Islamic Fiqh > Purification (Tahara) > Ablution (wudu): complete guide > General framework and first nullifier: emission from the 2 passages
Contents
Updated on 25 September 2026 at 3:23 PM
This part belongs to the full section: All sections of this part.
This page completes the study of the nullifiers of wudu (ablution) according to the juridical encyclopedia al-Mawsua al-fiqhiyya: emission from the 2 passages, impurities exiting elsewhere on the body, sleep, touching the private part, touching women, camel meat, laughter during prayer, apostasy, and doubt. Each position is attributed to its school exactly as the Arabic source attributes it, together with the Quranic and prophetic evidences, the hadith gradings given in the source's footnotes, and the references to classical works kept in parentheses. The paragraphs follow the order of the encyclopedia's leaves without omitting any of them.
Imam Abu al-Ma'ali al-Juwayni (may Allah have mercy on him) sets the framework: purification from hadath is not something whose rationale is perceptible to the intellect, and the same applies to its instrument, its location, and its division into washed and wiped parts. There exists in the Law no intelligible principle to rely upon: everything goes back to tawqif, that is, to revealed text alone (Ghiyath al-Umam, p. 511). The jurists then listed the nullifiers of wudu: they agreed on some and differed over others, as the following detail shows.
Ibn al-Mundhir (may Allah have mercy on him) reports their agreement: the exit of feces from the anus, the exit of urine from the penis, likewise for the woman (from her anus and her private part), the emission of mani (semen), the passing of wind from the anus, and the loss of consciousness, by whatever means the mind is lost, are all hadaths, each of which nullifies purification and makes wudu obligatory (al-Ijma', 19). The proof is the word of Allah the Most High:
"...or if one of you comes from relieving himself"
Surah Al-Ma'idah, 6
The exception: Imam Malik and his companions do not consider wudu nullified by an unusual emission (nadhir), such as a stone, worms, or incontinence (Bidayat al-Mujtahid 1/58; Hashiyat al-Dusuqi 1/185; al-Sharh al-Saghir 1/94; Badayi' al-Sana'i' 1/101; Radd al-Muhtar 1/260; Rawdat al-Talibin 1/226; al-Mughni 1/214; al-Ifsah 1/75).
Imam al-Mawardi (may Allah have mercy on him) expounds: know that what makes wudu obligatory falls into 5 sections, the first being what exits from the 2 passages, the penis and the anus. Emission from them is of 2 kinds: customary and unusual. The customary: feces, urine, sound, wind, and menstrual blood; wudu is required for them, in accordance with the word of Allah the Most High cited above (Al-Hawi al-Kabir 1/176-177).
The unusual: madhy (pre-seminal fluid), wady, worms, stones, urinary incontinence, and the blood of istihadah (chronic non-menstrual bleeding). The jurists differed over whether wudu is required for this category. The view of al-Shafi'i and Abu Hanifa: wudu is required for the unusual emission just as for the customary one. Malik says: no wudu for it, relying on the Prophet's words (peace and blessings be upon him): "No wudu except from a sound or a wind", meaning the customary emission comparable to sound and wind, which indicates the exclusion of the unusual. And the Prophet said to the woman suffering from istihadah: "Pray, even if the blood drips onto the mat in streams": her wudu was not nullified by istihadah blood because it is unusual. Malik reasons: if the customary emission exiting from an unusual aperture does not require wudu because of its rarity at that place, then the unusual emission exiting from the customary aperture should not require wudu either, because of its rarity.
The proponents of obligation reply: our proof is the word of Allah: "or if one of you comes from relieving himself" (Surah Al-Ma'idah, 6), which covers the unusual as well as the customary. 'Abbas ibn Anas reports: I heard 'Ali say in Kufa: I said to 'Ammar: ask the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) about the madhy that afflicts one of us when he approaches his family, for his daughter is my wife and I would be shy to ask myself. 'Ammar asked him, and the Prophet replied:
"Wudu is sufficient for that."Reported in the source with the chain: 'Abbas ibn Anas from 'Ali and 'Ammar (Al-Hawi al-Kabir 1/176)
This hadith made wudu obligatory for madhy, which is an unusual emission: the same therefore holds for every unusual emission. Moreover, it exits from the customary aperture: it must nullify wudu just as the customary emission does. As for the hadith "No wudu except from a sound or a wind", it carries no apparent import to which the ruling could be attached, and it in fact proves the obligation of wudu for sound and wind. As for the report of the woman in istihadah, it is not probative: that woman was in a state of hadath, and her prayer was accepted only out of necessity. And when the customary exits from an unusual aperture, it is not rarity that removes wudu, but the fact that the exit occurs outside the customary aperture (Al-Hawi al-Kabir 1/176-177).
The Shafi'is nevertheless stipulated, in the sound view of their school, that the emission of mani makes ghusl (major ablution) obligatory and does not nullify wudu, whether the emission occurred from a mere look or from a dream, provided the person could have remained seated. Indeed, Allah imposed the greater of the 2 duties, namely ghusl specifically as mani, and not the lesser, namely wudu generically as an emission; it is like the zina of the married person, which incurs the greater of the 2 penalties as zina of a married person, without incurring the lesser as zina in general. Menstruation and postnatal bleeding, for their part, impose both ghusl and wudu: they prevent the very validity of wudu and cannot coexist with it, unlike mani, with which wudu remains valid in the case of chronic mani flow (an-Najm al-Wahhaj 1/266; Mughni al-Muhtaj 1/112).
According to Judge Abu al-Tayyib, the emission of mani nullifies wudu, and one thereby enters a state of janabah and hadath. Al-Damiri comments: it is a strong view, for mani exits from the 2 passages like menstruation, which imposes ghusl and wudu by agreement, as al-Mawardi and Ibn 'Atiyyah report. This is why al-Shaykh (al-Juwayni) chose it and al-Rafi'i authenticated it in his book "al-Mahmud", a very extensive work that reached the prayer chapter in 8 volumes and remained unfinished.
The fact that the emission of mani does not nullify wudu yields 2 benefits. The first: if one was in a state of hadath and then performed ghusl for janabah, the validity of the ensuing prayer is debated among them; whereas here, if one performs ghusl without a prior hadath, the prayer is valid without disagreement. The second: if the janabah was not accompanied by any hadath and one performed tayammum being unable to use water, one may pray any number of obligatory prayers with a single tayammum, as long as no hadath occurs and water remains inaccessible; it is like the menstruating woman who performs tayammum to make intercourse or prayer lawful: if she then has a hadath, intercourse and staying in the mosque remain lawful for her as long as she finds no water and menstruation does not return (an-Najm al-Wahhaj 1/266; Mughni al-Muhtaj 1/112).
Imam al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) sums up: everything that exits from either of the 2 passages, whether a body or wind, from the private part or anus of man or woman, whether unusual like blood and a stone, or customary, whether inherently impure or pure like a worm or a stone, nullifies wudu, except mani: its emission does not nullify wudu but makes ghusl obligatory. There exists in the school a deviant view (shadhdh) that it also imposes wudu (Rawdat al-Talibin 1/72).
The jurists differed over the case of something impure exiting from the rest of the body outside the 2 passages: a wound, bloodletting, cupping, nosebleed, vomiting, blood: is wudu nullified or not? The Hanafis and the Hanbalis hold that impurities exiting outside the 2 passages nullify wudu, wherever they exit from. But Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) specifies: if the emission is profuse, wudu is nullified; if it is slight, there are 2 narrations: one nullifies, the other does not, and the latter is the most correct.
Al-Buhuti explains: that a small amount does not nullify comes from the meaning of Ibn 'Abbas's statement about blood: "If it is profuse, he must repeat the prayer." Ahmad said: a number of Companions spoke to this effect; Ibn 'Umar squeezed a pimple, blood came out, and he prayed without renewing wudu; Ibn Abi Awfa squeezed a boil; other cases are reported, with no known contradictor among the Companions: it was thus a consensus (Kashshaf al-Qina' 1/124; Badayi' al-Sana'i' 1/101; al-Hidayah 1/14; Bahr al-Ra'iq 1/33; Radd al-Muhtar 1/260-261; al-Mughni 1/220; Nayl al-Awtar 1/235; Manar al-Sabil 1/44; 'Awn al-Ma'bud 1/231).
The Malikis, the Shafi'is, and Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah hold that the exit of these things does not nullify wudu. Al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) says: whether little or much, it is the same; only the obligation of washing the spot of the body touched by the exiting impurity remains, and wudu stands, unless nullified by another cause. For the default is non-nullification until the Law establishes it, and it did not establish it here; and analogical reasoning is barred in this chapter, because the legal cause of nullification is not intelligible. Al-Nawawi reports: Abu Bakr Ibn al-Mundhir (may Allah have mercy on him) said: no wudu for any of that, for I know of no proof from those who impose it. Al-Nawawi comments: this is the speech of Ibn al-Mundhir, whose mastery and verification are beyond doubt, whose immense knowledge of the Sunna, discernment in sound proofs, and freedom from partisanship are acknowledged (al-Majmu' 2/65).
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) says: the more apparent view is that wudu is not obligatory for touching the penis, nor for touching women, nor for impurities exiting outside the 2 passages, nor for laughter, nor for washing the dead: the proponents of obligation have no valid proof; the preponderant evidences indicate non-obligation, but the recommendation is clear: it is therefore recommended to perform wudu (Majmu' al-Fatawa 20/525-526). And elsewhere: by this method one knows that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not make wudu obligatory for touching women nor for impurities exiting outside the 2 passages; no one has reported, through an established chain, that he commanded it, although it is known that the people constantly practiced cupping, vomited, and were wounded in jihad and otherwise; a Companion even opened a vein to let blood out (that is phlebotomy), and no Muslim reported that he commanded his Companions to renew wudu for it (Majmu' al-Fatawa 25/237-238; see also al-Talqin 1/47; Hashiyat al-Dusuqi 1/190; Kifayat al-Akhyar p. 76; al-Mughni 1/220).
Imam Ibn Rushd (may Allah have mercy on him) structures the disagreement: the scholars of the great cities differed over the nullification of wudu for what exits the body as impurity, in 3 schools. The first considers the exiting substance alone, wherever it exits: Abu Hanifa and his companions, al-Thawri, Ahmad, and a group, along with predecessor Companions; they say: every impurity that flows from the body and exits makes wudu obligatory, like blood, profuse nosebleed, phlebotomy, cupping, and vomiting, except phlegm according to Abu Hanifa. Abu Yusuf, among Abu Hanifa's companions, says: if it fills the mouth, wudu is required; and none of them takes account of a small amount of blood, except Mujahid.
The second school considers the 2 apertures, the penis and the anus: everything that exits from these 2 passages nullifies wudu, whatever it is, blood, a stone, or phlegm, and whether the exit occurs in a state of health or of illness. This is the view of al-Shafi'i and his companions, and of Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Hakam among Malik's companions. The third school considers the exiting substance, the aperture, and the mode of exit together: everything that exits from the 2 passages customarily, namely urine, feces, madhy, wady, and wind, if the exit occurs in a state of health, nullifies wudu; they impose no wudu for blood, a stone, a worm, or incontinence. This is the view of Malik and all his companions.
The cause of their disagreement, Ibn Rushd continues: when the Muslims agreed upon the nullification of wudu for what exits the 2 passages (feces, urine, wind, madhy), in light of the text of the Book and the convergence of reports, 3 interpretations opened up. The first: the ruling is attached only to the very substances of the things agreed upon, as Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) holds. The second: the ruling is attached to these things inasmuch as they are impurities exiting the body, since wudu is a purification and purification is affected by impurity. The third: the ruling is attached to these things inasmuch as they exit from these 2 passages; on these last 2 readings, the command of wudu for the unanimously agreed hadaths falls under the specific intended as general, whereas according to Malik and his companions it is a specific carried on its specificity. Al-Shafi'i and Abu Hanifa therefore agree that the command falls under the specific intended as general, and they differ over which general is intended.
Malik strengthens his school with the principle that the default is to carry the specific upon its specific meaning until evidence indicates otherwise. Al-Shafi'i argues: the intended target is the aperture, not the exiting substance, since all agree that wudu is obligatory for wind exiting from below and not for wind exiting from above, though it is one and the same substance, the difference lying in the 2 apertures: an indication that the ruling attaches to the aperture; and this argument is weak, for the 2 winds differ in nature and odor. Abu Hanifa argues: the intended target is the exiting impurity, for impurity affects purification, and this purification, though legal, resembles real purification, I mean purification from impurity; he relies on the hadith of Thawban: the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) vomited, broke his fast, and performed wudu; on what is reported from 'Umar and Ibn 'Umar making wudu obligatory for nosebleed; and on the Prophet's command to the woman in istihadah to perform wudu for every prayer.
Al-Shafi'i and Abu Hanifa agree on nullification for the unanimously agreed hadaths even when they exit in a state of illness, because of the Prophet's command that the woman in istihadah perform wudu for every prayer, istihadah being an illness. Malik, for his part, holds that illness has here the effect of a dispensation, by analogy also with what is reported about the woman in istihadah, and because the hadith of Fatimah bint Abi Hubaysh is unanimously recognized as authentic, the disagreement concerning the addition "wudu for every prayer", which Abu 'Umar Ibn 'Abd al-Barr nevertheless authenticated. Malik also reasons by analogy with the man whose blood overwhelms him from a wound that does not stop, like the report that 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) prayed while his wound was gushing blood (Bidayat al-Mujtahid 1/58, 60).
Sleep is a natural lapse that befalls a person without his choosing, preventing the outer and inner senses from functioning while they remain intact and the intellect remains present: the servant becomes incapable of discharging his duties. The jurists of the 4 schools agree that sleep in general nullifies wudu, and likewise the sleep of one lying down, leaning, or reclining, because of the Prophet's words (peace and blessings be upon him):
"The eye is the cord of the anus: whoever sleeps, let him perform wudu."Hadith whose grading the source gives further on (hasan); the "anus" is the place of exit and the "cord" is the tie that binds the mouth of the waterskin: wakefulness is to the eye what the cord is to the waterskin, and when the eye sleeps the cord loosens and hadath may escape
They then differed over one who sleeps in one of the prayer postures, or seated on the ground with his posterior firmly planted: is his wudu nullified? Abu Hanifa (may Allah have mercy on him) says: it is not, however long the sleep, if he is in one of the prayer postures; but if he lies on his side and lies down, his wudu is nullified. Abu Bakr al-Jassas (may Allah have mercy on him) explains: what makes wudu obligatory is the customary sleep of which one who leaves it can be said to have "risen from sleep"; now of one who sleeps seated, prostrating, or bowing, it is not said that he rose from sleep: that is said only of the sleeper lying down.
Al-Jassas continues: the predecessors and the generality of the jurists of the cities agreed not to impose wudu on one who sleeps seated without leaning on anything. 'Ata' reports from Ibn 'Abbas that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) delayed the 'Isha' prayer one night until the people slept, then they awoke; 'Umar came and said: the prayer, O Messenger of Allah; he went out and prayed without mentioning that they had renewed wudu (an authentic hadith according to the source, grading given further on). Anas (may Allah be pleased with him) reports:
"We used to come to the mosque of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) and wait for the prayer: some of us would doze and some would sleep, and we did not renew wudu."An authentic hadith according to the source, which refers its grading further on
The source further reports, through the chain of Abu Yusuf from Muhammad ibn 'Abdillah, from 'Ata', from Ibn 'Abbas: the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) used to pray the dawn prayer without renewing wudu; he was asked about it and said: "I am not like you: my eyes sleep but my heart does not sleep; were I to have a hadath, I would know it." The source's note specifies that this full wording was not located: what is established in the 2 Sahihs is the sentence "My eyes sleep and my heart does not sleep" (al-Bukhari 1147; Muslim 738). This hadith shows that sleep in itself is not a hadath: the obligation of wudu targets the possible hadath that the sleeper does not perceive, which is the prevailing case in sleep, per the hadith: "The eye is the cord of the anus: when the eye sleeps, the cord loosens" (a hasan hadith per the source). The ruling of hadath therefore attaches to deep sleep in which the sleeper does not sense what exits from him, in the customary sleep where the sleeper lays his side on the ground, not knowing what issues from him; but if he is seated or in a prayer posture without need, such as standing, bowing, or prostrating, his purification is not nullified, for in these postures a person is on his guard: were a hadath to occur, he would know it (Ahkam al-Qur'an 3/322-333; Badayi' al-Sana'i' 1/123-127; Radd al-Muhtar 1/207).
Among the Malikis, the retained view (sahih) is that the criterion is the quality of sleep, not the sleeper's posture, whether lying, standing, or other. Whenever the sleep is deep, it nullifies in every posture, whether the sleeper lies down, prostrates, sits, or stands. The sign of deep sleep: the one experiencing it does not perceive loud sounds near him, or holds an object that falls from his hand without him noticing. If the sleep is not deep, in that he hears the loud sounds nearby, feels the object fall from his hand or feels his saliva flowing, there is then no nullification at all, due to its lightness: this is the way of al-Lakhmi.
Others combined the quality of sleep when it is deep and the sleeper's posture when it is not: deep sleep requires wudu in every posture and position; as for light sleep, they say: wudu is required for the sleeper lying down or prostrating, and not for the one standing or sitting. Al-Sawi notes that this way is attributed in "al-Tawdih" to 'Abd al-Haqq and others, but that the first way is the most famous: it is the way of Ibn Marzuq (al-Sharh al-Saghir with Bulghah al-Salik 1/98; Hashiyat al-Dusuqi 1/192; al-Ifsah 1/74).
Among the Shafi'is, the sound view, supported by al-Shafi'i's own text, is the one al-Nawawi reports: if the sleeper keeps his posterior planted on the ground or a similar support, wudu is not nullified; if he does not keep it planted, it is nullified whatever the posture, in prayer or outside it. Little and much sleep are alike, to reconcile the reports on the question, among them that of 'Ali (may Allah be pleased with him):
"The 2 eyes are the cord of the anus: whoever sleeps, let him perform wudu."A hasan hadith: reported by Abu Dawud (203), Ibn Majah (477) and others; graded hasan by al-Nawawi in al-Majmu' (2/23)
And the hadith of Safwan (may Allah be pleased with him), in direct attribution to the Prophet: "...but from feces, urine, and sleep" (a hasan hadith: reported by al-Tirmidhi 96, al-Nasa'i 158, Ahmad 18116 and 18120, Ibn Khuzaymah in his Sahih 17 and 196). And the hadith of Anas (may Allah be pleased with him): "The Companions of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) would sleep then pray without renewing wudu", with the version: "until their heads drooped" (Muslim 376; Abu Dawud 200). Anas also reports: the iqamah for the 'Isha' prayer was called; a man said: I have an errand; the Prophet stood and conferred with him until the people, or some of the people, slept, then they prayed; in one version: "until his Companions slept, then he came and led them in prayer": both versions are reported by Muslim in his Sahih. And from Ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him): "The Messenger of Allah was kept one night from the 'Isha' prayer; he delayed it until we slept in the mosque, then we awoke, then slept, then awoke, then he came out to us"; and from Ibn 'Abbas: "The Messenger of Allah delayed the 'Isha' one night until the people slept and awoke, then slept and awoke" (al-Bukhari 545; Muslim 639). Al-Bukhari reported these 2 hadiths with this wording, whose apparent meaning is that they prayed with those same ablutions.
Al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) says: Malik and al-Shafi'i reported, through an authentic chain, that Ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) would sleep seated then pray without renewing wudu. And the reasoning: from the sleeper whose posterior is not planted, wind most often escapes, and the Law raised this apparent likelihood to the level of certainty, just as it raises the testimony of 2 witnesses, which yields only presumption, to certainty for establishing liability. As for the first hadith (the eye and the cord), it is carried upon the sleep of one whose posterior is not planted, and to this one must resort in order to reconcile the authentic hadiths. Al-Nawawi further reports: al-Shafi'i said in "al-Umm", as did his companions: wudu is not nullified by drowsiness (nu'as), and that is the Sunna, without disagreement; the proof is the hadith of Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him):
"The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) stood to pray at night; I stood at his left side and he placed me on his right; whenever I dozed, he would take hold of my earlobe; he prayed 11 rak'ahs."Reported by Muslim
Al-Shafi'i and his companions thus distinguish: in sleep there is a takeover of the mind and the collapse of sight and the other senses; in drowsiness the mind is not overcome, the senses merely slacken without collapse (al-Majmu' 2/17 and 27; Sharh Sahih Muslim 4/66; Tarh al-Tathrib 2/45; Mughni al-Muhtaj 1/115; Kifayat al-Akhyar p. 77; al-Ifsah 1/74).
Among the Hanbalis, sleep falls into 3 categories. The first: the sleep of one lying down; it nullifies wudu, whether slight or long, and this is the view of all who affirm nullification by sleep. The second: the sleep of one seated; if long, it nullifies according to one narration, and if slight, it does not nullify. They prove it by the generality of the hadith of the eye and the cord, and by the statement of Safwan ibn Ussall (may Allah be pleased with him): "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), when we traveled, would order us not to remove our leather socks for 3 days and their nights, except from janabah, but (to remove them) from feces, urine, and sleep." They restrict it to slight sleep through the hadith of Anas ("they would sleep then pray without renewing wudu"), which specifies neither quantity nor smallness; now the head of a sleeper droops even after slight sleep: it is therefore certain for the slight, on which the ruling is based, while what exceeds it remains conjectural, and a certain generality is not abandoned for mere conjecture. Moreover, nullification by sleep is explained by its leading to hadath: with abundance and dominance of sleep it leads to it without the person sensing the escape, unlike slight sleep; and the long cannot be analogized to the slight, for they differ in their consequence.
It is reported from Imam Ahmad that it does not nullify; it is reported from him that the sleep of the seated does not nullify, even if long: this is the choice of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah; and it is reported from him that only the sleep of one lying down nullifies. The third category: everything outside these 2 states, namely the sleep of one standing, bowing, or prostrating. Narrations came from Ahmad: the first: it nullifies, and this is the school's view, for no text came to particularize it out of the general nullification hadiths, nor anything of like meaning, since the seated person is on guard because the place of hadath rests on the ground, whereas in the one bowing and the one prostrating the place of hadath gapes open; the second: it does not nullify unless it becomes much. It is said in "al-Insaf": the sound view of the school is that the sleep of the standing is like that of the seated: much of it does not nullify, per Ahmad's own text. It is said in "al-Mughni": the apparent view with Ahmad is the equivalence of the seated and the standing, for they resemble each other in the lowered position and the closing of the aperture, and the standing one is perhaps farther from hadath, since he cannot sink into sleep: were he to sink, he would fall. And in "al-Insaf": this is the view of the majority of the school's companions.
As for the sleep of the one bowing and the one prostrating: if slight, the school's view is that it nullifies; it is reported from Ahmad that the slight sleep of the bowing and prostrating one does not nullify, and this is the view of the majority of the school's companions; it is further reported from him that the sleep of the standing and the bowing does not nullify but that of the prostrating one does (al-Mughni 1/223 and 225; Kashshaf al-Qina' 1/125; al-Insaf 1/199-200; Manar al-Sabil 1/45).
The jurists agree that one who touches his private part with a part of his body other than his hand does not have his wudu nullified. They then differed, when he touches it with the inside of his palm, into 3 schools. The first: the Hanafis and Imam Ahmad in a narration chosen by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah: touching the private part does not nullify wudu and obligates nothing; it is merely recommended, because of the hadith of Talq ibn 'Ali:
"We came to the Prophet of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him); a man came, looking like a bedouin, and said: O Prophet of Allah, what do you think of a man who touches his private part after performing wudu (in one version: during the prayer)? The Prophet said to him: Is it anything but a piece of you? (or: a limb of you)"An authentic hadith: reported by Abu Dawud (181, 182), al-Tirmidhi (85), al-Nasa'i (165) and Ibn Majah (483)
They argue: it is a limb of his body, so it is like the rest of his body, like one who touches his thigh, his nose, or his foot. They add: it is nevertheless recommended to perform wudu, to leave the disagreement (al-Mabsut 1/66; Bahr al-Ra'iq 1/45; Fath al-Qadir 1/55; Hashiyat al-Tahtawi 1/61; Radd al-Muhtar 1/278; al-Mughni 1/228; al-Insaf 1/202; al-Ikhtiyarat p. 28).
The second school: the Shafi'is, the Hanbalis according to the school's view, and the Malikis according to the better-known view: one who touches his private part with his hand has his wudu nullified. They prove it by several hadiths of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), among them what Busrah bint Safwan (may Allah be pleased with her) reported:
"Whoever touches his private part, let him perform wudu."An authentic hadith: reported by Abu Dawud (180), al-Tirmidhi (82), al-Nasa'i (444) and Ibn Majah (479)
"If one of you puts his hand upon his private part with no veil or barrier between them, let him perform wudu."A hadith of Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him), authentic: reported by Ibn Hibban in his Sahih (1118) and al-Bayhaqi in al-Sunan al-Kubra (630)
"Any man who touches his private part, let him perform wudu; and any woman who touches her private part, let her perform wudu."A hadith of 'Abdullah ibn 'Amr (may Allah be pleased with him), authentic: reported by Imam Ahmad (7076), Ibn al-Jarud in al-Muntaqa (19) and al-Bayhaqi in al-Sunan al-Kubra (626)
"Whoever touches his private part, let him perform wudu."A hadith of Umm Habibah (may Allah be pleased with her), authentic: reported by Ibn Majah (481) and al-Bayhaqi in al-Sunan al-Kubra (617); also reported from Abu Ayyub
They discuss the hadith of Talq: even were it authentic, the hadith of Abu Hurayrah and its counterparts would take precedence, for Talq arrived in Medina while the mosque was being built and there reported the hadith containing the episode of touching the private part, whereas Abu Hurayrah embraced Islam in the year of Khaybar, 6 years later; now one retains the most recent of the Prophet's practice. They further say: the hadith of Talq keeps the original rule, that of Busrah transfers it, and the transferring report takes precedence, for the rulings of the Lawgiver transfer from what the people were upon. And the reporters of nullification are more numerous and their hadiths more famous: they come from Busrah, Umm Habibah, Abu Hurayrah, and Zayd ibn Khalid (may Allah be pleased with them) all together. Moreover, the difference between the private part and the rest of the body is established in both insight and sense: it is established from the Messenger of Allah that "he forbade a man to touch his private part with his right hand" (al-Bukhari 153; Muslim 267); this indicates that the private part does not resemble the rest of the body, and this is why the right hand is kept away from it: were the private part like the thumb, the hand, or the foot, the prohibition on touching it with the right hand would be meaningless. And analogizing the private part to the rest of the body does not hold, for it carries rules unique to it: the obligation of ghusl through penetration, the legal penalty, the dowry, and others.
They add: the hadith of Talq is interpreted as concerning touch over a barrier, for he said: "I asked him about touching the private part during the prayer", and the apparent meaning is that one does not touch one's private part in prayer without a barrier. There is no difference, according to the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis in one view, between deliberate and unintentional touching; according to a narration from Ahmad, and it is a Maliki view, wudu is nullified only when the touch is intended. Ahmad ibn al-Husayn reports: Ahmad was asked: wudu for touching the private part? He did like this and clenched his hand, that is, when one grips it (al-Mughni 1/228 and 230; al-Insaf 1/202; al-Majmu' 2/45 and 55; Ibn al-Qayyim's commentary on Abu Dawud's Sunan 1/212-214; Mughni al-Muhtaj 1/35; al-Ifsah 1/79; al-Awsat of Ibn al-Mundhir 1/194).
The third school: the Malikis. Ibn 'Abd al-Barr (may Allah have mercy on him) expounds: Malik's position on the obligation of wudu for touching the private part fluctuated, and his doctrine differed. What settled among his companions of the Muslim West: one who touches his private part is ordered to perform wudu so long as he has not prayed; if he prayed, he is ordered to repeat the prayer while the time remains; once the time has passed, no repetition is due from him (al-Istidhkar 1/249-250; al-Kafi 1/12; Bidayat al-Mujtahid 1/65-66).
His companions and followers differed into 4 views. Some impose no wudu on one who touches his private part, nor any repetition of prayer after touching it, neither in the time nor outside it: among them Sahnun and al-'Itqi. Others require repetition within the time: Ibn al-Qasim and Ashhab, and it is a narration of Ibn Wahb. Others yet hold the wudu obligatory and the repetition of the prayer required within the time and after it: among them Asbagh ibn al-Faraj and 'Isa ibn Dinar, and it is the position of Ibn 'Umar, who repeated the dawn prayer after sunrise, as well as the view of al-Shafi'i. As for Isma'il ibn Ishaq and his Baghdad companions among the Malikis, such as Ibn Kabir, Ibn al-Muntab, and Abu al-Faraj al-Abhari, they condition the touch on the presence of pleasure, like the touching of women in their view: if he felt pleasure touching his private part, wudu is due from him, and if he prayed after touching it without performing wudu, he repeats the prayer forever, even outside the time; if he felt no pleasure in the touch, nothing is due from him; this is a fourth view, and those who hold it equate the inside and the outside of the palm (al-Istidhkar 1/249-250; Mawahib al-Jalil 1/300 and 6/433; al-Kafi 1/12; Bidayat al-Mujtahid 1/65-66).
The Malikis according to the retained view and the Shafi'is say: wudu is nullified only by touching with the inside of the palm, for the outside of the hand is not the organ of touch: it is like the case of touching it with one's thigh (al-Istidhkar 1/249; al-Majmu' 2/245). The Hanbalis make no difference between the outside and the inside of the palm, because of the Prophet's hadith (peace and blessings be upon him) about the hand brought with no veil or barrier: the outside of the palm is part of the hand, and "bringing the hand" is contact without barrier; and it is a part of his hand to which the rulings of the whole hand attach: it resembles the inside of the palm (al-Mughni 1/230).