Explanation of the author's statement: "And it is disliked to touch it without need."

The Shaykh : ... Touching the small silver rim is disliked "without need". If one has a need for it, then there is no harm. What is the meaning of "touching it"? The meaning of "touching it" is that if a person wants to drink from this silver-rimmed vessel, he drinks from the side of the rim, so his lips touch it. This is its meaning. Do you understand this? This is the meaning of his statement that it is disliked to touch it, even though it is lawful, is it not? Yes, it is lawful. But he says: do not touch this silver; it is disliked. The disliked (makruh) in the terminology of the jurists is that which is prohibited not on the basis of obligatory abstention; it is prohibited not on the basis of obligatory abstention. Its ruling is that the one who leaves it off is rewarded for compliance, and the one who does it is not punished. This is unlike the forbidden (haram); the one who does the haram deserves punishment, but the one who does the makruh does not deserve it. This is in the terminology of the jurists, may Allah have mercy on them. As for the Qur'an and the Sunnah, the word "disliked" (makruh) is used for the forbidden. Therefore, when Allah, Mighty and Majestic, enumerated things that are forbidden in Surat al-Isra, He said: And in a reading , the "disliked" in the Qur'an and Sunnah is different from this; it is not the "disliked" of the jurists. Likewise, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: And this is forbidden. So we say: the "disliked" in the terminology of the jurists is defined as that which is prohibited not on the basis of obligatory abstention. Its ruling is that the one who leaves it off is rewarded for compliance, and the one who does it is not punished. Now, is it a legal ruling? The "disliked" is a legal ruling, or is the "dislike" a legal ruling? No one can establish it except with evidence. Whoever establishes it without evidence, we reject his statement, just as if he established prohibition without evidence, we would reject his statement. Let us now look, based on this principle, at the author's statement: "It is disliked to touch it", meaning touching the permissible rim without need. If one has a need for it, such as if the vessel would spill if he did not drink from this side, or if the water would spill if he did not drink from other than this side, or if he drank from other than this side, the water would spill, so he needs to drink from this side. Or, for example, he brought the vessel and put it on the fire to heat it, and the side without the rim became hot, so he could not drink from there, and he drank from the cold side where the rim is. Is this a need or not? He drinks, and there is no dislike. He drinks, and there is no dislike. If he does not have a need, the author's statement is explicit that it is disliked. But the correct view is that it is not disliked and that it is permissible to touch it. Why? Because dislike is a legal ruling that requires evidence to establish it. Since it has been established that this rim is permissible by virtue of the text—the hadith of Anas that the cup of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) broke, so he took a silver chain in place of the crack—this is permissible by virtue of the text. If it is permissible, what makes touching it disliked? Did it come that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) avoided this side of his cup? No. In that case, the correct view is what? The correct view is that there is no dislike, because this thing is permissible, and touching the permissible is permissible.