Explanation of the author's statement: "And ritual purity is valid from it, except for a small silver clasp for a need."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"And ritual purity is valid from it" From what?
The questioner : From the one with a clasp.
The Shaykh : Not from vessels, from gold and silver vessels. I mean, if a person has a gold vessel solely for ablution and performs ablution with it, he said, "I refuse to empty the gold vessel; I will perform ablution with it." So he performs ablution from this water. The ritual purity is valid, it is valid, but the use is forbidden, the use is prohibited. Some scholars said that the ritual purity is not valid, that the ritual purity is not valid, but this opinion is weak because the prohibition here does not return to the ablution itself, no, but rather it returns to the use in general. Yes, if one performs ablution with forbidden water, that is where there is strong disagreement. As for this, the disagreement in it is weak because the vessel is not a condition for ablution, and the validity of ablution does not depend on this vessel. If he put the water in another vessel, his affair would be in order. If he found water on the ground and performed ablution from it, his affair would be in order. For this reason, ritual purity is valid from it. Now, is ritual purity valid with it? Is ritual purity valid with it? I ask you?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Is ritual purity valid with the vessels? It is valid. And is it valid in them?
The questioner : No, it is not valid.
The Shaykh : And it is valid to them. They said it is valid from it, in it, with it, and to it. Yes, ritual purity is valid from it by scooping from the vessel on the ground, scooping from it. And with it by making it a tool to pour with, like a ladle. He scoops with a gold vessel and pours on his arm and pours on his legs. Now he purifies himself with it.
The questioner : With it, not from it.
The Shaykh : With it, from it. If he scoops, that is fine. In it, it would be wide and large, and he immerses his middle in it, or he immerses the arm in it, for example, he washes his arm with it. And to it, by the water that descends from it descending into a gold vessel. The difference in prepositions, glory to Allah the Great, how the meaning changes. This is a change, and this is proof that the Arabic language has jurisprudence, meaning its jurisprudence is very strong. The jurisprudence of the Arabic language and knowing the meanings of letters and their related matters is very important. It has a deep depth. Ritual purity is valid from it, in it, with it, and to it. To it means that the water of ablution that drips from your hands or from your face is poured onto this vessel. Now he says "except for a small silver clasp for a need". This is an exception to his statement "It is forbidden to take them and use them". Except for a clasp "except for a small silver clasp for a need". The conditions are four: a clasp, small, of silver, for a need. If the four conditions are met, it is permissible. The evidence is what is established in Sahih al-Bukhari from the hadith of Anas ibn Malik (may Allah be pleased with him)Sahih al-Bukhari 3109. He made a silver chain for the crack. The crack means the split, a silver chain. This is the evidence. And on this basis, this hadith is a specification of what came before. Clear, a specification of what came before. Now, if someone asks, "From where did you take the condition that it must be small?" We say because this is the common practice in the cup. The cup is small, what is drunk from. And the common practice is that if it breaks, it does not need much. And the original ruling is prohibition, and the permissibility in silver is prohibition. So we restrict it to what is common or certain. And his saying "of silver." If someone asks, "You said a clasp, and it is what is used to repair the vessel. If a person, as the brother Ahmad said, put silver on the spout of the pitcher, is it permissible or not?"
The questioner : No, it is not permissible.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible because this, first, is not for a need, and it is not a clasp. This is an expression of adornment or addition. Now, if someone asks, "Why did you condition it to be of silver? Why do you not analogize gold to silver?" We say because the text came. The text did not come except in silver. Then gold is more expensive and more strictly prohibited. For this reason, in the chapter of clothing, the gold ring is forbidden for the man, and the silver ring is permitted for him. This indicates that silver is lighter. So much so that Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said in the chapter of clothing that the original ruling in silver is permissibility, and that it is lawful for men, except what the evidence establishes for prohibition. Because there are general texts in silver that indicate its prohibition for men. So the original ruling is permissibility. And this is a chapter in which, if Allah wills, the discussion will come to us. The discussion is that we say what came in is silver, and it is not possible to analogize gold to it. Also, another meaning: if gold were permissible, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) would have repaired the break with it, because gold is further from rust. Do you know rust? Gold does not rust, and silver rusts. For this reason, when some of the Companions had a nose that stank, he cut off his nose in one of the battles, so he made a nose of silver. It stank, so the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered him to make a nose of gold because it does not stink. So if gold were permissible, it would be more appropriate to make it in the place of this crack. Now, "for a need." And what is your evidence for conditioning the need? The break. The Messenger did not take it except when it broke, and the break is undoubtedly a need. And on this basis, the four conditions are taken from where? From the hadith. Four conditions: a clasp, small, of silver, for a need. Now, if it is not a clasp, it is forbidden. If it is large, it is forbidden. If it is of gold, it is forbidden. If it is for other than a need, it is forbidden. So what is the need, Sami? That a purpose other than adornment is attached to it. Meaning, that he does not take it as adornment. That he does not take it as adornment. This is the need. And the need is not that he does not find what to repair the break with other than it, because this is a need. This is a dire necessity. Do you understand? The need means that he does not take it as adornment. And their expression is that a purpose other than adornment is attached to it. Shaykh al-Islam (may Allah have mercy on him) said, "And the meaning is not that he does not find other than it what to repair with, for this is a dire necessity, and it permits the individual." If a person is forced to drink from a gold vessel, there is no objection to drinking, because it is a dire necessity. And if someone asks, "Is a dire necessity conceivable in a vessel?" The answer is, it is not conceivable, it is conceivable.
The questioner : Yes, it is conceivable.
The Shaykh : No, it is not cut off. He has only two hands and twenty fingers. He does not contradict in two hands, and in it is everything. But one who wants to cook food, what does he do? He cooks on his hands? It is not possible. He cooks in wood? It is not possible. He buys vessels of gold? He cannot afford them. He puts them in other vessels? He has no value. So at that time, the dire necessity is conceivable. Yes.
The questioner : In water in the well, water?
The Shaykh : Yes, yes. And so in water, even if he descends from a crack and nothing comes up, and he has now only this, it is a dire necessity.
The questioner : The dire necessity permits the prohibited, and the need permits, or permits by excellence. There he said, meaning their expression, "It is permissible for a need"?
The Shaykh : Yes, correct. We mentioned before a rule that if the prohibited is for the means, and its prohibition is the prohibition of means, then the need permits it. Did we not say this?
The questioner : No.
The Shaykh : We said it. We said there is a rule that if a thing is forbidden from the chapter of the prohibition of means, then the need permits it. And it was not obligatory in the view of the bride, for example. And we gave the example of the open fields, and also gave the example of this. This is only forbidden because there is nothing in it of either, so that it does not become a means to complete taking.
The questioner : From the one with a clasp.
The Shaykh : Not from vessels, from gold and silver vessels. I mean, if a person has a gold vessel solely for ablution and performs ablution with it, he said, "I refuse to empty the gold vessel; I will perform ablution with it." So he performs ablution from this water. The ritual purity is valid, it is valid, but the use is forbidden, the use is prohibited. Some scholars said that the ritual purity is not valid, that the ritual purity is not valid, but this opinion is weak because the prohibition here does not return to the ablution itself, no, but rather it returns to the use in general. Yes, if one performs ablution with forbidden water, that is where there is strong disagreement. As for this, the disagreement in it is weak because the vessel is not a condition for ablution, and the validity of ablution does not depend on this vessel. If he put the water in another vessel, his affair would be in order. If he found water on the ground and performed ablution from it, his affair would be in order. For this reason, ritual purity is valid from it. Now, is ritual purity valid with it? Is ritual purity valid with it? I ask you?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Is ritual purity valid with the vessels? It is valid. And is it valid in them?
The questioner : No, it is not valid.
The Shaykh : And it is valid to them. They said it is valid from it, in it, with it, and to it. Yes, ritual purity is valid from it by scooping from the vessel on the ground, scooping from it. And with it by making it a tool to pour with, like a ladle. He scoops with a gold vessel and pours on his arm and pours on his legs. Now he purifies himself with it.
The questioner : With it, not from it.
The Shaykh : With it, from it. If he scoops, that is fine. In it, it would be wide and large, and he immerses his middle in it, or he immerses the arm in it, for example, he washes his arm with it. And to it, by the water that descends from it descending into a gold vessel. The difference in prepositions, glory to Allah the Great, how the meaning changes. This is a change, and this is proof that the Arabic language has jurisprudence, meaning its jurisprudence is very strong. The jurisprudence of the Arabic language and knowing the meanings of letters and their related matters is very important. It has a deep depth. Ritual purity is valid from it, in it, with it, and to it. To it means that the water of ablution that drips from your hands or from your face is poured onto this vessel. Now he says "except for a small silver clasp for a need". This is an exception to his statement "It is forbidden to take them and use them". Except for a clasp "except for a small silver clasp for a need". The conditions are four: a clasp, small, of silver, for a need. If the four conditions are met, it is permissible. The evidence is what is established in Sahih al-Bukhari from the hadith of Anas ibn Malik (may Allah be pleased with him)
When the cup of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) got broken, he fixed it with a silver wire at the crack.
أن قدح النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم انكسر فاتخذ مكان الشعب سلسلة من فضةThe questioner : No, it is not permissible.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible because this, first, is not for a need, and it is not a clasp. This is an expression of adornment or addition. Now, if someone asks, "Why did you condition it to be of silver? Why do you not analogize gold to silver?" We say because the text came. The text did not come except in silver. Then gold is more expensive and more strictly prohibited. For this reason, in the chapter of clothing, the gold ring is forbidden for the man, and the silver ring is permitted for him. This indicates that silver is lighter. So much so that Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said in the chapter of clothing that the original ruling in silver is permissibility, and that it is lawful for men, except what the evidence establishes for prohibition. Because there are general texts in silver that indicate its prohibition for men. So the original ruling is permissibility. And this is a chapter in which, if Allah wills, the discussion will come to us. The discussion is that we say what came in is silver, and it is not possible to analogize gold to it. Also, another meaning: if gold were permissible, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) would have repaired the break with it, because gold is further from rust. Do you know rust? Gold does not rust, and silver rusts. For this reason, when some of the Companions had a nose that stank, he cut off his nose in one of the battles, so he made a nose of silver. It stank, so the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered him to make a nose of gold because it does not stink. So if gold were permissible, it would be more appropriate to make it in the place of this crack. Now, "for a need." And what is your evidence for conditioning the need? The break. The Messenger did not take it except when it broke, and the break is undoubtedly a need. And on this basis, the four conditions are taken from where? From the hadith. Four conditions: a clasp, small, of silver, for a need. Now, if it is not a clasp, it is forbidden. If it is large, it is forbidden. If it is of gold, it is forbidden. If it is for other than a need, it is forbidden. So what is the need, Sami? That a purpose other than adornment is attached to it. Meaning, that he does not take it as adornment. That he does not take it as adornment. This is the need. And the need is not that he does not find what to repair the break with other than it, because this is a need. This is a dire necessity. Do you understand? The need means that he does not take it as adornment. And their expression is that a purpose other than adornment is attached to it. Shaykh al-Islam (may Allah have mercy on him) said, "And the meaning is not that he does not find other than it what to repair with, for this is a dire necessity, and it permits the individual." If a person is forced to drink from a gold vessel, there is no objection to drinking, because it is a dire necessity. And if someone asks, "Is a dire necessity conceivable in a vessel?" The answer is, it is not conceivable, it is conceivable.
The questioner : Yes, it is conceivable.
The Shaykh : No, it is not cut off. He has only two hands and twenty fingers. He does not contradict in two hands, and in it is everything. But one who wants to cook food, what does he do? He cooks on his hands? It is not possible. He cooks in wood? It is not possible. He buys vessels of gold? He cannot afford them. He puts them in other vessels? He has no value. So at that time, the dire necessity is conceivable. Yes.
The questioner : In water in the well, water?
The Shaykh : Yes, yes. And so in water, even if he descends from a crack and nothing comes up, and he has now only this, it is a dire necessity.
The questioner : The dire necessity permits the prohibited, and the need permits, or permits by excellence. There he said, meaning their expression, "It is permissible for a need"?
The Shaykh : Yes, correct. We mentioned before a rule that if the prohibited is for the means, and its prohibition is the prohibition of means, then the need permits it. Did we not say this?
The questioner : No.
The Shaykh : We said it. We said there is a rule that if a thing is forbidden from the chapter of the prohibition of means, then the need permits it. And it was not obligatory in the view of the bride, for example. And we gave the example of the open fields, and also gave the example of this. This is only forbidden because there is nothing in it of either, so that it does not become a means to complete taking.