that which is not directly touched during use. This is Ahmad’s explicitly stated position: a repair fitting is prohibited at the point from which one drinks, but not elsewhere. For this reason, a gold ring on a vessel was deemed reprehensible, following ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿUmar, who disapproved of it and is the most worthy of being followed in this matter.

As for the report narrated from him and traced back to the Prophet:

“Whoever drinks from a gold or silver vessel, or a vessel containing any of either”

its chain of transmission is weak. Thus, even a repair fitting that is permissible may only be used when there is a need. Without such a need, some say that its use is reprehensible, while others say that it is forbidden. Accordingly, Ahmad disapproved of a ring on a vessel, following ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿUmar. Does his disapproval indicate that it is merely discouraged or that it is forbidden? His followers hold two views.

This restriction is what both textual evidence and analogical reasoning entail. Prohibiting something without qualification entails prohibiting every part of it, as is the case with the prohibition of swine, carrion, and blood. Likewise, the prohibition of eating and drinking from gold and silver vessels entails a prohibition extending to parts of such vessels. Similarly, the prohibition of wearing silk would have entailed prohibiting even portions of it, were it not for the exception established in the authentic hadith for an area measuring two, three, or four fingerbreadths.

For this reason, in the speech of Allah and His Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, as well as in the speech of everyone else, prohibitions and declarations of unlawfulness operate differently from commands and declarations of obligation. To forbid something is to forbid any part of it, whereas to command something is to command it in its entirety.