching linguistically refers to touching with the hand, with no need to provide proof. Rather, they should provide evidence that the verse intended this meaning and not the other.

Hadith explaining the linguistic meaning of “touch”

Thus, the verse indicates sexual intercourse, but to avoid quickly closing the door to discussion, let us examine the hadiths that are suitable for explaining and interpreting this Quranic word, and thus serve as evidence for the intended meaning.

They used the second hadith as evidence that touching invalidates wuḍūʼ. They said that the man in the hadith touched the woman and was about to have intercourse with her, but he did not, so the Messenger ﷺ ordered him to perform wuḍūʼ. They believe this to be evidence that touching invalidates wuḍūʼ.

We respond to them by saying that this hadith is disconnected and weak, as we mentioned earlier, so it is not suitable as evidence. The origin of the story is in the two Sahihs, and it was not narrated that the Messenger ﷺ ordered the man to perform wuḍūʼ or even to pray. The incident is a single one narrated in the Sahihs without asking for wuḍūʼ, and it was narrated in a weak hadith ordering wuḍūʼ. Therefore, the authentic hadiths should be accepted and the weak hadith should be rejected. Therefore, this hadith does not support them.

They also cited as evidence the statement of Umar “Kissing is a form of touching, so perform wuḍūʼ for it,” and that Ibn Umar “used to consider kissing a form of touching, and he ordered wuḍūʼ for it,” and the statement of Ibn Masud, “Kissing is a form of touching, and wuḍūʼ is required for it.” These three narrations were narrated by Al-Daraqutni and Al-Bayhaqi.

We say that these narrations are the sayings of the Companions, and the sayings of the Companions are not evidence. In reality, they are their understandings and interpretations that we are not bound by, especially when we know that a number of the Companions and Followers (tabi’in) said otherwise, among them the scholar of this ummah and interpreter of the Qur’an, Ibn Abbas.

Saeed ibn Jubayr said, “We discussed touching, and some of the Mawali said: It is not intercourse, and some of the Arabs said: It is intercourse. I mentioned that to Ibn Abbas, and he said: ‘Which of them were you with?’ I said: ‘With the Mawali.’ He said: ‘The Mawali were defeated. Touching and intimate contact are intercourse, but Allah, the Almighty, uses euphemisms for whomever He wishes.’” Narrated by Al-Bayhaqi.

It was also narrated by Abd Al-Razzaq, and its wording is: “… The two Mawali were mistaken, and the Arab was right, and it is intercourse, but Allah protects and uses euphemisms.” These are equivalent to the others, and they are all understandings and interpretations, not evidence and texts suitable for explanation and context. The evidence is the Qur’an and the hadiths of the Messenger ﷺ.

We have already looked at the Holy Quran, and now we will look at the remaining hadiths. The third hadith: “He kissed one of his wives, then went out to pray without performing wuḍūʼ.”

The fourth hadith: “When he wanted to perform witr, he touched me with his foot.”

The fifth hadith: “My hand landed on the soles of his feet while he was in the mosque, and they were upright.”

The sixth hadith: “From a single vessel, in which our hands alternate.”

“From a single vessel, we put our hands together.”

“From a single vessel, from which we both scoop.”

“I saw myself disputing with the Messenger of Allah ﷺ over the vessel.”

“From a single vessel, in which our hands alternate and meet.”

The seventh hadith: “He used to kiss her while he was fasting, then he did not break his fast or perform wuḍūʼ.”

The eighth hadith: “When he prostrated, he nudged me, so I held my feet together, and when he stood up, I spread them out.”

The fourth hadith states that the Messenger ﷺ touched Aisha with his foot while he was praying.

The eighth hadith states that he nudged her while he was praying. Both hadiths indicate that the Messenger ﷺ touched Aisha while he was praying and did not interrupt his prayer.

The fifth hadith states that Aisha touched the Messenger ﷺ with her hand while he was praying and he did not interrupt her prayer.

The third and seventh hadiths state that the Messenger ﷺ used to kiss his wives without performing wuḍūʼ. Kissing does not invalidate his wuḍūʼ.

The sixth hadith indicates that he used to touch his wife and his wife used to touch him, and neither of their wuḍūʼs was invalidated. This hadith needs explanation and clarification of the evidence due to its obscure nature.

I say: If touching a woman invalidated wuḍūʼ, they would not have allowed their hands to scoop water together during ghusl, lest one of them touch the other and thus invalidate their wuḍūʼ. They would then emerge from ghusl without having performed a minor ritual purity, i.e., they would have performed ghusl and emerged without performing wuḍūʼ. It is well known that it has been proven that the Messenger ﷺ did not perform wuḍūʼ after ghusl (ghusl).

It was narrated on the authority of Aisha that she said, “The Messenger of Allah ﷺ did not perform wuḍūʼ after ghusl for major ritual impurity.”[12]

It was also narrated by At-Tirmidhi, who said, “It is a hasan saheeh hadith.”

It was also narrated by Al-Hakim, who said, “This is a saheeh hadith.”

The Messenger ﷺ guided his ummah that ghusl is sufficient for prayer, and that wuḍūʼ is included in it. The fact that he performed ghusl with his wife from a single vessel, reaching out to it together, and they disputed over the vessel and their hands met in it, and then he did not perform wuḍūʼ or order his wife to perform wuḍūʼ, is evidence and proof that the meeting of hands does not invalidate wuḍūʼ, because it is not permissible to remain silent in a context of need and clarification.

This hadith is evidence that touching a woman does not invalidate wuḍūʼ, and it was an action of his ﷺ and an action of his wife, and his silence on that and his approval.

If the third hadith – which is an action of the Prophet ﷺ – and the fourth hadith – which is an action – and the seventh hadith – which is an action – and the eighth hadith – which is an action – all indicate that the Messenger ﷺ used to touch his wives without performing wuḍūʼ, that is, if there are four hadiths that state that the Messenger ﷺ touched women and did not perform wuḍūʼ, then this is clear evidence that touching a woman does not invalidate wuḍūʼ.

The proof that the Messenger ﷺ touched women and did not perform wuḍūʼ is established by four authentic hadiths that are suitable for use as evidence, and this is one of the strongest types of proof.

On the other hand, there is not a single hadith that mentions the actions of the Prophet ﷺ or even the actions of a companion in front of him, that he touched and performed wuḍūʼ. That is, a companion touched and performed wuḍūʼ with the approval of the Prophet ﷺ. This is a valid indication to determine what is meant by the two noble verses, and that they refer to sexual intercourse, or rather, they negate the nullification of mere touching in its various forms, such as kissing, touching with the hand, and nudging with the foot.

Is the action of the Prophet ﷺ touching his wives and not making wudu specific to him?

Someone might say that the two verses negate touching with the hand, and the hadiths mention an action of the Prophet ﷺ that does not negate it, so the hadiths can be interpreted as being specific to him ﷺ. We respond to him by saying: We do not accept this statement because we do not accept that the two verses negate it. Rather, we say, out of leniency, that the two verses are possible, and with possibility, the evidence is invalidated. It is more appropriate that neither meaning should be based on it and the hadiths should be interpreted as having a possible meaning. This is not correct to say. Indeed, if the two verses only indicate negation, and the actions of the Messenger ﷺ mention that they do not negate it, then the action or actions of the Prophet ﷺ can be interpreted as being specific to him. However, in our case, this interpretation is not correct.

The second is that the hadiths explain the Qur’an and do not contradict it. The fact that the two verses are lenient in their meanings is that if the hadiths contain an action or a saying, they are suitable for explaining the two verses and determining what is meant by the two possible meanings. Here, the actions of the Messenger ﷺ are suitable for explaining the meaning of the two verses and determining the intended meaning. This statement is more appropriate than the statement of the existence of a contradiction between the Qur’an and the hadith, such that we are forced to resort to the statement of the specificity of the actions of the Messenger ﷺ because the statement of specificity is not usually resorted to except when the contradiction is established and it is not possible to reconcile and combine, and here it is possible to reconcile and combine.

The third is that the hadiths are not limited to his actions ﷺ but they also include the actions of others and his approval of them. The hadiths show that his wives used to touch the Messenger ﷺ by kissing and other means, and he did not tell them that their wuḍūʼ had been invalidated, despite the existence of reasons for this explanation if touching invalidated their wuḍūʼ. This is also evidence of the correctness of what we are saying.

Fourth, we have a text indicating that the wives of the Messenger ﷺ understood that kissing the Messenger ﷺ without invalidating his wuḍūʼ was not limited to him, but rather included all Muslims.

Al-Daraqutni narrated with a chain of transmission that Al-Hafiz Abadi deemed good on the authority of Aisha: “She heard Ibn Umar’s statement: ‘There is no wuḍūʼ for kissing.’ She said: ‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ would kiss while he was fasting and then not perform wuḍūʼ.’”

Al-Daraqutni even narrated from Aisha what is more explicit and definitive in its evidence. He narrated from her with a chain of transmission that he was silent about, just as Al-Hafiz Abadi was silent about: “The Prophet ﷺ said: ‘There is no wuḍūʼ for kissing.’”

Ibn Jarir al-Tabari said in his tafsir: “The more correct of the two opinions on this matter is the opinion of those who said that Allah meant by His statement, ‘Or you have touched women,’ intercourse, not other meanings of touch, because of the authenticity of the report from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ that he kissed some of his wives and then prayed without performing wuḍūʼ.”

Then he cited the hadiths: two hadiths from Aisha, one hadith from Zainab al-Sahmiyyah, and one hadith from Umm Salamah, which is mentioned under item 7. He commented on that by saying: “In the authenticity of the report in what we mentioned from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ there is clear evidence that touch in this context is intercourse, not all meanings of touch.”

Conclusion

Therefore, touching a woman with her hand, mouth, foot, or any other part of her body does not nullify wuḍūʼ. Rather, it is sexual intercourse alone that nullifies wuḍūʼ.

With this opinion, we have applied the two verses and all the authentic and valid hadiths as evidence, whether they were reported from his actions or his words, or from the actions of his companions with his approval or silence. We have thus distanced ourselves from the view of contradiction that would force us to resort to interpretation or claim of exclusivity.

Having refuted the view that touching invalidates wuḍūʼ, we have demonstrated the error of the view that touching with lust invalidates wuḍūʼ. Since kissing, which is usually done with lust, does not invalidate wuḍūʼ, and is the highest degree of touching with lust, then touching with lust is undoubtedly not invalidating.

As for the opinion that says that if a man sits with his wife and has sexual intercourse and ejaculates, his wuḍūʼ is invalidated even if he does not ejaculate, this is an opinion that has no basis other than the hadith of Muadh, and we have shown its weakness and unsuitability for evidence and argument.

Thus, we conclude this issue and conclude with the opinion that touching a woman does not invalidate wuḍūʼ, whether with or without lust.