Does touching a woman invalidate ablution?

- What are the evidences of madhhabs related to the invalidation of wudu by touching a woman?

Dear Brother / Sister,

To touch the skin of a woman: According to Hanafis, if a man touches the skin of a woman in the form of fahish mubasharah (excessive contact), his wudu is invalidated. According to Malikis and Hanbalis, wudu is invalidated if pleasure is taken from the contact of the skins of a man and a woman. According to Shafiis, if the skins of a man and a woman touch each other, the wudu of both the one who touches and the one who is touched are invalidated even if no pleasure is felt.

The views of madhhabs are given below in detail:

According to Hanafis, wudu is invalidated through fahish mubasharah. Fahish mubasharah means the hardening of the male organ as a result of the of bodies of a man and a woman touching each other without the existence of something that prevents warmth or a man’s touching the skin of a woman with lust without causing any wetness and causing his organ to harden.

Fahish mubasharah means a man and a woman touching the mahram places of each other directly or behind a thin fabric. Wudu is invalidated as a result of this contact whether a wetness occurs or not. 

According to Imam Muhammad, fahish mubasharah invalidates wudu only when wetness occurs. If there is no wetness, wudu is not invalidated.

According to Malikis, wudu is invalidated if a person who has reached the age of puberty touches a person from whom pleasure is generally taken whether male or female. Wudu is invalidated even if the person who is touched has not reached the age of puberty. It does not matter whether a person touches his wife, a non-mahram or mahram woman. If pleasure is taken from the contact, wudu is invalidated whether a nail or hair is touched, whether this touch is over a garment that is thin or thick, whether the person who is touched is male or female.   

Similarly, kissing a person from the mouth invalidates wudu whether pleasure is taken or not. The possibility of taking pleasure exists in such kissing. If a place other than the mouth is kissed, the wudu of both the person who kisses and the one who is kissed is invalidated if both of them have reached the age of puberty. If a person who has reached the age of puberty kisses a person whom lust can be felt toward and if he takes pleasure, his wudu is invalidated. It does not matter whether this kissing takes place by force or heedlessness. Accordingly, there are three conditions for wudu to be invalidated through touching:  the person who touches has to have reached the age of puberty; the person who is touched has to be a person of opposite gender toward whom sexual desire is felt; the person who touches has to do it with the intention of taking pleasure or take pleasure.

Wudu is not invalidated if pleasure is taken through looking at and thinking. Wudu is not invalidated if wetness (mazi) does not come out actually even if the male organ hardens. Wudu is not invalidated if a person touches a child toward whom sexual desire is not felt, an animal or a bearded man. For if the man has full beard, pleasure is not normally taken from him.

According to Hanbalis, their famous view is as follows: Wudu is invalidated if a man touches the skin of a woman; if a boy or a girl toward whom sexual desire is not felt is touched, wudu is not invalidated. It does not matter whether the person who is touched is dead, very old or a girl toward whom sexual desire is felt. A girl toward whom sexual desire is felt is seven years old or older. It does not matter whether the person is non-mahram, mahram, old or young.

Touching hair, nail and tooth does not invalidate wudu; touching an organ that has been cut off does not invalidate wudu either. For, it is no longer haram. Wudu is not invalidated if a person touches a very little child even with lust. If a man touches another man or if a woman touches another woman with lust, wudu is not invalidated.

Wudu is not invalidated when a man touches a woman but it is mustahab to make wudu in that case.

To sum up, according to the three madhhabs (the majority), wudu is not invalidated if a man and a woman only touches each other normally.  

The evidences of madhhabs regarding the issue:

Madhhab scholars show the following nass as evidence for their views:

1.  "…Or ye have been in contact with women..." (an-Nisa, 4/43) the word "lams (touching)" mentioned in the verse means two skins touching each other. Hanafis base their view on the following narration reported by Ibn Abbas, who is called the translator of the Quran: According to that narration, what is meant by the word lams (touching) in the verse is sexual intercourse. They also base their view on the following statement of Ibnus-Siqqit: When “lams” is used related to women, sexual intercourse is meant with it. For, when Arabs say "Lamastul-mar'a", they mean I had sexual intercourse with her. In that case, it is necessary to accept that the figurative meaning is meant, which means what is meant by lams is sexual intercourse. For, there is a sign indicating figurative use here. It is the hadith narrated by Hz. Aisha, which will be included below.  

Malikis and Hanbalis, who lay lust as a condition for the invalidation of wudu with touching, tried to evaluate the verse and the hadiths reported by Hz. Aisha, which will be included below, together. 

2. The hadith reported by Hz. Aisha is as follows: "The Prophet (pbuh) used to kiss one of his wives and perform prayers after that without making wudu." (1)

Another hadith reported by Hz. Aisha is as follows: "The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) used to perform prayers when I was lying in front of her. When he wanted to perform witr prayer, he would touch me with his feet." (2) There is evidence in the hadith showing that touching a woman does not invalidate wudu. As far as it is seen, the Prophet touched her with his foot directly.

3. Another hadith reported by Hz. Aisha is as follows: "One night, I could not find the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) in his bed. I went out to look for him. I found him prostrating in the mosque; I touched the inner parts of his feet with my hands. He was praying as follows: 'O Allah! I take refuge in Your consent from Your wrath, in Your salvation from Your penalty, in You from You. I cannot truly praise You as You should be praised. You are as You have praised Yourself.'" (3) This hadith also proves that touching does not invalidate wudu.

Shafiis state the following: If a man touches the skin of a non-mahram woman directly – even if she is dead – , both his wudu and her wudu are invalidated.  It does not matter whether the woman is very ugly and very old or the man is very old. Wudu is not invalidated if hair, tooth, nail are touched or if touching takes place over a fabric, etc.

What is meant by man and woman are men and women who are normally regarded to have reached the boundaries of lust. What is meant by mahram is the people who are haram to marry due to blood kinship, marriage kinship and breastfeeding. In that case, wudu is not invalidated by touching little boys and girls toward whom a desire is not felt. There is no need to limit it with the age seven. The age of a boy and a girl to be desired might be different. Wudu is not invalidated by touching mahram people through blood kinship, marriage kinship and breastfeeding since there is no possibility of feeling lust toward them.

The reason why wudu is not invalidated is the lack of the possibility of lust, which does not fit a clean person.

Their evidence regarding the issue is their accepting the word "mulamasa (touching)" in the verse "…Or ye have been in contact with women..." in its literal sense. It lexically means “to grope around, the skins to touch each other or to touch with the hand". As a matter of fact, that the word "laamastum" is also pronounced as "lamastum" is an evidence for it. This pronunciation is clear evidence that only touching is meant in the verse, not sexual intercourse.

The hadith related to kissing reported by Hz. Aisha is weak and mursal. The hadith in which it is stated that she touched the feet of the Prophet (pbuh) is interpreted as the existence of something like a fabric between them or something peculiar to the Prophet (pbuh).

Footnotes:

1) Abu Dawud, Nasai and Ahmad. This hadith is mursal. Bukhari accepts that it is weak. There is a hidden fault in the ways of narration. Ibn Hazm states the following: "There is no sound narration regarding the issue. Even if there is a sound narration, it is interpreted as being related to the time before the verse on making wudu due to touching was sent down." Naylul-Awtar, I, 195
2) Nasai narrated it. Ibn Hajar says, "Its chain of narrators is sound." Naylul-Awtar, I, 196
3) Muslim and Tirmidhi narrated it. Tirmidhi and Bayhaqi state that it is sound. For those hadiths, see Nasbur-Raya, I, 70-75

(Prof. Dr. Wahba Zuhayli, İslam Fıkhı Ansiklopedisi)

Questions on Islam