scholars. Malik and al-Layth said: It invalidates [wudu'] if it is a thin garment. Rabi'ah likewise said: If he fondles her from behind a thin garment with desire, it is because the desire is present. Al-Marwazi said: We do not know of anyone who said that besides Malik and al-Layth. Our argument is that he did not touch the woman's body; it is similar to if he touched her clothing, and desire alone is not sufficient, just as if one touched a man with desire (17), or if desire was found without touch.

Section: If a woman touches a man, and desire is found on the part of both, the manifest position of the words of al-Khiraqi is that the wudu' of both of them is invalidated by the meeting of their skin. Ahmad was asked about a woman when she touches her husband? He said: I have not heard anything about it, but she is the sibling of the man. I prefer that she performs wudu', because the woman is one of the two participants in the touch, so she is like the man. The wudu' of the person being touched is invalidated if desire is found on his part; because regarding that which is invalidated by the meeting of skin, there is no difference between the toucher and the touched, like the meeting of the two circumcised parts. There is another narration: The wudu' of the woman is not invalidated, nor is the wudu' of the person being touched. Al-Shafi'i has two opinions similar to these two narrations. The reasoning for not invalidating is that the text only came down regarding the invalidation by touching women, thus it applies to the toucher from among the men, and the invalidation is specific to it, like touching the private parts. Also, there is no text regarding the woman and the person being touched, nor is it in the meaning of that which is mentioned; for the touch from a man with desire is a likely circumstance for the discharge of madhy (pre-seminal fluid) which invalidates [wudu'], so it was established in its place, and that is not found in the case of the woman. The desire from the toucher is stronger than it is in the person being touched and is more conducive to discharge, so analogy upon them is not valid. When the text and analogy are unavailable, the proof is not established.

Section: Wudu' is not invalidated by touching a severed limb from a woman, due to the cessation of the name and its departure from being a place of desire. Nor by touching a man, a young boy, or by a woman touching a woman; because it is not included in the verse, nor is it in the meaning of what is in the verse, because a woman is a place for a man's desire both legally and naturally, and this is contrary to that. Nor by touching an animal, for that same reason. Nor by touching a hermaphrodite (khuntha mushkil), because it is not known whether it is a man or a woman. Nor by a hermaphrodite touching a man