I have a quick question for you:If somebody is trying to follow the Shafi madhab and he is a doctor, what is the ruling on breaking his wudu when touching women patients? Does he still lose his wudu?It is not for me, but for a friend of mine. He grew up studying shafi fiqh and now that he is a doctor he thought he had to switch to the hanifi school because of the touching women/breaking wudu issue.
Ibn Taymiyyah (ra) wrote, “Regarding this issue the scholars took 3 opinions: two which took two opposite positions, and a group that took an opinion between the two.”
1. He goes on to state that, according to his understanding, “The weakest of them is, if a man touches a woman he loses his wudu. This contention is based on the axiom A sound suspicion of something brings about [that suspicions] ruling.” Thus, based on this argument, one who touches a woman would assume that he released some type of fluid from his private part, thus he would have to do wudu again. Ibn Taymiyyah states, “This is the opinion of the Shaf’i school who hold that the touching of a woman breaks one’s wudu, irregardless if one felt a desire for the woman or not.” However, and I’m sure our readers can correct me, if I remember correctly, they differentiate between the Mahram and the non Mahram on this issue.
2. “If one touces a woman with a barrier between him and her, such as gloves, his wudu is valid even if he feels a desire for her. This is the opinion of the Hanafis.”
Besides the above axiom both both groups of scholars rely on the verse, “Or if you touched a woman.” based on two different sound readings of the verse itself.
3. The opinion of Malik and the Seven Fuqaha of Medina that states, “Any touching of the opposite sex, if not coupled with a feeling of passion, does not break wudu.” See al-Shar al-Saghir of Sidi al-Dardir and Dasuqi’s additions to al-Sharh al-Kabir.
Their proofs are the number of hadith in which the Prophet [sa] touched, or kissed his wives, as mentioned by Um Salam and ‘Aiesha. The latter even stating that, “He went to pray thereafter and did not make wudu.”
The other proof is that Allah says, “Don’t touch them [your wives] while you are making ‘Itikaf in the masjid.” Surah al-Baqarah. The scholars mention that when this type of touching is mentioned in the holy texts, it is understood that the forbidden type of touching is one coupled with a passionate feeling and If it occurs without a feeling of passion, then it is not forbidden [meaning touching one's wife]. Ibn Taymiyyah wrote, “If one were to touch a woman and he did so with no passionate feeling, he is not punished [meaning he did so on accident or due to a dire situation. However, if one was flirting or being handsy with a woman, then he should be disciplined]. The same applies to a man who marries a woman, touches her without lust and decides to divorce her…..that touch alone, if it is free from passion, does not oblige her to observe the ‘Ida according to the agreement of the scholars. However, there is a massive difference amongst the scholars on the payment of the Mahr.”
Finally, if this was something that broke Wudu, there would have been clear texts from the Companions on behalf of the Prophet. However, as Ibn Taymiyyah states, “There is not one narration from the companions that supports this contention.” See Majmo’ al-Fatwa vol. 4 pg. 444.
In fact, we have the narration, as noted above, from the Prophet’s wives that say, “He would kiss his wife, to to pray, and not make wudu.” Although there is some disagreement regarding this hadith, the absence of a text the prohibits it, is enough to support the contention of the third party above. The point being that what leads to having to make wudu is passion and not the actual touching. Thus, I would advice your friend to take the moderate position of Imam Malik and the Seven Fuqaha of Medina.
Regarding your friends taking the Hanafi opinion. Perhaps, he is frightened of talfiq [mixing opinions]. However, and there is an article in the works on this. This does not, inshallah, fall under talfiq as defined in its negative connotation. Talfiq in its negative sense did not enjoy the support today, by some, until the 7th century. When we keep in mind that the goal of the law is ease and facilitation of worship and the fact that your are following a legitimate opinion recognized by many, then, inshallah, as al-Qarafi (ra) mentioned, there is no problem in you following it.
Allah knows best