Bukhari

Explanation:
The correspondence between the hadith and the chapter is evident. This was the ruling at the beginning of Islam; later, it was abrogated.

Hadith Commentary:
➊
The purpose of Imam Bukhari rahimahullah is to establish that the fluid which emerges from a woman’s private part during intercourse is impure (najis).
It is necessary to wash it, whether it touches the private part or leaves a stain on the garment. Thus, in the hadith, it is stated that one should wash his private part, and in another hadith, it is mentioned that he should wash the place which touched the woman.
The basis for washing it is precisely that it is the woman’s fluid.
It should be clear that Imam Bukhari rahimahullah had previously established a similar chapter: “Washing semen and scraping it off, as well as washing the madhiy (pre-seminal fluid) that emerges from a woman’s private part.”
This is not repetition; rather, in the Book of Ablution (Kitab al-Wudu’), the ruling regarding a woman’s sexual fluid was intended—to clarify that it is impure and filthy like a man’s semen, and washing it is necessary.
At this point, the ruling is being clarified regarding the fluid that emerges from a woman’s private part during foreplay, playfulness, or intercourse.
This too is impure, whether it comes from inside the vagina or collects in the external part.

➋
After mentioning both hadiths, Imam Bukhari rahimahullah has added a note from himself that taking a ritual bath (ghusl) is more cautious.
The commentators of Sahih Bukhari have extensively discussed these words.
For example, Ibn al-‘Arabi has expressed his definitive opinion about Imam Bukhari rahimahullah in these words: that his position is like that of Dawud al-Zahiri, meaning that during intercourse, if ejaculation does not occur, only ablution (wudu) is necessary, not a ritual bath (ghusl); however, as a precaution, one should perform ghusl.
The opinion of Dawud al-Zahiri is not of much significance.
However, the case of Imam Bukhari rahimahullah is quite astonishing, as he has adopted a position contrary to consensus (ijma‘), because he is among the imams of the religion and the scholars of the Muslims. Then Ibn al-‘Arabi has emphasized declaring the hadith of the chapter weak, regarding which Hafiz Ibn Hajar rahimahullah comments as follows:
“Ibn al-‘Arabi’s statement regarding the composition of the hadith of the chapter is acceptable.”
Then, defending Imam Bukhari rahimahullah, Ibn al-‘Arabi says that perhaps by (al-ghusl ahwat) “ritual bath is more cautious,” Imam Bukhari meant caution in religion, which is a well-known principle. This is more befitting to his virtue and excellence.
This explanation of Ibn al-‘Arabi also matches Imam Bukhari’s usual method, because he did not establish any chapter regarding the permissibility of omitting ghusl based on these hadiths.
Also, the negation of disagreement regarding the issue under discussion by Ibn Qassar is also objectionable, because the disagreement had become well-known even among the Companions radi Allahu anhum, and from a group of the Companions radi Allahu anhum it is established that in such circumstances, ghusl is not obligatory.
Similarly, Ibn Qassar’s claim that there was no disagreement in the era of the Tabi‘in is also incorrect.
There was disagreement among the Tabi‘in regarding this, and even after them, there are those who disagreed with this position.
However, the position of the majority of scholars is that in such circumstances, ghusl is obligatory, and this is the correct view.
(Fath al-Bari: 1/517)
The researcher ‘Ayni has also, like Ibn Hajar, critiqued Ibn Qassar’s claim and established that there was indeed disagreement among the Tabi‘in regarding this, even though Qadi ‘Iyad has said that after the Companions, except for al-A‘mash the Tabi‘i, no one disagreed on this issue. But besides him, it is also established from Abu Salamah ibn ‘Abd al-Rahman rahimahullah that he did not perform ghusl, and Hisham ibn ‘Urwah and ‘Ata’ also did not hold the obligation of ghusl, although ‘Ata’ used to say that due to the disagreement of people, my heart is not content without ghusl, and in practice, I adhere to the position of ‘Urwah al-Thaqafi.
(‘Umdat al-Qari: 3/93)

➌
‘Allamah Ibn Rushd has described the disagreement and its reason in these words:
“Most jurists of the cities and a group of the literalists (Ahl al-Zahir) hold that ghusl becomes obligatory upon the meeting of the two circumcised parts (al-taqa’ al-khitanayn), while some among the Ahl al-Zahir say that ghusl is only obligatory upon ejaculation.
The reason for the disagreement is the contradiction between authentic hadiths.
On one hand, there is the hadith of Abu Hurayrah radi Allahu anhu which makes ghusl obligatory upon the meeting of the two circumcised parts, and on the other hand, there is the hadith of ‘Uthman radi Allahu anhu in which the obligation of ghusl is based only on ejaculation.
The majority have considered the latter hadith abrogated, while others, in view of this contradiction, have adopted the unanimously agreed-upon case of ejaculation as the operative ruling.
Those who consider it abrogated have presented the hadith of Ubayy ibn Ka‘b in Abu Dawud rahimahullah as evidence, that the ruling of not performing ghusl was at the beginning of Islam. They have also given preference to the hadith of Abu Hurayrah radi Allahu anhu on the basis of analogy, that the crossing of the two circumcised parts is, by consensus, the limit for the enforcement of the hadd (legal punishment), so the obligation of ghusl should also be based on this.
In addition, the majority have also given preference to the ruling of the obligation of ghusl due to the hadith of ‘A’ishah radi Allahu anha, which Muslim has narrated, in which the words “even if there is no ejaculation” are present.”
(Bidayat al-Mujtahid: 1/95, 97)
Regarding this, the decision of ‘Umar radi Allahu anhu holds the status of authority (final word), which Imam Tahawi rahimahullah has mentioned: that ‘Umar radi Allahu anhu gathered the Companions radi Allahu anhum and sought their opinions regarding this issue.
Some presented the hadith (al-ma’u min al-ma’i) indicating non-obligation of ghusl, while others presented the hadith regarding the meeting of the two circumcised parts, expressing the opinion of obligation.
‘Ali radi Allahu anhu said that in this matter, information should be sought from the Mothers of the Believers radi Allahu anhunna, as they know it better. ‘Umar radi Allahu anhu sent a man to his daughter Hafsah radi Allahu anha to inquire about the issue, but she said she did not know about it. Then he sent a man to ‘A’ishah radi Allahu anha, who presented the hadith in which it is stated that when a man’s circumcision passes beyond a woman’s circumcision, ghusl becomes obligatory.
After this, ‘Umar radi Allahu anhu decided that henceforth, if anyone gave a fatwa of non-obligation of ghusl based on (al-ma’u min al-ma’i), he would give him a severe punishment.
‘Umar radi Allahu anhu gave this decision in the presence of all the Companions radi Allahu anhum, and none of them objected to it.
(Sharh Ma‘ani al-Athar by al-Tahawi: 1/36)
Despite this decision, it is narrated regarding ‘Uthman radi Allahu anhu that he adhered to (al-ma’u min al-ma’i); his adherence should be understood as being before the decision of ‘Umar radi Allahu anhu.
After that, attributing it to him is not correct.
This is why Imam Tirmidhi rahimahullah has mentioned ‘Uthman radi Allahu anhu among those who consider ghusl obligatory upon the meeting of the two circumcised parts. In our view, the position of Imam Bukhari rahimahullah is also that ghusl becomes obligatory upon the crossing of the circumcised parts, as he has stated in the previous chapter.
Imam Bukhari’s inclination in any issue can be known from the hadiths he presents.
He has clarified his inclination by presenting the hadith of Abu Hurayrah radi Allahu anhu.
At the end of this hadith, he said (al-ghusl ahwat) “ritual bath is more cautious,” because when there is disagreement between permissibility and obligation, caution demands acting upon obligation.
Also, “ahwat” (more cautious) cannot be restricted to recommendation (istihbab); rather, it can also apply to obligation (wujub).
Where is acting upon caution recommended, and where is it obligatory? The answer is that in the chapter of acts of worship, acting upon caution is obligatory.
The matter of ghusl is also related to acts of worship, so the meaning of acting upon caution here is that ghusl is obligatory.
It is as if Imam Bukhari rahimahullah means that there is disagreement in the narrations, and based on this disagreement, someone may have confusion, but after the decisive ruling of ‘Umar radi Allahu anhu, there is no room for this. His ruling has established that ghusl becomes obligatory only upon the meeting of the two circumcised parts.
It is another matter that this obligation, in acts of worship, is based on acting upon caution. Therefore, it is not correct in any way to accuse Imam Bukhari of differing from the majority of scholars and making ejaculation the only basis for ghusl, and advising ghusl only as a precaution at the time of the meeting of the circumcised parts.
This may be someone’s personal opinion, but Imam Bukhari rahimahullah has not explicitly stated this anywhere.
It is Imam Bukhari’s consistent habit to draw attention to the Hereafter at the end of the book.
Here too, he has used the phrase (dhak al-akhir), which is an allusion to death, although Hafiz Ibn Hajar rahimahullah has inferred from this that it is an indication towards the end of the book.