just as vaginal intercourse does. Thus, in matters of worship, the acts preliminary to either are treated alike. If someone touches a beardless youth with desire while in the consecrated state of pilgrimage, he must offer a sacrificial animal, just as he would if he touched a woman whom he is not forbidden to marry with desire. Likewise, touching him with desire must be treated like touching a woman with desire in terms of invalidating ablution.

Those who hold that touching him does not invalidate ablution argue: “He was not created for that purpose.” The response is: There is no doubt that he was not created for that purpose, and that sodomy is among the gravest forbidden acts. Yet this consideration does not determine the rulings on intercourse: anal intercourse entails the rulings already mentioned, even though the anus was not created for intercourse. Moreover, human nature’s aversion to anal intercourse is greater than its aversion to touching.

According to most scholars, including Mālik, Ahmad, and others, the invalidation of ablution through touching depends on whether the underlying rationale is actually present—namely, whether the touching involves desire. The same consideration applies to the consecrated state of pilgrimage, devotional retreat, and other matters. According to this view, wherever touching with desire occurs, the ruling applies. Even if someone touches his mother, sister, or daughter with desire, his ablution is invalidated. The same therefore applies to a beardless youth.

Al-Shāfiʿī, and Ahmad according to one reported view, instead take account of the presumed likelihood of desire: women are likely to arouse desire, so touching them invalidates ablution, whether with or without desire. This is why touching female relatives whom one is permanently forbidden to marry does not invalidate ablution. Yet if someone touches such a female relative with desire, the underlying rationale is actually present; the same applies if he touches a beardless youth with desire.