His statement, “or she touches him with it”: the object pronoun in “touches him” refers to the man; that is, if a woman touches a man lustfully, her ablution is invalidated.

The evidence for this is analogy: if a man’s lustful touching of a woman invalidates ablution, then likewise a woman’s lustful touching of a man invalidates ablution. This is required by human nature, and it is a clear and evident analogy.

It is understood from his statement, “or she touches him with it,” that if a woman touches another woman lustfully, her ablution is not invalidated, because a woman is not an object of desire for another woman, just as a man is not an object of desire for another man.

It may be said, however, that if a woman touches another woman lustfully, her ablution is invalidated by analogy with her lustfully touching a man, because the effective cause is the same. Among women are those whose desire is directed toward young women, just as among men—may Allah protect us—are those whose desire is directed toward young men. Since the effective cause is intelligible, whatever shares the original case in that cause must be given the same ruling. But it has already preceded that the stronger view is that touching a woman does not invalidate ablution at all, unless something is discharged from him; thus, whatever branches from it takes the same ruling …

Or she touches him with it; and touching the anal ring, …

His statement, “and touching the anal ring”: this is one of the things that invalidate ablution, and there is no need to mention it separately, because it is included in the general meaning of touching the private part. However, since the author mentioned “touching the penis,” he needed to add, “and touching the anal ring.” Had he said there, “touching the private part,” it would have been more comprehensive, and there would have been no need to mention the anus.

Imam Ahmad narrated from the hadith of Abu Hurayrah, may Allah be pleased with him,