If eating, drinking, and other uses had been intended, he would have said: “Do not use them.” And if acquiring them without using them were forbidden, he would have said: “Do not acquire them.” The Prophet ﷺ would not omit what is more general and mention only what is more specific. If this is so, then we cannot use the specific to prove the general, because the evidence must be broader than, or equal in scope to, what it is intended to establish. If the evidence is more restricted, then the Lawgiver has granted the Ummah latitude.

This is further indicated by the fact that Umm Salamah—may Allah be pleased with her—who was among those who narrated the prohibition concerning silver vessels in particular, had a small silver container—something like what we call a bottle—in which she kept some hairs from the Prophet ﷺ. People would seek healing through these hairs: when someone fell ill, she would pour water into this container, shake it with the hairs, and people would seek healing with it. (1)

Based on this view—which is the apparent meaning of the sunnah and the stronger opinion—we say: It is not permissible to break vessels of gold and silver except when they are used for eating and drinking, because the basis for the permissibility of breaking such vessels and for incurring no liability for destroying them is that their use is forbidden.

According to the view that it is permissible to acquire them, however, one is liable for them if one breaks them, because one has prevented their owner from doing something lawful. But is one liable for them as vessels merely kept, or as vessels used? One is liable for them as vessels used for purposes other than eating and drinking.