Ali. Whenever reconciliation between the reports is possible, it must be adopted before preferring one over the other or claiming abrogation, because reconciliation gives effect to both proofs, whereas preferring one of them nullifies the other.

This is supported by his saying ﷺ: “It is only a part of you.” (1) If you touch your penis without stirring desire, it is as though you were touching the rest of your body, in which case ablution is not invalidated. But if you touch it with desire, ablution is invalidated, because the effective cause is present: namely, the possibility that something which invalidates ablution may come out without your being aware of it. Thus, if he touches it with desire, ablution becomes necessary; but if it is without desire, ablution is not necessary, for touching it in this manner differs from touching the rest of the body.

They said—arguing against the Hanbalis: We have an established principle against you: you have held that touching a woman without desire does not invalidate ablution, whereas touching her with desire does invalidate it, because it is a likely cause of ritual impurity.

Some scholars reconciled the two reports by holding that the command to perform ablution in the hadith of Busrah indicates recommendation, while the negation in the hadith of Talq negates obligation (2). The evidence for this is that he asked whether it was obligatory, saying, “Is it required of him?” The word “upon” plainly indicates obligation.

The fourth view, which was the choice of Shaykh al-Islam, is that performing ablution after touching the penis is recommended in all cases, even if it is done with desire. (3)

If we say that it is recommended, this means that it is legislated, carries a reward, and is a precautionary measure. As for the claim that the hadith of Talq ibn Ali has been abrogated because he came