Islamic Fiqh > Purification (Tahara) > Impurities (najasat) and vessels > Vessels and animals
Contents
Updated on 24 September 2026 at 1:14 PM
The leaf opens with the proof of those who hold the pig impure, the word of Allah:
"Say: I find not, in what has been revealed to me, anything forbidden to one who would eat of it, unless it be carrion, or blood poured forth, or the flesh of a pig, for that is an abomination, or a sinful act slaughter in other than Allah's name."
Surat al-An'am, 145
The pronoun of "for that is an abomination" refers to the pig, establishing the prohibition of its substance and all its parts (al-Hidaya, 1/23; al-Bahr al-Raiq, 1/110; Bada'i al-Sana'i, 1/227; Umdat al-Qari, 12/36; al-Hawi al-Kabir, 1/316; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 1/64; al-Kafi, 1/212; al-Mughni, 1/73; al-Insaf, 1/310; al-Kafi of Ibn Abd al-Barr, 1/14). The Malikis for their part hold the pig's substance pure during its life: the principle of every living thing is purity, impurity being accidental; its sweat, saliva, tears and mucus are pure (al-Sharh al-Saghir, 2/37).
The jurists do not differ: the skin of carrion is impure before tanning; the disagreement concerns the effect of tanning. Imam Abu Hanifa: tanning purifies every skin except that of the pig, impure in its substance, meaning that its whole being is impure, alive or dead, its impurity not coming from its blood as with other animals: hence it does not accept purification; Abu Yusuf holds the pig's skin pure [once tanned] (Bada'i al-Sana'i, 1/285; al-Bahr al-Raiq, 1/110; Radd al-Muhtar, 1/136).
Imam al-Shafi'i: tanning purifies every skin of carrion except the dog, the pig and their crossbreed, and this is one narration from Ahmad: "what was pure in life becomes purified". Imam Ahmad, in the well-known position, which is also one of Malik's two narrations: nothing is purified by tanning. Malik, in his other narration: every skin is purified, even dog and pig, but only its outer side is purified, the inner remaining impure: it is used dry, as a pouch for grains, not wet, water or ghee; this too is a narration from Ahmad (al-Sharh al-Kabir with Hashiyat al-Dusuqi, 1/89; al-Kafi of Ibn Abd al-Barr, 1/19 and 189; al-Fawakih al-Dawani, 1/387; al-Majmu, 2/202-208; Sharh Sahih Muslim, 4/48-49; al-Mughni, 1/89-91; Tafsir al-Qurtubi, 5/55-56; Majmu al-Fatawa, 21/91-96; al-Ifsah of Ibn Hubayra, 1/41).
Those who deny purification argue: the skin is part of the carrion Allah forbade: "Forbidden to you is carrion" (Surat al-Ma'ida, 43); it is therefore no more purified by tanning than the flesh; forbidden by death, it remains impure as before tanning. And by the hadith of Abdullah ibn Ukaym:
"The Prophet wrote to Juhayna: I had permitted you the skins of carrion; when my letter comes to you, derive no benefit from carrion, neither skin nor sinew. The letter of the Messenger of Allah came to us one or two months before his death."A sound hadith: reported by Abu Dawud (4127 and 4128), Ibn Maja (3613) and al-Tirmidhi (1719), who graded it good while noting that most scholars do not act upon it
This hadith abrogates what preceded it, for it dates from the end of the Prophet's life and its wording attests a prior permission: "I had permitted you"; one holds to the last of the Messenger of Allah's rulings (al-Mughni, 1/90). Those who hold all skins purified argue from the Prophet's word:
"Once tanned, the hide is pure."Reported by Muslim (366)
And from the Prophet's passing a dead sheep given to a freedwoman of Maymuna in charity and saying: "why would you not take its skin?" They said: it is carrion. He said: "only its eating is forbidden"; in one version: "why did you not take its hide, tan it and benefit from it?" (al-Bukhari, 5531; Muslim, 363). For the skin is impure only through the bloods and moistures attaching to it in death: tanning removes them and the skin reverts to its living state (Bada'i al-Sana'i, 1/285; al-Mughni, 1/90).
The leaf first recalls the proof of those who hold them impure, the hadith of Ibn Masud:
"The Prophet went to relieve himself and asked me for three stones; I found two stones, sought the third and found it not; I took a dropping and brought it to him; he took the two stones, cast away the dropping and said: this is an impurity (riks)."Reported by al-Bukhari (155)
The jurists differed over the dung and urine of edible animals. Malik and Ahmad, in the well-known position: pure. Abu Hanifa: the droppings of doves and sparrows are pure, the rest impure. Al-Shafi'i: impure without restriction (al-Ifsah, 1/52; al-Muhadhdhab, 1/46; Bada'i al-Sana'i, 1/222). Al-Nawawi notes for his part: "when affliction becomes general and avoidance impossible, it is excused and prayer is valid, like the mud of streets and the dust of dung" (al-Majmu, 2/508). Al-Kasani: "all dung is impure according to the generality of scholars"; Zufar: the dung of the edible animal is pure, like Malik.
Proof of purity: the young Companions, at home and in travel, used to throw dried droppings at one another, which they would not have touched had they been impure; Malik explained: it is the fuel of the Medinans, used like firewood. The opponents' reply: Ibn Masud's hadith, and the presence in dung of the very meaning of impurity, the repulsiveness of sound natures due to its transformation into stench and foul odor, while it can be guarded against.
Then comes the detail of the birds: there are two kinds. Those that do not void in flight, like the chicken and the duck: their droppings are impure, for repulsiveness is present there, resembling feces; on the goose, two narrations from Abu Hanifa: Abu Yusuf transmits that it is not impure, al-Hasan that it is.
Those that void in flight divide again. Those whose flesh is eaten, dove, sparrow, magpie and the like: their droppings are pure per the Hanafis, impure per al-Shafi'i, because nature has corrupted it, realizing the meaning of impurity, like dung and feces. The Hanafis' proof: the community's consensus of practice, keeping doves in the Sacred Mosque and the cathedral mosques while knowing they void there, which would not be done with an impure thing given the command to purify the mosque: "and purify My house for those who circle it" (Surat al-Baqara, 125); Ibn Umar, upon whom a dove voided, wiped it and prayed; Ibn Masud did likewise with the sparrow. It appears that mere transformation by nature does not suffice for impurity without a stench repulsive to sound natures, absent here; and even granting it, avoidance is impossible since they void in flight: garments and vessels cannot be protected, so it is excused by necessity, like flea and bug blood. Malik transmitted in this question the consensus on purity, and such a figure does not lie: if not consensus in word, then consensus in deed, the one we have expounded.
As for the birds whose flesh is not eaten, falcon, hawk, kite and the like: their droppings are pure per Abu Hanifa and Abu Yusuf, and per Muhammad gravely impure. Muhammad's argument: the meaning of impurity is present, transformation into stench and foul odor, like the inedible beasts, and no necessity to drop its impurity, since they dwell in meadows and deserts, unlike doves. The other two's argument: the necessity is real, they void in flight and protecting garments and vessels is impossible, and contact is established, unlike the chicken and the duck, which do not void in flight: protection was therefore possible.
The mouse's droppings are impure, transformed into stench and foul odor; the scholars differed over the garment touched by its urine: certain shaykhs of Balkh said: "were I afflicted with it, I would wash it; and who prays in it unwashed? I would not order him to repeat". The bat's urine and droppings are not impure: protection from them is impossible, for it urinates in flight, being a flying mouse (Bada'i al-Sana'i, 1/62; Tabyin al-Haqa'iq, 1/74; Majma al-Anhar, 1/94).
The jurists differed over the purity of predatory beasts. The Hanafis declare the land predators impure: lion, leopard, wolf, monkey, and their su'r impure; likewise the birds of prey: falcon, saker, kite; but by juridical preference (istihsan) their su'r is pure, where analogy would make it impure out of regard for their flesh, like the land predators. The rationale of istihsan: they drink with the beak, large and dry, so that their saliva does not mix into it, unlike beasts which drink with the tongue, moist with saliva; and their su'r belongs to necessity and general affliction: they swoop from the height to drink and vessels cannot be guarded, especially in the desert; it remains disliked, for they usually eat carrion. Per Abu Yusuf: the su'r of one that eats carrion is impure, and the su'r of one that eats slaughtered meat is not disliked (Bada'i al-Sana'i, 1/231-232; Tabyin al-Haqa'iq, 1/34; Hashiyat al-Tahtawi, 1/21 and 317; Sharh Fath al-Qadir, 1/96; Hashiyat Ibn Abidin, 1/224; al-Hidaya, 1/23; al-Bahr al-Raiq, 1/139).
The Malikis: every living animal, of every species, is pure, and what proceeds from it too (al-Sharh al-Saghir, 1/30). The Shafi'is: all animals and their su'r are pure, except the dog, the pig and what is born of them or of either (Rawdat al-Talibin, 1/147; al-Majmu, 2/525).
Among the Hanbalis, Ibn Qudama divides animals into impure and pure. The impure are of two sorts: first, what is impure by a single narration, the dog, the pig and their crossbreeds: substance, su'r and all their emissions impure; second, what is disagreed over: the remaining beasts of prey except the cat and what is smaller in build, the rapacious birds, the domestic donkey and the mule: per Ahmad, their su'r is impure, and whoever finds only their su'r performs tayammum with it.
The pure are of three kinds: the human, pure, his su'r pure, Muslim or disbeliever per the generality of scholars; the edible animal: Abu Bakr Ibn al-Mundhir transmits the scholars' agreement that the su'r of the edible animal may be drunk and used for ablution; the cat and what is smaller in build, with the creeping creatures of the earth: su'r pure, drinkable and valid for ablution, the view of most scholars (al-Mughni, 1/73-77; al-Kafi, 1/14; al-Ijma, 1/33).
Ibn Hubayra clarifies: they agree that the su'r of the edible animal is pure and purifying; they differed over the su'r of the inedible predators, lion and leopard: Abu Hanifa and Ahmad in one of his two narrations say impure; Malik, al-Shafi'i and Ahmad in the other narration say pure, Malik excepting the jallala that eats impurity, whose su'r he rules impure (al-Ifsah, 1/47). They agree that the su'r of the mule and the donkey is pure and purifying, except for Abu Hanifa's doubt as to its purifying character; Ibn Jarir transmits dislike from Malik; from Ahmad are transmitted the doubt, like Abu Hanifa, whose benefit is: finding no other water, ablution with it plus tayammum, and if other water is found it is not used; and a narration: su'r impure, the one his companions supported (al-Ifsah, 1/46).
Two narrations from Ahmad precede the topic: the fourth: if the impurity is on the two passages or on something other than the body, the number is required, the obligation being seven; if it is on the body, it is transmitted from him: "if it touches his body, it is easier", and al-Khallal errs as to its narrator; the fifth: dropping the number for everything except dog and pig (al-Ifsah, 1/50-52).
On the substance, Imam Abu Hanifa and Abu Yusuf, one narration in Malik's school and, in Ahmad's, the view chosen by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya, admit purifying impurity with something other than water, such as vinegar or rose water and the like (but not oil or broth), among the liquids that can be wrung out. For what wrings out removes by its nature and therefore purifies like water, and better; we observe by necessity that the liquid removes each time a part of the impurity, the water changing color, and impurity is finite, composed of finite parts: its parts exhausted, the spot remains pure for lack of proximity.
Add that removing impurity is not of the register of commanded actions but of abandonments: its aim is to ward off filth; it therefore requires neither the servant's act nor his intention: even if removed by the rain falling from the sky, the aim is achieved; if by the servant's act and intention, he is rewarded for it; otherwise the harm vanishes, with neither reward nor punishment.
Imam al-Shafi'i, the second view in Malik's school and in Ahmad's, holds that impurity is removed only with water. A third view from Ahmad admits it for need, like the purification of the cat's mouth by its saliva and of infants' mouths by their salivas (Sharh Fath al-Qadir, 1/133; Tabyin al-Haqa'iq, 1/69-70; al-Istidhkar, 1/171-172; al-Sharh al-Kabir, 1/34; al-Majmu, 1/145-146; al-Qalyubi and Umaira, 1/18; Kashshaf al-Qina, 1/25 and 181; al-Ifsah, 1/40; Majmu al-Fatawa, 21/474-478; al-Insaf, 1/309).
The Shafi'is and the Hanbalis require that impurity reaching the underside of the khuff or the sandal be removed by washing: rubbing, debated for garment and body, does not suffice, with no difference between moist and dry impurity; among the Shafi'is, two views on excusing rubbed dry impurity. Al-Nawawi details: if moist impurity is rubbed on the ground and its substance disappears leaving a trace, and it was rubbed while moist, that does not suffice and one may not pray in them without disagreement, for it spreads to other visible parts of the khuff; if it dried and was then rubbed dry without spreading, the khuff is impure without disagreement, but praying in it admits two views: the new and correct one forbids it, also Ahmad's per his strongest narrations, for it is a worn garment impure, which rubbing does not purge, like a garment; the old one permits it, per the hadith of Abu Sa'id al-Khudri:
"When one of you comes to the mosque, let him look at his sandals; if he sees in them dirt, or said: harm, let him wipe them and pray in them."A sound hadith: reported by Abu Dawud (650), Ahmad (11895), Ibn Khuzayma (786) and Ibn Hibban (2185)
Al-Rafi'i gives the excuse of the old view three conditions:
Imam al-Buhuti cites al-Insaf: the small impurity remaining on the underside of the khuff and the shoe after rubbing is excused on the view of impurity (al-Majmu, 2/549-550; Kashshaf al-Qina, 1/189; al-Insaf, 1/323).
Abu Hanifa distinguishes: impurity having a body, dung or fecal matter, once dried and rubbed on the ground, rubbing suffices; the moist and the bodiless, khamr and urine, admit only washing. Abu Yusuf: rubbing suffices in both cases, dry or moist, except urine and khamr. Muhammad: only washing suffices, as for a garment; Ibn Najim objects that the hadith refutes him and that his retraction is transmitted in al-Nihaya. Abu Yusuf follows the unqualified prophetic word:
"If harm befalls the khuff or sandal of one of you, let him rub them on the ground and pray in them."Reported in the Sunan works
He does not distinguish moist from dry nor solidified from otherwise, by general necessity. Al-Kamal ibn al-Humam deems Abu Yusuf's view that of most shaykhs and chooses it for the general affliction; we know, he says, that the hadith grants purification by rubbing even with moisture: the distance between mosque and house does not suffice for what touched the khuff to dry (al-Bahr al-Raiq, 1/234; Hashiyat Ibn Abidin, 1/310; Hashiyat al-Tahtawi on Maraqi al-Falah, 1/108; Sharh Fath al-Qadir, 1/195-196; al-Ikhtiyar, 1/31-33; al-Awsat, 2/170; Nayl al-Awtar, 1/54).
The Malikis distinguish the droppings and urine of beasts from the other impurities. If the underside is touched by beast dung or urine, it is excused provided it is rubbed with earth, a stone or the like until the substance vanishes; likewise if the impurity has dried so that nothing remains but the legal defilement. Some conditioned the excuse on the contact occurring in a place frequented by beasts, like roads, given the hardship of avoidance; al-Dusuqi, citing al-Binani, notes that this condition is transmitted by al-Tawdih from Sahnun and appears retained, Ibn al-Hajib alluding to it through the rationale of hardship, which exists only with that. Consequently, no excuse for beast dung contracted elsewhere, even with rubbing.
As for the other impurities, dog feces, human waste or blood exceeding a dirham: no excuse, washing is required. Al-Hattab, citing Ibn al-Arabi: the cause is the rarity of such things on roads; were they to become frequent there, they would be like beast dung (Hashiyat al-Dusuqi with al-Sharh al-Kabir, 1/122; al-Fawakih al-Dawani, 1/162; Mawahib al-Jalil, 1/154).
A woman asked Umm Salama, the Prophet's wife: "I am a woman who lengthens my hem and walk in unclean places"; Umm Salama replied:
"The Prophet said: what comes after it purifies it."A sound hadith: reported by Abu Dawud (383), al-Tirmidhi (143), Ibn Maja (506) and others
Abu Bakr Ibn al-Mundhir transmits the scholars' disagreement over its meaning. Ahmad used to say: it does not mean that urine touching the garment is purified by passing over the ground; rather one passes a place that defiles then a cleaner place which "purifies" it: it is not that something touches the garment. Malik used to say, on "the earth, part of it purifies another part": it is treading the unclean earth then the dry clean earth; as for moist impurity, like urine, touching garment or body so as to moisten it: nothing but washing avails, and this is the consensus of the imams. Al-Shafi'i used to say: "what comes after it purifies it" applies to what was dragged over something dry from which nothing clings to the garment; what was dragged over moist is purified only by washing, even if its smell, color and trace are gone (al-Awsat, 2/170-171; Mukhtasar al-Khilafiyat of al-Bayhaqi, 1/124; Gharib al-Hadith of al-Khattabi, 3/109; al-Nihaya of Ibn al-Athir, 3/147; al-Istidhkar, 1/171).
The Malikis conditioned the excuse for dry impurity touching the hem of a woman's garment, when she afterwards passes over a clean dry place:
(Hashiyat al-Dusuqi with al-Sharh al-Kabir, 1/121; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 1/110; Mawahib al-Jalil, 1/152; al-Qawanin al-fiqhiyya, 1/28.)
The jurists differed over the impurities that are excused. Abu Hanifa: the small quantity of impurities is excused, within the measure of the Baghdad dirham. Al-Mawsili the Hanafi expounds: impurity is grave or light; the grave, per Abu Hanifa, is that whose impurity is established by an uncontradicted text and which can be avoided without hardship, personal effort not contradicting text; the light is that where two texts conflict over purity and impurity; per Abu Yusuf and Muhammad, the grave is that whose impurity is agreed upon, with no affliction in contracting it, and the light is that disagreed over, personal effort being a legal proof like text.
What prevents prayer, for the grave: exceeding a dirham in area if liquid, in weight if thick, that is, the like of the width of the palm, for Umar said: "if the impurity is the size of my fingernail, it does not prevent the validity of prayer; it is when it is more", and his fingernail was near our palm. Per Muhammad: the large dirham equals a mithqal in weight: the first view holds for area if liquid, Muhammad's for weight if solidified. Al-Nakha'i explains: "they meant the size of the seat, and euphemized it by the dirham"; and the dirham comes from the topic of istinja: after cleansing with stones, if what exited has touched the whole passage, the trace remains over all of it, amounting to a dirham, and prayer with it is valid by consensus: the dirham is thus a legal excuse.
What prevents, for the light: reaching a quarter of the garment, for the quarter has the ruling of the whole in the law, like wiping the head; it has been said: a quarter of the whole garment; it has been said: a quarter of the part touched, sleeve, hem or lap; per Abu Yusuf: a span by a span; per Muhammad: a cubit by a cubit, and also the place of the two feet; the chosen view: the quarter; and from Abu Hanifa: it is unquantified, left to the judgment of the afflicted, for people differ in this. Everything exiting the human body and requiring purification is grave: feces, urine, blood, discharge, vomit, without disagreement, and mani likewise; the dung and soiled litter of the inedible beasts are grave per Abu Hanifa, their impurity being established by the prophetic word: "it is an abomination (rijis)", and light per his two companions because of the general affliction touching them and the disagreement concerning them (al-Ikhtiyar, 1/35-37; Tabyin al-Haqa'iq, 1/73; al-Mabsut, 1/60; al-Inaya, 1/326; al-Bahr al-Raiq, 1/240).
Imam Malik: the small and the great quantity of impurity are equal, except blood, whose small amount is excused; on menstrual blood, two narrations, Ibn Rushd holding the more famous to equate it with the other bloods (Bidayat al-Mujtahid, 1/121). Their measure of little and much is the Baghdad dirham: "and the size of a dirham of blood, pus and discharge", that is, the Baghdadi dirham, the black circle on the mule's foreleg, below it (al-Sharh al-Saghir, 1/52).
Among the Shafi'is, al-Shirazi divides impurity into bloods and others. For the others: if it is a filth the eye perceives, it is not excused, avoidance not being hard; if the eye does not perceive it, three cases: excused, being imperceptible like dung dust; not excused, being an avoidable impurity; or two views. Al-Nawawi decides: "the soundest path: it is excused", noting that fly specks are not excused when the eye perceives them per the author's wording, but that al-Baghawi and others give them the ruling of flea blood, of general affliction: "the correct view: like flea blood".
For the bloods: the blood of lice and fleas and the like is excused in its small amount, for avoidance is hard, per "He has not placed upon you in the religion any hardship"; in its large amount, two views: Abu Sa'id al-Istakhri says it is not excused, being rare and easy to wash; the others excuse it, and this is sounder, the kind being hard to avoid generally, the rare joined to the prevalent.
For the blood of other animals, three views are transmitted: in al-Umm: the small amount is excused, being what people customarily pardon, for man is never without a pimple or an itch emitting that quantity; in al-Imla: neither the small nor the large, an avoidable impurity like urine; in the old view: what is below the palm is excused, the palm is not; the first is soundest, and it is, al-Nawawi specifies, the unanimously strongest view; the author of al-Shamil reports that some estimated it at a spot.
A person's own blood is of two kinds. What exits from a pimple, blood, pus or discharge: the ruling of flea blood by agreement, the small amount certainly excused, the large amount per two views whose soundest is excuse: squeezing a pimple from which a little blood exits is excused per the soundest view. What exits not from pimples but from boils, sores, the place of venesection or cupping: two paths: the first, per the wording of most according to al-Rafi'i: like flea and pimple blood; the second, the soundest, chosen by Ibn Kajj, Shaykh Abu Muhammad and Imam al-Haramayn, apparent in the author and the Iraqis: like another's blood. The pus and discharge of another and of animals follow the blood of the animal in question. The author of al-Bayan restricted the disagreement over excuse to what is not dog, pig or crossbreed blood: nothing of those is excused without disagreement; al-Baghawi: "fly specks and bat urine follow the ruling of blood, avoidance being impossible" (al-Majmu, 3/139-142).
A corollary transmitted from the author of al-Tatimma: one who, while praying, is wounded and whose blood flows without soiling the skin, or soils it slightly, like the flow of venesection, does not invalidate his prayer; it is proved by Jabir's hadith of the two men guarding the Prophet, one of whom was wounded while praying and persisted, his blood flowing, a hadith expounded in the chapter of the nullifiers of ablution; and because what is separated from the skin is not ascribed to it, even if parts of the blood touch, like water poured from a jug onto an impurity: the water of the stream touching it does not make the remaining water impure.
The Hanbalis excuse no small impurity, even one invisible to the eye, like what clings to the legs of flies and the like, per "And your garment, purify it" and Ibn Umar's word: "we were ordered to wash the filths seven times", except the small amount of blood and what derives from it, pus, discharge of a hand or fluid of sores: excused outside liquids and foods, that is, for prayer, for man is seldom safe from it and guarding is hard, like the trace of cleansing with stones; the view of a group of Companions, Successors and those after them.
The excused is so only if it comes from a human or a pure animal, outside the passages: what exits from the passages is not excused, falling under the ruling of urine or feces; likewise the bloods of menstruation, lochia and metrorrhagia, per Aisha's word: "none of us had but one garment for her menses; if blood touched it, she spat upon it and scraped it with her fingernail", per al-Nihaya. The same holds of the blood of a non-human animal, edible like camel and cow or not like the cat; unlike the impure animal, dog or pig: nothing of its blood is excused, and likewise donkey and mule blood.
Scattered drops of blood on a garment are added together: if excessive, not excused; scattered over more than one garment are not added: each garment counts on its own, one not following the other; thin cloth pierced through by impurity is a single impurity; if there is an interposed layer not reached by blood, they are two impurities: if combined they reach the unexcused measure, they are not excused, like the two faces of a garment. The blood of the vein of a slaughtered animal after slaughter and what remains within the meat is pure, even if its redness appears, textually, for it cannot be guarded against, like fish blood: were it impure, its permissibility would depend on pouring it out at slaughter, like land animals (Kashshaf al-Qina, 1/190-191; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat, 1/108; al-Insaf of al-Mardawi, 1/331-333; Sharh al-Umda, 1/105-107; al-Mughni, 1/411; al-Kafi, 1/92).
Chapter on vessels. Vessels (aniya) are the plural of ina: a vessel is a container, any receptacle capable of holding something else; the plural of the plural is awanin (al-Qamus al-Muhit, entry ani). The jurists' usage does not depart from linguistic usage. Then come the rulings of vessels as to their use.
First type: gold and silver vessels. The scholars agree on the prohibition of using them. Al-Nawawi: "The Muslims agree on the prohibition of eating and drinking from a vessel of gold or silver, for men and for the woman alike; none of the scholars has differed, except what our Iraqi companions transmit: an old view of al-Shafi'i that it is disliked and not forbidden; a null transmission, rejected by text and consensus. The author of al-Taqrib says that the context of al-Shafi'i's old wording shows that he meant that the gold and silver of which the vessel is made are not forbidden, hence jewelry was not forbidden to women"; now the author of al-Taqrib is among the early Iraqis, the most precise transmitters of al-Shafi'i's texts, and al-Shafi'i retracted this old view; and the correct position among his companions and the legal theorists: the view of a mujtahid, once retracted, is no longer his view and is ascribed to him only by way of his former position.
In sum: consensus is established on the prohibition of using gold and silver vessels for eating, drinking and purification, eating with a spoon of either, perfuming oneself with a censer of either, and all uses: kohl pot, kohl applicator, the tip of the ghaliya vessel and others, small vessel or large, man and woman equally without disagreement (Sharh Sahih Muslim of Imam al-Nawawi, 14/26-27; al-Awsat, 2/250-252; al-Umm, 1/8; al-Bahr al-Raiq, 8/260; Tabyin al-Haqa'iq, 6/10; supplement to Fath al-Qadir, 8/81; al-Istidhkar, 8/350; Mawahib al-Jalil, 1/128; Hashiyat al-Dusuqi, 1/102; al-Sharh al-Saghir, 1/43; al-Ifsah, 1/45-46; Fath al-Bari, 10/97; al-Mughni, 1/99; Kashshaf al-Qina, 1/51; Majmu al-Fatawa, 21/89; Manar al-Sabil, 1/20). Ibn Qudama: "no disagreement among our companions: using gold and silver vessels is forbidden; it is the doctrine of Abu Hanifa, Malik and al-Shafi'i, and I know of no disagreement in it" (al-Mughni, 1/97).
The proofs are the hadiths:
"Do not drink from gold and silver vessels and do not eat from their plates: they are for them in this world and for us in the Hereafter."Reported by al-Bukhari (5633) and Muslim (2067)
"Whoever drinks from silver vessels is but gulping the fire of Hell into his belly."Reported by al-Bukhari (5634) and Muslim (2065)
If one performs ablution or bathes with them: he sins by the act, but his ablution and bath are valid per the Hanafis, the Malikis and the Shafi'is, and per the soundest Hanbali view, against Abu Bakr the Hanbali (Sharh Sahih Muslim, 14/27; al-Majmu, 2/253; al-Mughni, 1/98; Hashiyat al-Dusuqi, 1/104).
The plated vessel (mufaddad) is that adorned or inlaid with silver; the patched one (mudabbab) is that bound with clasps, the clasp being the broad iron band used to reinforce it; a door is said to be bound, and teeth are said to be bound with silver when fastened with it (Hashiyat Ibn Abidin, 6/344; al-Qamus al-Muhit, p. 1151).
Imam Abu Hanifa, and this is one of the two narrations from Muhammad ibn al-Hasan, permits the use of silver-plated and silver-patched vessels, even with much silver; Abu Yusuf, the second narration from Muhammad, dislikes it (al-Bahr al-Raiq, 8/211; al-Durr al-Muhtar with Hashiyat Ibn Abidin, 6/344-345; Tabyin al-Haqa'iq, 6/11; Bada'i al-Sana'i, 5/132; Mukhtasar Ikhtilaf al-Ulama of al-Bayhaqi, 1/162).
Among the Malikis, two views on the plated, prohibition or permission, some favoring permission; the patched is not permitted. Al-Sharh al-Saghir: "it is forbidden for the responsible person, male or female, to patch a vessel of wood or earthenware, like porcelain, with either of the two metals; as for a vessel of copper or iron, pots, plates, censers and ewers, tinned with either of the two, two views of permission and prohibition, some favoring permission in consideration of the interior, the tinning following it" (1/43-44; with Hashiyat al-Dusuqi, 1/105; Mawahib al-Jalil, 1/129-130; al-Dhakhira, 1/167; Minh al-Jalil, 1/59).
Among the Shafi'is, says al-Rawda: it is not disliked to make a vessel of iron or other metal, plated with gold or silver: if something detaches from it under fire, its use is forbidden; otherwise, two views, and the soundest per al-Nawawi: not forbidden (Rawdat al-Talibin, 1/188; al-Majmu, 2/265). As for the silver-patched vessel, al-Shafi'i said, per al-Majmu: "I dislike the silver-patched one, lest one be drinking upon silver". The companions have four views:
Among the Hanbalis, says al-Mughni: the vessel patched with much gold or silver is forbidden in every case, gold or silver, for it involves extravagance and vanity, like the pure metal; then the companions differed: Abu Bakr permits a little of gold and silver; the majority: a little gold is not permitted, nothing being allowed save necessity, like the gold nose and what binds the teeth; as for silver, a little of it is permitted, per the hadith:
"The Prophet's bowl having broken, he had a chain of silver fixed in place of the crack."Reported by al-Bukhari (2942)