Islamic Fiqh > Purification (Tahara) > Ablution (wudu): complete guide > Touching the anus, an animal's private part, another person's, and a woman touching hers
Contents
Updated on 25 September 2026 at 3:23 PM
This part belongs to the full section: All sections of this part.
Touching the anus. The jurists differed over one who touches his anus: is his wudu nullified? The Shafi'is and the Hanbalis according to the school's view: yes, with no difference between touching the private part and touching the anus, because of the hadith of 'A'ishah: "Whoever touches his private part, let him perform wudu" (Ibn Majah 481; al-Bayhaqi 617; also from Abu Ayyub). The term "farj" (private part) designates in Arabic both the front passage and the rear passage; and since the anus is one of the 2 passages of hadath, touching it must constitute a hadath like touching the front passage. If the obligation of wudu for touching the anus is established, it attaches to touching the ring itself and not to what neighbors and adjoins it; likewise, wudu for touching the private part concerns the private part itself, not what neighbors it: the pubic mound, the testicles, or what lies between the 2 passages (al-Majmu' 2/51; al-Awsat 1/212-213; al-Hawi al-Kabir 1/196-197; al-Mughni 1/232; al-Insaf 1/209).
The Hanafis, the Malikis, and the Hanbalis according to one narration: wudu is not nullified, for the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "Whoever touches his private part, let him perform wudu": the ruling specified the private part, and the anus is not within its meaning, for it is not intended for touching and does not lead to the exit of anything (al-Awsat 1/212-213; Bahr al-Ra'iq 1/45; al-Istidhkar 1/249; al-Bayan wa al-Tahsil 18/45; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil 1/158; al-Qawanin al-fiqhiyya p. 22; al-Mughni 1/232; al-Insaf 1/209).
Touching an animal's private part. Al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) says: touching the private part of a beast does not nullify wudu according to us, and this is the view of all scholars (al-Majmu' 2/51).
A woman touching her private part. The jurists differed: is her wudu nullified? The Shafi'is, Malik in one narration, and the Hanbalis according to the school's view: if the woman touches her private part, her wudu is nullified just like the man's, because of the hadith: "Any woman who touches her private part, let her perform wudu" (grading cited above). The Hanafis, the Malikis according to the prevailing view, and Ahmad in one narration: her wudu is not nullified, for the well-known hadith concerns touching the male private part, and the woman's touching of her private part is not within its meaning, because it does not invite the exit of anything: wudu is therefore not nullified (al-Qawanin al-fiqhiyya 1/22; al-Majmu' 2/55; al-Mughni 1/232; al-Insaf 1/209-210).
The Malikis, according to their prevailing view, specify: the woman's wudu is not nullified by touching her private part, even if she "inserts", that is, introduces a finger or several fingers into her private part (Bulghah al-Salik 1/101). Ibn 'Abd al-Barr (may Allah have mercy on him) reports the nuances: it is reported from Malik that she is in this like the man, in all the states of disagreement already described, and wudu is due from her: this is the better-known view; it is reported from him that he lightened it and imposed wudu only if she "inserts", insertion being interpreted as seeking pleasure. Isma'il ibn Abi Uways says: I asked Malik ibn Anas about the woman who touches her private part: is wudu due from her? Malik said: if she inserts, wudu is due from her. I said to him: what is inserting? He said: that she introduces her hand between the 2 lips (al-Kafi 1/12).
Touching another person's private part. The jurists differed over one who touches another's private part, even a child's: is his wudu nullified? The Shafi'is and the Hanbalis: the wudu of the toucher is nullified, whether the person touched is small or grown, alive or dead, for touching another's private part is a sin, more conducive to desire and to emission, whereas a person's need drives him to touch his own private part: if wudu is nullified for touching one's own, it is nullified a fortiori for another's (al-Majmu' 2/45 and 47; Mughni al-Muhtaj 1/35; al-Mughni 1/231; al-Kafi 1/45; al-Insaf 1/209-210; Kashshaf al-Qina' 1/128; al-Ifsah 1/78). The Hanafis: wudu is never nullified by touching another's private part (al-Mabsut 1/66; al-Istidhkar 1/256; al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya 1/13). The Malikis: if he touches another's private part, his ruling in this is the ruling of one touching his own: if he intends pleasure or finds it, his wudu is nullified, otherwise not: this is their doctrine; however, al-Qarafi in "al-Dhakhira" stated non-nullification without detail (Mawahib al-Jalil 1/299; al-Dhakhira 1/225; al-Thamar al-Dani 1/30; al-Sharh al-Kabir 1/121; al-Fawakih al-Dawani 1/116; Hashiyat al-'Adawi 1/176; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil 1/157; Minhah al-Jalil 1/113).
The jurists differed over the ruling on touching women: does it nullify wudu in every case, with or without desire, or never nullify it, or nullify it when done with desire and not otherwise? Three views among the people of knowledge. The first: the Hanafis and Ahmad in one narration, which is the choice of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah: touching women does not nullify wudu in any case, unless one has direct contact reaching to the brink of penetration. Evidences: the hadith of 'A'ishah (may Allah be pleased with her):
"I used to sleep in front of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), my legs toward his qiblah; when he wanted to prostrate, he would poke me and I would fold my legs, and when he rose, I would stretch them out."Reported by al-Bukhari (375) and Muslim (512)
"He kissed one of his wives, then went out to the prayer without performing wudu."An authentic hadith of 'A'ishah: reported by Abu Dawud (179), al-Tirmidhi (86), al-Nasa'i (1/104) and Ibn Majah (502)
And what Abu Umamah (may Allah be pleased with him) reported: while the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) was in the mosque, seated among us, a man came and said: O Messenger of Allah, I have committed an offense warranting a penalty, apply it to me. The Messenger of Allah kept silent; the man repeated his request and he kept silent again; the prayer was called; when he finished, the man followed him, and I too followed the Messenger of Allah to see what he would answer the man. The man caught up with him and repeated his request, and the Messenger of Allah said to him: "When you left your house, did you not perform wudu and perform it well? He said: yes, O Messenger of Allah. He said: then you attended the prayer with us? He said: yes, O Messenger of Allah. The Messenger of Allah said to him: then Allah has forgiven you your offense (or: your sin)" (Muslim 2765). And in a version reported from 'Abdullah: a man came to the Prophet and said: O Messenger of Allah, I had relations short of intercourse with a woman at the far end of Medina; here I am, decide of me what you wish. 'Umar said: Allah had covered you: would that you had covered yourself. The Prophet gave no answer; the man rose and left; the Prophet sent a man after him and recited to him this verse:
"And establish prayer at the 2 ends of the day and at the approach of the night: indeed, good deeds do away with misdeeds. That is a reminder for those who remember."
Surah Hud, 114
A man among the company said: O Prophet of Allah, is this for him specifically? He said: no, it is for all people (Muslim 2763). The Hanafis further argue: touching is not a hadath in itself, nor a cause of the customary occurrence of hadath: it resembles a man touching a man, or a woman touching a woman; and the touching of spouses is of constant occurrence: making it a hadath would plunge people into hardship. As for the verse "or you have touched women" (Surah Al-Nisa', 43), it is reported from Ibn 'Abbas, the interpreter of the Quran, that the intended "touching" is intercourse. And obligation can only come from the revealed Law: nothing came in this sense, nor anything equivalent (Badayi' al-Sana'i' 1/119-121; Radd al-Muhtar 1/277-278; al-Mughni 1/249).
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) defines his position: likewise the touching of women with desire, if one says it is recommended, that is tenable; but as for its being obligatory, no proof rises for it except its opposite, and no one has ever been able to relate from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) that he commanded his Companions to perform wudu for touching women, nor for impurities exiting outside the 2 passages, given how universally prevalent these cases are; and the meaning of "or you have touched women" is intercourse, as Ibn 'Abbas and others interpreted it, for multiple reasons (Majmu' al-Fatawa 20/525). He then says: the more apparent view is that wudu is not obligatory for touching the private part, nor 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 for touching women with desire (Majmu' al-Fatawa 20/526-527).
The second school: the Shafi'is and Imam Ahmad in one narration: if a man touches the skin of a woman, or a woman the skin of a man, with no barrier between them, the wudu of the toucher and the touched is nullified in every case, with or without desire. Proof: the word of Allah: "or you have touched women" (Surah Al-Nisa', 43), which Ibn Mas'ud read as "aw lamastum" (the accomplished form of the verb); now the primary meaning of touching is the meeting of the 2 skins. Allah the Most High reports the jinn as saying: "...we sought to touch heaven" (Surah Al-Jinn, 8); and the poet said: "I touched with my hand his hand, seeking wealth" (cited by the source for the word's plain meaning). Imam al-Shafi'i says in his Musnad: Malik informed us, from Ibn Shihab, from Salim, from his father:
"A man's kissing his wife, or feeling her with his hand, falls under mulamasah: whoever kisses his wife or feels her with his hand, wudu is due from him."Reported in the Musnad of al-Shafi'i (1/11)
The woman intended is one lawful to marry (a non-relative) as well as the wife; as for the woman permanently forbidden in marriage, touching her does not nullify wudu; likewise, touching the young non-related girl who is not an object of desire does not nullify wudu (al-Majmu' 2/30; al-Muhadhdhab 1/23; al-Mughni 1/250).
The third school: the Malikis and Imam Ahmad according to the prevailing report: if the touching is with desire, it nullifies, otherwise not. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) treats the question in detail: the nullification of wudu by touching women carries 3 views, 2 extremes and a middle. The weakest: nullification by mere touching, even without desire, when the person touched is of those who customarily arouse desire: this is al-Shafi'i's view, clinging to the verse "or you have touched women" and the other reading "aw lamastum". The second: touching never nullifies, even with desire: this is the view of Abu Hanifa and others; both views are related as narrations from Ahmad, but the apparent doctrine of his school is that of Malik and the 7 jurists of Medina: if the touching is with desire, it nullifies, otherwise not. There is no tenable view in the question except this one or the one before it.
Attaching nullification to mere touching contradicts the principles, the consensus of the Companions, and the transmitted reports, and its proponent has neither text nor analogy. If "touching" in the verse means the contact of the hand, the kiss, and the like, as Ibn 'Umar and others said, then it is established that wherever such expressions are used in the Book and the Sunna, they mean what is accompanied by desire, like His word concerning i'tikaf: "and do not have relations with them while you are retaining in the mosques" (Surah Al-Baqarah, 187): the contact without desire of a man in i'tikaf is not forbidden to him, unlike contact with desire. Likewise the pilgrim in ihram, whose rule is stricter: if he touches a woman without desire, it is not forbidden for him and incurs no sacrificial blood. Likewise His word: "then you divorce them before touching them" (Surah Al-Ahzab, 49) and: "There is no blame upon you if you divorce women you have not touched" (Surah Al-Baqarah, 236): if a man touches her with a touch devoid of desire, no waiting period is due, the dowry is not settled, and the prohibition of affinity is not established, by consensus of the scholars; unlike touching with desire without seclusion or intercourse: the settlement of the dowry therein is a well-known dispute among the scholars in the doctrine of Ahmad and others.
Whoever claims that "or you have touched women" covers touching even without desire departs from the language in which the Quran came, indeed from people's ordinary usage: when touching between man and woman is mentioned, one understands the touch of desire, just as when intercourse between man and woman is mentioned, one understands intercourse of the private part, not of the foot. Moreover, the advocate of nullification does not say the ruling attaches to touching women absolutely, but to a category: those who arouse desire; now touching those who do not, such as close relatives and the young girl, does not nullify: he has thus abandoned the apparent meaning he claims and set a condition with no basis in any text or analogy. The revealed principles distinguish between touching with desire and touching without it, not between a desirable person and one who is not: it is the touch with desire that carries effect in all acts of worship, such as ihram, i'tikaf, fasting, and others.
As for the one who attaches nullification to desire, the recognized apparent meaning and the analogy of the Law's principles are proofs for him. And the one who does not make touching a nullifier in any case understands "touching" as intercourse, as in "and if you divorce them before touching them" (Surah Al-Baqarah, 237) and its many parallels; in the Sunan it appears that "the Prophet kissed one of his wives then prayed without performing wudu", but this hadith has been discussed. Moreover, it is well known that touching one's wife is a universal occurrence: were it to nullify wudu, the Prophet would have expounded it to his community, and it would have been famous among the Companions; yet no one reported that any Companion performed wudu at the mere meeting of his hand with his wife or anything else, and no one transmitted a hadith to that effect from the Prophet: this view is therefore void, and Allah knows best (Majmu' al-Fatawa 21/235).
Ibn 'Abd al-Barr (may Allah have mercy on him) concludes: the position of Malik and his companions, conditioning nullification on pleasure and desire at contact, is the most correct, if Allah wills. The Companions transmitted nothing on the meaning of mulamasah except 2 sayings: one, intercourse itself; the other, what is short of intercourse, among the things leading to it and resembling it. It is established that those who said "short of intercourse" meant what is not intercourse, without meaning the slap, the kiss of compassion from a man to his daughter, or touching without pleasure. Since it is impermissible to say that "touching" means the slap and the like, nothing remains but the touch in which pleasure and desire are found; for there is no disagreement about one who slaps his wife, dresses her wound, or the woman who suckles her children: no wudu is due from any of them; likewise for one who intends the touch without feeling pleasure: he falls under their rule (al-Istidhkar 1/255).
The Malikis then detail: wudu is nullified when the purified person touches someone customarily desirable, with the hand or any part of the body, even a supernumerary limb, and even if the touch is upon a fingernail or attached hair. This under conditions. Conditions of the toucher: first, that he be of age; second, that he intend pleasure or find it (except that if the person touched is a close relative and he feels no pleasure, wudu is not nullified); likewise wudu is nullified if he finds pleasure during the touch even without intending it at the outset; if intention and pleasure are both absent, there is no nullification. As for the kiss on the mouth, it nullifies wudu in every case, whether pleasure is intended, found, or not, for it is the seat of pleasure; and nullification applies equally to the kisser and the kissed if both are of age, or to the adult of the 2 if the other is among those customarily desired, even if the kiss is merely given (Mawahib al-Jalil and the Maliki sources cited by the source).
Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Ahmad in a firm narration from him, as Ibn Qudamah says, hold that if a man kisses a woman, with or without desire, no wudu is due from him, because of the already cited hadith of 'A'ishah: "He kissed one of his wives then went out to the prayer without performing wudu", and because obligation belongs to the revealed Law, nothing of which came in this sense nor in an equivalent sense (Badayi' al-Sana'i' 1/130; al-Mughni 1/248-249; al-Ifsah 1/79).
As for a man kissing his daughter or his mother: Ibn al-Mundhir (may Allah have mercy on him) reports: all the scholars whose views we preserve agreed that no wudu is due from a man who kisses his mother, his daughter, or his sister in honor and kindness upon a return from travel, nor for the contact of a part of his body with a part of theirs when handing something over; except what is related of one of al-Shafi'i's 2 views: certain of his Egyptian companions attributed to him 2 views in the question: the first makes wudu obligatory, the second accords with the view of the rest of the scholars. Ibn al-Mundhir specifies: I have not found this question in his Egyptian books that we read under al-Rabi', and I do not know whether it is established from him or not, for the one who reported it did not say he heard it from him; and were it established, the view agreeing with the Medinan, the Kufan, and the rest of the scholars would suit him better.
The source finally recalls the historical proof: it is established that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) prayed while carrying Umamah, daughter of Abu al-'As; Abu Qatadah reports:
"The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) used to pray while carrying Umamah, daughter of Zaynab, daughter of the Messenger of Allah, and of Abu al-'As ibn al-Rabi': standing, he would carry her; prostrating, he would set her down."Reported by al-Bukhari (494) and Muslim (543)
Abu Bakr (Ibn al-Mundhir) comments: the Messenger of Allah's carrying Umamah proves the soundness of the common view of the scholars, for it is known and established that whoever carries a little girl is almost never without his body touching hers, and it has been customary at all times for a man to embrace his mother and grandmother and kiss his young daughter with a kiss of compassion, no one considering this to nullify purification or require wudu; and were it a nullifying hadath, the scholars would have discussed it as they discussed a man's touching and kissing of his wife (al-Awsat 1/130-131).
The jurists differed over one who eats camel meat: is his wudu nullified? The majority: the Hanafis, the Malikis, the Shafi'is according to the school's view, and Imam Ahmad in one narration: no wudu is due from him. Evidences: the hadith of Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him):
"The last of the 2 commands from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) was to leave wudu for what the fire has touched."An authentic hadith: reported by Abu Dawud (192), al-Tirmidhi (80), al-Nasa'i (1/108), Ibn Majah and Ibn Hibban in his Sahih (1124)
And if wudu is not nullified by eating pork, which is unlawful, it is a fortiori not nullified by anything else; and it is a food like other foods. They also rely on the hadith: "Wudu is for what exits, not for what enters" (reported by al-Daraqutni 1/151 in direct attribution, and by al-Bayhaqi 1/261 as a statement of Ibn 'Abbas; the source's note declares it weak in its chains: al-Fadl ibn al-Mukhtar therein is very weak, and Shu'bah the freed slave of Ibn 'Abbas is weak; Ibn 'Adi says the origin of the hadith is its stop at Ibn 'Abbas, and al-Bayhaqi: it is not established in direct attribution; al-Tabarani reports it from Abu Umamah and Ibn Hajar judges its chain weaker still, Talkhis al-Habir 158). Al-Kasani sums up the principle: hadath is the exit of impurity, in act or through its cause, and that is absent here (Badayi' al-Sana'i' 1/130-131; al-Majmu' 2/69-70; al-Muhadhdhab 1/24; Rawdat al-Talibin 1/72; Kifayat al-Akhyar p. 36; al-Insaf 1/216).
The Hanbalis according to the school's view, and it is the choice of al-Nawawi, al-Bayhaqi, Ibn al-Mundhir, and Ibn Khuzaymah among the Shafi'is: wudu is obligatory for eating camel meat. Al-Nawawi says: it is the strong view, or the correct one in terms of evidence, the one whose preponderance I believe: it rests upon 2 authentic hadiths without sufficient answer, and it was chosen by a group of the verifying traditionists among our companions (al-Majmu' 2/70; Rawdat al-Talibin 1/72; Sharh Sahih Muslim 4/45). Evidences: the hadith of Jabir ibn Samurah: a man asked the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him):
"O Messenger of Allah, must we perform wudu for camel meats? He said: Yes."Reported by Muslim (360)
The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) was asked about wudu for camel meats: he said: "Perform wudu for it." He was asked about sheep meats: he said: "Do not perform wudu for it."A hadith of al-Bara' ibn 'Azib, authentic: reported by Abu Dawud (184), al-Tirmidhi (81), Ibn Majah (494), Ahmad (20907) and Ibn Hibban in his Sahih (3/310)
Imam Ahmad and Ishaq ibn Rahawayh say: there are here 2 authentic hadiths from the Prophet: the hadith of al-Bara' and that of Jabir ibn Samurah. The source's note relates that Ibn Hibban, after citing al-Bara's hadith, comments: the questioner's question concerned wudu for camel meats and prayer in their enclosures, and the Prophet's differentiation between the 2 answers shows, in my view, that he meant the obligatory wudu for prayer, not the washing of hands: had it been washing hands of grease, camel and sheep meats would have been alike; now the abandonment of wudu for what the fire touched was first in force, then abrogated, and camel meats remained excepted from the totality of what was permitted after the prohibition.
Ibn Qudamah defends this school in detail: their hadith of Ibn 'Abbas has no basis in attribution to the Prophet; it is only his own stopped statement; and even were it authentic, our hadith would take precedence over it, being more authentic and more specific, and the specific takes precedence over the general; the hadith of Jabir on what the fire touched likewise does not contradict ours, given the authenticity and specificity of ours. Should they say: the hadith of Jabir is later, hence abrogating, we reply: abrogation by it is impossible for 4 reasons. The first: the command of wudu for camel meats is later than or simultaneous with the abrogation of wudu for what the fire touched, for he joined the command of wudu for camel meat to the prohibition of wudu for sheep meat, which is among what the fire touched: either the abrogation occurred through this prohibition, and the command for camel meat is simultaneous with the abrogation, and how could what is simultaneous with the abrogation be abrogated by it when a condition of abrogation is that the abrogating be later; or it occurred through something earlier, and the earlier cannot abrogate. The second: eating camel meat nullifies only inasmuch as it is camel meat, not inasmuch as it is cooked by fire: hence it nullifies even when raw; the abrogation of one of the 2 aspects is not the abrogation of the other, like a woman forbidden both through suckling and as a stepdaughter: abrogating the suckling prohibition does not abrogate that of the stepdaughter.
The third: their text is general and ours specific, and the general does not abrogate the specific, for a condition of abrogation is the impossibility of harmonization, and harmonizing the specific and the general is possible by carrying the general upon everything except the place of particularization. The fourth: our text is authentic, widespread, and possesses the strength of authenticity, diffusion, and specificity, while theirs is weak, lacking these 3 strengths: it cannot abrogate. Should they say: the command of wudu in your text admits of recommendation, and we carry it upon that; or that by wudu he meant the washing of hands before and after food, as the Prophet ordered wudu before and after food, specifying camel meat for its heat and strong odor: we answer on the first point that it contradicts the apparent meaning threefold. One: the demand of a command is obligation. Two: the Prophet was asked about the ruling of this meat and answered with the command of wudu: carrying it otherwise would be deception upon the questioner, not an answer. Three: he joined the command to the prohibition of wudu for sheep meat, where the prohibition means negation of obligation, not unlawfulness: the command must therefore be carried upon obligation for the distinction to exist.
On the second point (the washing of hands), it does not hold for 4 reasons. One: it would imply carrying the command upon recommendation, whereas the mere washing of hands is not obligatory, and we have shown the falsity of the first reading. Two: when the word wudu comes upon the tongue of the Lawgiver, it must be carried upon its legal sense, not its linguistic one, for the apparent assumption is that he speaks only in his established terms. Three: the text came as an answer to the questioner's question about the ruling of wudu for their meats and prayer in their enclosures: nothing other than the wudu intended for prayer is understood from it. Four: had he meant the washing of hands, he would not have differentiated it from sheep meat, for washing the hands is recommended for both; and hence he said: "Whoever spends the night with the odor of grease on his hands and something befalls him, let him blame none but himself" (an authentic hadith: al-Tirmidhi 1859 and 1860; Ibn Majah 3297; the source's note defines, after Ibn al-Athir in al-Nihayah 3/317, "ghamar" as the grease and strong odor of meat). What they adduce of the stronger odor of camel is slight and does not warrant differentiation, and Allah knows best.
Ibn Qudamah concludes: a proof is then required to divert the word from its apparent meaning, and that proof must have strength equal to the abandoned appearances, and greater; yet they have no proof, and their analogy is void: it is formal without any valid ratio, and the absence of ruling for other foods stems from the absence of the operative cause, not from being a food: being a food thus has no effect, its presence equalling its absence. And it is astonishing that our opponents, in this question, imposed wudu through weak hadiths contradicting the principles: Abu Hanifa imposed it for laughter in prayer and not outside it through a hadith of the mursal reports of Abu al-'Aliyah; Malik and al-Shafi'i imposed it for touching the private part through a contested hadith, counterbalanced by its like, without regard to touching the other limbs; and they left aside (what is authentic in the matter). Ibn Qudamah finally specifies: what is reported from Ahmad is carried upon recommendation and not obligation, for his statement entails negation of obligation; but the recommendation is clear: performing wudu is therefore recommended (al-Mughni 1/246; Badayi' al-Sana'i' 1/130; Hashiyat al-Tahtawi 1/55; Majmu' al-Fatawa 20/526; Bidayat al-Mujtahid 1/67; al-Istidhkar 1/174; Kashshaf al-Qina' 1/129-130; al-Ifsah 1/81; al-Insaf 1/215).
The people of knowledge agree that one who is in a state of wudu and then laughs outside prayer does not have his wudu nullified. They differed over one who laughs during his prayer: is his wudu broken or not? The majority: the Malikis, the Shafi'is, and the Hanbalis: laughter during prayer is not a hadath nullifying wudu, for it does not nullify it outside prayer and hence not inside either; it is not an exiting impurity but a sound, like speech and weeping; and obligation belongs to the Lawgiver: no text establishes the obligation of wudu herein, nor anything to analogize upon.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah nuances: wudu for laughter is recommended according to one of the 2 views in Ahmad's school; and the reported hadith commanding wudu for those who laughed is understood from the fact that they sinned by laughing, and it is recommended for whoever sins to perform wudu and pray 2 rak'ahs, as has come in the Sunan from Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said:
"There is no Muslim who commits a sin, then performs wudu and prays 2 rak'ahs, then seeks Allah's forgiveness for that sin, but that he is forgiven."An authentic hadith: reported by Abu Dawud (1521), al-Tirmidhi (406 and 3006) and Ibn Majah (1395)
And Allah knows best (Majmu' al-Fatawa 21/242; see also al-Thamar al-Dani 1/186; al-Manhaj al-Qawim 1/66; al-Kafi of Ibn 'Abd al-Barr 1/13; al-Hawi al-Kabir 1/202-204; al-Mughni 1/227; al-Ifsah 1/82; Kashshaf al-Qina' 1/131).
The Hanafis count laughter during prayer among the hadaths that nullify wudu, when it comes from an adult, awake praying person, in a complete prayer containing bowing and prostration, whether he is in wudu, tayammum, or major ablution according to the sound view, and whether the laughter is deliberate or inadvertent. They rely on what Abu al-'Aliyah reported:
"The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) was praying with his Companions; a blind man came and fell into a well; the people laughed; the Messenger of Allah commanded those who laughed to repeat the wudu and the prayer."Reported by al-Daraqutni (1/62, 163, 169, 171) and al-Bayhaqi in al-Sunan al-Kubra (1/146); the source's note criticizes it: it is a mursal hadith, and the mursal reports of Abu al-'Aliyah are worthless: he did not care from whom he took hadith
The Hanafi definitions: loud laughter (qahqahah) is what one's neighbors hear; laughter (dikk) is what one hears of oneself without one's neighbors; the smile is what has no sound, even if the teeth show. Qahqahah breaks wudu and prayer together; dikk breaks only the prayer; the smile breaks nothing. Consequently, the wudu of a child and of a sleeping person is not broken by laughter during prayer according to the soundest view among them, just as the wudu of one who laughs outside prayer, or during an incomplete prayer like the funeral prayer and the prostration of recitation, is not nullified.
It has been said among them: laughter is among the hadaths; and it has been said: it is not a hadath, but wudu is required through it as punishment and deterrence, for the purpose of prayer is the manifestation of humility, submission, and glorification of Allah the Most High, which laughter contradicts: the nullification of wudu therefore befits it as deterrence. The preponderant: it is not a hadath, else the adult and the child would be alike therein. Ibn 'Abidin (may Allah have mercy on him) reports that "al-Bahr" preferred the second view, for its conformity to analogy (it is not an exiting impurity but a sound, like speech and weeping) and to the hadiths reported on it: they contain only the command to repeat the wudu and the prayer, which does not entail its being a hadath. The benefit of the disagreement between the 2 views appears in the permissibility of touching the mushaf and writing the Quran: whoever makes it a hadath forbids it like the other hadaths; whoever imposes the wudu as punishment permits touching the mushaf and writing the Quran (Radd al-Muhtar 1/275; Bahr al-Ra'iq 1/42; Badayi' al-Sana'i' 1/127).
Apostasy (riddah) consists in doing what removes one from Islam, whether by word, by belief, or by a doubt that carries one out of Islam. The source's leaf concludes it with the hadith on pre-Islamic oaths: whoever swears (invoking an idol), let him say: "There is no deity except Allah"; and whoever says to his companion: come, let me gamble with you, let him give charity (reported by al-Bukhari and Muslim; al-Majmu' 2/78).
The jurists differed over the man in wudu who apostatizes (we seek Allah's refuge), then returns to Islam while his wudu has been broken by nothing else: may he pray with that wudu? The Malikis according to the prevailing view and the Hanbalis: apostasy is a hadath nullifying wudu; if a man apostatizes then returns to Islam and to the religion of truth, he may not pray until he performs wudu, even if he was in wudu before his apostasy and his wudu was broken by no other cause. Proof:
"It has been revealed to you and to those before you: if you associate others with Allah, your work will surely become void, and you will be among the losers."
Surah Az-Zumar, 65
Now purification is a work. Ibn al-Qasim transmitted the recommendation of wudu in this state. The Hanafis and the Shafi'is: apostasy is not among the causes of hadath, so wudu is not nullified by it, because of the word of Allah:
"...And whoever of you reverts from his religion and dies while a disbeliever: those are the ones whose deeds have become void in this world and the Hereafter."
Surah Al-Baqarah, 217
The condition of deeds becoming void is thus to die in that state (Jawahir al-Iklil 1/21; Mawahib al-Jalil 1/299-300; al-Khulasah al-fiqhiyya 1/19; al-Qawanin al-fiqhiyya p. 22; al-Majmu' 2/77; Nihayat al-Muhtaj 1/15; al-Mughni 1/226; al-Ikhtiyarat p. 29).
The majority of jurists, Hanafis, Shafi'is, and Hanbalis, hold: if one is certain of purity and doubts the hadath, or is certain of the hadath and doubts purity, the one of the 2 about which he is certain prevails. Concretely: if he knows he performed wudu and doubts whether he had a hadath or not, he proceeds upon being pure; if he was in a state of hadath and doubts whether he performed wudu or not, he is not in wudu, and the doubt is dismissed. Evidences: the hadith of 'Abdullah ibn Zayd (may Allah be pleased with him):
"The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was asked about the man who thinks he senses something during the prayer. He said: Let him not leave until he hears a sound or finds an odor."Reported by al-Bukhari (137) and Muslim (361)
"If one of you feels something in his belly and it becomes ambiguous to him whether something exited from it or not, let him not leave the mosque until he hears a sound or finds an odor."A hadith of Abu Hurayrah reported by Muslim (276)
If he is certain of purity and hadath together without knowing which came last, like one certain of having been pure at the time of Zuhr once and in hadath another time, not knowing which is later: he reverts to his state before midday, according to the Hanbalis, and this is the soundest view among the Shafi'is and some Hanafis. So, if he was in hadath before them, he is now pure, for he is certain of purity and doubts the lateness of the hadath, and the default is non-lateness; if he was pure before them, he is now in hadath, for he is certain of the hadath and doubts the lateness of purification, and the default is non-lateness; if he knows nothing of his state before them, wudu is due from him, by the clash of the 2 possibilities without arbiter. The Hanafis, in the prevailing view: if he is certain of both and doubts which came first, he is pure (Radd al-Muhtar 1/183; Badayi' al-Sana'i' 1/132; Hashiyat al-Qalyubi 1/37-38; Rawdat al-Talibin 1/77; al-Mughni 1/258-259; Mughni al-Muhtaj 1/39; Mukhtasar ikhtilaf al-'ulama' 1/153; al-Ifsah 1/82).
The Malikis, for their part, explicitly ruled upon the nullification of wudu for one who doubts whether he had a hadath or not: if he is certain of the wudu then doubts whether he had a hadath after the wudu or not, he must repeat his wudu, unless his doubt is chronic (the source's note defines the chronic doubt: the one that comes every day at least once). Al-Hattab specifies: this is if he doubts before the prayer; if he prayed then doubts whether he had a hadath or not, there are 2 views. The doubt requiring wudu takes 3 forms. One: doubting the nullifier, hadath or cause, after knowing the priority of one's purity. Two: doubting purity after knowing the nullifier, not knowing whether one performed wudu after it or not. Three: knowing with certainty both purity and hadath but doubting which came first. All 3 forms require wudu (Mawahib al-Jalil 1/300; Jawahir al-Iklil 1/21; al-Khulasah al-fiqhiyya 1/19; al-Ifsah 1/82; al-Dhakhira 1/217-218; al-Kafi 1/12-13).