some slight criticism concerning his memory; otherwise I would have judged the chain of transmission authentic. A few scholars, however, have spoken against him, and al-Ḥāfiẓ states in al-Taqrīb: “Truthful, yet prone to error.”

I add: This ḥadīth contains an important benefit—namely, that mubāsharah (physical intimacy) is defined as a man touching his wife in any way short of the private part. This supports the interpretation previously cited from al-Qārī, even though he reported it tentatively (“it is said”); the ḥadīth shows that the view is in fact relied upon, and nothing in the textual proofs of the Sharīʿah contradicts it. Indeed, statements from the early generations further reinforce it. Among them is the narrator herself, Lady ʿĀʾishah (may Allah be pleased with her). Al-Ṭaḥāwī (1/347) records with a sound chain from Ḥakīm ibn ʿIqāl that he said: “I asked ʿĀʾishah, ‘What is forbidden to me of my wife while I am fasting?’ She replied, ‘Her private part.’” Ḥakīm was declared trustworthy by Ibn Ḥibbān, and al-ʿUjaylī said: “A Basran Successor, trustworthy.”

Al-Bukhārī also cites this report in muʿallaq form with decisive wording (4/120) under the heading “Physical Intimacy for the Fasting Person,” quoting ʿĀʾishah (may Allah be pleased with her): “Her private part is forbidden to him.”

Al-Ḥāfiẓ comments: “Al-Ṭaḥāwī supplied its complete chain through Abū Murrah, the client of ʿAqīl, from Ḥakīm ibn ʿIqāl… and the isnād up to Ḥakīm is sound. The same meaning is also conveyed by what ʿAbd al-Razzāq narrated with a sound chain from Masrūq: ‘I asked ʿĀʾishah, “What is permissible for a man of his wife while he is fasting?” She said, “Everything except intercourse.”’”

I say: Ibn Ḥazm (6/211) likewise cited this narration as evidence against those who deem physical intimacy while fasting objectionable. I was later able to consult a copy of al-Thiqāt in the Ẓāhiriyyah Library, and there I found that he says concerning him (1/25):