Question on Whether Kissing One's Wife Before Prayer is Sunnah, and Whether Touching a Woman Breaks Wudu
Regarding the hadith — that the Prophet ﷺ kissed some of his wives and then went out to prayer — the question is: is it from the Sunnah for a man to kiss his wife before going to prayer? And does kissing one's wife break wudu?
Firstly, this hadith is defective (ma'lul). Imam Ahmad, al-Bukhari, and others among the hadith masters have declared it defective, the defect being a break in the chain (inqita'). Secondly, this is not a matter of Sunnah — it is simply a permissible act (mubah). Thirdly, the scholars differed on whether a man touching a woman breaks wudu or not. There is agreement that if discharge (madhy) occurs, the wudu is nullified. The disagreement is over the case when no discharge occurs, whether the woman touched is a non-marriageable relative (mahram) or a non-mahram — and this falls under three positions:
The first position: Touching any woman — whether a stranger or a mahram — breaks wudu. This is one narration from Imam Ahmad. It is a weak opinion with no evidence, and was held by 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him).
The second position: Touching a woman does not break wudu under any circumstances, even if with desire. This is the position of Abu Hanifa, one narration from Imam Ahmad, and the reliable and established position attributed to Ibn Abbas. It is also the view of Imam al-Shafi'i.
The third position: A distinction is made between touching with desire and without desire. If he touches her without desire, his wudu is not nullified; if with desire, it is. This is the position of Imam Malik and another narration from Imam Ahmad.
The most correct of these positions is the second — that held by Abu Hanifa and those who followed him — for several reasons:
First: Allah Almighty says: "We have not neglected anything in the Book" (6:38). If touching a woman were a nullifier of wudu, the Prophet ﷺ would have made it clear.
As for the Quranic verse: "or you have touched women" (4:43) — in another reading: "or you have had contact with women" — Ibn Abbas interpreted this as referring to sexual intercourse, and the chain of narration to Ibn Abbas is sound.
Second: The Prophet ﷺ used to pray at night while Aisha was lying across the space in front of him; when he wanted to prostrate, he would nudge her with his hand. If touching a woman broke wudu, his prayer would have been invalidated. This is evidence that touching a woman does not break wudu, since the Prophet ﷺ continued his prayer.
Third: This matter affects the entire Muslim community — from a man who shakes hands with a female mahram relative to a man who touches his wife. If this were a nullifier of wudu, the Prophet ﷺ would have clarified it in a general statement known to all, known to the common folk and elite alike, since the community is in need of this. Any matter that the community needs but which the Prophet ﷺ did not clarify is not from Allah's religion — for the Prophet ﷺ left not a bird flapping its wings in the sky except that he informed the Companions of it.
The polytheists once said to Salman al-Farisi: "Your Prophet has taught you everything." He said: "Indeed — even the etiquette of entering the toilet." So the Prophet ﷺ taught his community everything. This is an important matter, and if wudu were obligatory after touching, the Prophet ﷺ would have clarified it. This is the principle: anything the community needs and the Prophet ﷺ did not clarify, the default ruling (asl) is permissibility.
This same principle is what I have drawn upon in my analysis of the issue of a person without wudu touching the Quran — that there is no evidence for prohibiting it. If something were forbidden, the Prophet ﷺ would have stated it. He would not have left his community to analogies, the independent reasoning (ijtihad) of jurists, or the opinions of so-and-so, for the proof (hujja) lies in his words and in the Book of Allah Almighty.
As for Allah's statement: "None shall touch it except the purified" (56:79) — the majority of the imams hold that the "purified" refers to the angels, and that the referent is His statement "in a preserved book" (56:78), not the Quran in our hands.
Even if the obligation of wudu for touching the Quran were only established from Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas — as narrated by Malik in Al-Muwatta' — it is still open to interpretation and not explicit on the matter of obligation; it may have been an instruction of recommendation (istihbab) rather than obligation (ijab), and scholars may not differ on what is merely recommended.
As for the Prophet's ﷺ letter in the document of 'Amr ibn Hazm — "None shall touch the Quran except one who is pure (tahir)" — this report is known. Even if the document itself is authentic, 'Umar judged by it, as narrated by 'Abd al-Razzaq from Ma'mar from al-Zuhri from Sa'id al-Musayyab from 'Umar; and it is also established from al-Zuhri with a sound chain. The apparent meaning of tahir here is "Muslim," because the letter was sent to the people of Najran who were Christians. The Prophet ﷺ was addressing Christians and establishing foundational principles for them — why would he address Christians about touching the Quran while in a state of wudu? It is clear that the intended meaning is "Muslim," evidenced further by the Prophet's ﷺ statement: "Glory be to Allah, the believer is never impure."