Explanation of the author's statement: "Except for vessels of gold and silver, and those inlaid with them, for it is forbidden to make and use them"

The Shaykh : ...the matter, and the scholars (may Allah have mercy on them) establish a book, a chapter, and a section. A book is a collection of chapters that fall under a single genus, and a chapter is a species of that genus. For example, when we say "grain," it includes barley, wheat, corn, and rice, but barley is one thing and wheat is another. The book of ritual purity covers every genus to which the term "ritual purity" applies or which is related to it, but the chapters are species of that genus. As for sections, they consist of issues that are distinguished from others by certain things, either by conditions or by details. Sometimes they divide a chapter into sections because of the length of its issues, not because some of them have a specific ruling, but because of the length of the issues, so they write sections. "Al-Aniyyah" is the plural of "ina'" (vessel), which is a container, a container for a thing, meaning a vessel for a thing; that is, the vessel is the container. The author mentioned this here, and although it has a connection to the chapter on foods, because foods are also not eaten except with vessels, the chapter on vessels has a connection to the chapter on foods that jurists mention at the end of jurisprudence, and it has a connection here in the chapter on water, because water, as you know, is a flowing essence that cannot be preserved except in a vessel. For this reason, they mentioned it after the chapter on water. It is known that it is more appropriate, if a thing has two connections, to mention it in the first connection, because if it is delayed until the second connection, its benefit in the first connection is lost. But if it is brought forward in the first connection, its benefit in the second connection is not lost, by sufficing with what has preceded. The original ruling for vessels is permissibility, because they fall under the generality of the saying of Allah the Exalted: , and from that are vessels, because vessels are made from the earth. Yes, perhaps there is something in them, or perhaps something occurs in them that necessitates their prohibition, such as if they are made in the shape of an animal, for example. Here, they are forbidden, not because they are vessels, but because they have become in a forbidden shape. Otherwise, the original ruling, the original ruling for them is permissibility, and the evidence is what I mentioned: . This is from the Qur'an and from the Sunnah, the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): . And he (peace and blessings be upon him) said: . So the original ruling for what Allah has been silent about is permissibility, except in acts of worship. In acts of worship, the original ruling is prohibition, because acts of worship are a path leading to Allah (Mighty and Majestic). So if we do not know that Allah has established it as a path to Him, it is forbidden for us to take it as a path. And just as the verses and hadiths indicate that acts of worship are contingent upon what? Upon the Shari'ah. , this indicates that what a servant worships his Lord with, Allah must permit it. And the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: . But in this chapter, the original ruling for vessels is permissibility, by the indication of the Book and the Sunnah. And on this basis, if we differ over something, whether it is lawful or forbidden, we say to the one who said it is forbidden: "You must provide the evidence," because the original ruling for us is permissibility. And there is no difference between vessels being large or small; the large and the small are permissible. Allah the Exalted said regarding Sulayman: . The "Jawabi" is what? The "Jawabi" are pools, the "Jafnah" is like a platter, and "Qudur Rasiyyat" are large pots that are not carried or lifted because they are large and stationary, and because of the large amount placed in them, they are not carried; they remain as they are. So there is no difference between the large and the small. But if that reaches the limit of extravagance, it becomes forbidden for its sake. Why? Because of the extravagance. . The author said: "Every vessel is pure", as a precaution against the impure vessel, because the impure vessel is not permissible to use because it is impure and dirty. And in what the author said, there is a point of consideration, because the impure vessel is permissible to use if it is in a way that does not exceed [the limit]. There is no harm in using it, as will come to us, if Allah wills, in the issue of leather before tanning or after tanning. If it is used in a way that does not exceed [the limit], there is no harm in it. And the evidence for that is the hadith of Jabir, that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said when he conquered Makkah: . So the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) approved this action, even though these things are impure. That indicates that benefiting from an impure thing, if it is in a way that does not exceed [the limit], is not a problem. And his saying: "Even if it is expensive". The "law" here is an indication of difference, meaning even if it is expensive, high in price, like what? Like jewels, emeralds, diamonds, and the like, it is permissible to make and use it. And some of the people of knowledge said that the expensive vessel is not permissible to make and use because of the arrogance and extravagance in it. And on this opinion, the prohibition in it is for its own sake, not for another reason, but for another reason, which is that it is extravagance and leads to arrogance and boasting. So from this aspect, it is forbidden, not because it is expensive. And his saying: "It is permissible to make it". This is the predicate of the subject. Where is the subject? "Kull" (Every). The construction here has some ambiguity, because his saying "it is permissible to make and use it" might be thought by the one who thinks so to be a description, because it is a predicate, and the predicate is expected. So if the author had said "It is permissible for every pure vessel, even if it is expensive, to make and use it," it would have been better. But in any case, the meaning is clear. He said it is permissible to make and use it. Is there a difference between making and using? Yes. Making it means it is only possessed, either for adornment, or for use in a state of necessity, or for selling and buying, and the like. This is making it. And as for using it, it is the act of benefiting from it, meaning one starts using it in what it is used for. So making vessels is permissible. Good. If it exceeds the amount of need? The answer is yes. Even if it exceeds the amount of need, meaning if a person has a teapot that is sufficient for him and he wants to buy another teapot, is it permissible? Yes, yes, yes, it is permissible to make it, even if he is not using it now, but he made it because he might need it, so he sells it, or perhaps someone borrows it from him, or perhaps the one he has breaks, or perhaps guests come to him and what he has is not enough for them. So the important thing is that making is permissible and using is permissible.

The Shaykh : The author said: "Except for vessels of gold and silver, and those inlaid with them". From the principles of jurisprudence, they say that the exception is the measure of the generality. That is, if you make an exception, it means that everything other than this image is included in the ruling. And on this basis, everything is permissible to make, the measure of the generality, the exception is the measure of the generality, meaning the standard. Good. Some of the jurists mentioned, they said: "Except for human bone and its skin, it is not permissible to make and use them as vessels." And they reasoned that it is respected by its sanctity. And the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: . Its chain of narration is authentic. He says: "Except for vessels of gold and silver, and those inlaid with them, for it is forbidden to make and use them". Vessels of gold: gold is known, this red precious metal to which souls attach, love it, and incline toward it. And Allah has placed in the fitrah of creation the inclination to this gold, as the poet said: "I saw the people have gone to the one who has gold". The one who has gold, let alone his gold. And likewise silver, which is in the souls of creation less than gold. For this reason, its prohibition is lighter than that of gold. And his saying "except for vessels of gold and silver" includes the small and the large, even the spoon, even the spoon, and even the knife, and the like. He said: "And those inlaid with them". Inlaid with them, what does "inlaid" mean? What is the meaning of inlaying?

The questioner : Inlaying.

The questioner : Inlaid, coated.

The Shaykh : No, no, they say that the "dibbah" is a piece of iron that joins the two ends of a broken thing. This "dibbah" is a piece of iron that joins the two ends of a broken thing. And this is similar to soldering, but in the previous cups, I experienced it, and perhaps some of you experienced it too. If the wooden platter breaks, they sew it with stitching. Yes, small, very fine needles and strips. Yes, small strips, and they put a piece of leather on the place of the break so that the vessel does not leak. This is inlaying. So the inlaid with them is forbidden, except for what is excluded. Yes, except for what is excluded, as will come, if Allah wills. So vessels of gold and silver, whether they are pure or mixed, are forbidden. What is the evidence? Because we said a rule a little while ago: the original ruling is permissibility except by evidence. The evidence is the hadith of Hudhayfah (may Allah be pleased with him): . And likewise the hadith of Umm Salama: . And this is evidence that the prohibition is for prohibition. In the hadith of Hudhayfah, the prohibition is for prohibition, not for dislike. And that is because the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) threatened with the Fire of Hell, so it is forbidden, and indeed it is from the major sins.
This is the evidence. Now, if it is said that the vessel is inlaid with them, and if someone were to say that the hadith refers to the vessels themselves, the answer is that it was reported in a hadith narrated by al-Daraqutni which mentions "in them." Also, what is forbidden is a harm; if it is pure, its harm is pure, and if it is not pure, it contains harm to the extent of that impurity. For this reason, the forbidden is forbidden in small and large quantities. Anything that the Lawgiver has ruled to be forbidden is forbidden in small and large quantities. This is the perspective of the author regarding "or inlaid with them". He said, "then it is forbidden to acquire them and use them". There is a difference between acquiring them and using them, as mentioned previously. Here we have three cases: acquiring and using, and eating and drinking. Three things: acquiring and using, and eating and drinking. As for acquiring, it is forbidden according to the school of thought, as the author stated. There is another opinion in the school of thought, in the school of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and it is reported from al-Shafi'i that it is not forbidden to acquire vessels of gold and silver. This is a view in the school of Imam Ahmad. The second is using them, which is forbidden in the school of thought unanimously; it is forbidden to use them for other than eating and drinking, such as what? For other than eating and drinking.

The questioner : Wudu.

The Shaykh : Such as wudu; using them to preserve things like medicines or others, and the like. This is forbidden unanimously in the school of thought. As for the third, eating and drinking from them, it is forbidden by explicit text. Some have reported scholarly consensus (ijma') on the prohibition of eating and drinking from them as well. There is no doubt that the text is clear in this regard, and no one can say that eating and drinking from gold and silver is permissible given the presence of the explicit hadith prohibiting it and warning against it. So, there is no doubt about the prohibition of eating and drinking. As for using them for other than eating and drinking, the school of thought unanimously holds that it is forbidden. As for acquiring them, there are two opinions in the school of thought: is it forbidden or not? The correct view is that acquiring them and using them for other than eating and drinking is not forbidden. That is, using gold and silver for other than eating and drinking is not forbidden, and likewise acquiring them is even more so. This is because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) only prohibited a specific thing, which is eating and drinking. If the prohibition extended to other than eating and drinking, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), who is the most eloquent and clearest of people in speech, would not have specified one thing over another. Rather, his specification of eating and drinking is evidence that what is other than them is permissible, because people benefit from gold and silver in other ways. If the vessels were absolutely forbidden, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) would have ordered them to be broken, as he ordered, or as he (peace and blessings be upon him) would not leave anything with images or crosses without breaking it. If the vessels were forbidden, he would have ordered them to be broken, because if they were forbidden in all cases—in acquiring, using, and eating and drinking—there would be no benefit in their remaining; they would only need to be broken. Evidence for this is that Umm Salimah, who is the narrator of the hadith, had a silver vessel, a silver container. A "jaljal" is something like a brick. She placed some hairs from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) in it, and people would seek healing with it. If someone fell ill or was struck by pain, they would send her water, and she would put it in this container and stir it with the hairs, then give it to the patient, and he would be healed by the permission of Allah (Mighty and Majestic). This hadith from her is authentic in al-Bukhari, and she is the narrator of the hadith. This is a use of it, or not? It is a use of it, but for other than eating and drinking. So the correct view is that it is not forbidden except what the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade in vessels, which is eating and drinking. If someone were to say that the Messenger forbade it in eating and drinking because that is the most common use, and that the ruling is attached to it because it is the most prevalent, that does not necessitate restricting the ruling to it, as Allah the Exalted said . The prohibition of the stepmother is qualified by her being in one's care, yet she is forbidden even if she is not in one's care, according to the opinion of the majority of scholars. We say this is correct, but the fact that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) attached the ruling to eating and drinking is because the display of luxury in eating and drinking is more prominent than in other aspects. This is a cause that necessitates restricting the ruling to eating and drinking, because there is no doubt that a person whose vessels for eating and drinking are gold and silver is not like a person who uses them for other things, which is hidden from many people, and the display of the Muslim community would not be boasting with gold and silver. Yes.