even if the heirs of the slain person pardon him, because it is impossible to take precautions against it. (1)

Nor does touching through a barrier invalidate ablution, nor does the ablution of the one whose body is touched become invalid, even if he experiences desire…

His statement, “Nor [does touching] through a barrier,” means that touching through a barrier does not invalidate ablution, because true touching is direct skin contact without a barrier.

His statement, “nor [does the ablution of] the one whose body is touched [become invalid],” means that the ablution of the person whose body is touched is not invalidated. Thus, if a man touches a woman with desire, her ablution is not invalidated, whereas the man’s ablution is invalidated.

His statement, “even if he experiences desire,” means: even if the person whose body is touched experiences desire, his ablution is not invalidated. This is a singular view: that the ablution of the person touched is not invalidated.

For example, if a young man passionately kisses his young wife, and she likewise experiences desire, he must perform ablution, whereas she is not required to do so, even though the operative cause is the same.

For this reason, the correct view in this issue is that if the person touched experiences desire, his ablution is invalidated—according to the view that the toucher’s ablution is invalidated. This is what analogy requires.

Al-Muwaffaq, may Allah have mercy on him, said: “Whenever the occurrence of ritual impurity results from one of two skins touching the other, purification is required of both the toucher and the one touched, just as in intercourse there is one who penetrates and one who is penetrated: when the two circumcised organs meet without ejaculation from either of them, ghusl is obligatory upon them both.” (2)

What al-Muwaffaq, may Allah have mercy on him, said is correct, but it is based upon