to come into direct contact with it without a need.” If there is a need to do so—for example, if the vessel would spill over unless he drank from this side, or if he placed the vessel on the fire and the side without the silver band became too hot for him to drink from, so he drank from the cooler side that has the band—then this is a need, and he may drink from it without any dislike.
But if he has no need, the author’s words are explicit that direct contact with it is disliked.
The correct view, however, is that it is not disliked, and that he may come into direct contact with it. For dislike is a legal ruling that requires legal evidence to establish it. Since it has been established, on the basis of the previously mentioned hadith of Anas, that it is permissible, what makes direct contact with it disliked? Is there any report that the Prophet, may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him, would avoid that side of his cup?
The answer is no. Thus, the sound view is that there is no dislike involved, because this is something permissible, and coming into direct contact with what is permissible is itself permissible.
The vessels of the disbelievers are permissible to use—even if their slaughtered animals are not lawful—as are their clothes, if their condition is unknown.
His statement, “The vessels of the disbelievers are permissible to use”: the word “vessels” is in the nominative case because it serves as the passive subject.
His statement, “even if their slaughtered animals are not lawful”: “their slaughtered animals” is in the nominative case because it is the subject of “are lawful.”
His statement, “as are their clothes, if their condition is unknown”: “their clothes” is in the nominative case because it is coordinated with “vessels.” The author’s wording, may Allah have mercy on him, gives the impression that it is coordinated with “their slaughtered animals.”
Had he said, “The vessels of the disbelievers and their clothes are permissible to use if their condition is unknown, even if their slaughtered animals are not lawful,” he would have avoided this ambiguity.