The first is that his purification is valid. This is the opinion of al-Shafi'i, Ishaq, Ibn al-Mundhir, and the scholars of reasoning (Ashab al-Ra'y), because the act of purification and its water are not related to any of that; it is like purification in a usurped house.

The second is that it is not valid. Abu Bakr chose this, because he used what is prohibited in an act of worship, so it is not valid, like prayer in a usurped house.

The first opinion is more correct, and this differs from prayer in a usurped house. This is because the acts of prayer—standing, sitting, bowing, and prostrating—in a usurped house are prohibited because they constitute using someone else's property without their permission and occupy it, while the acts of wudu—washing and wiping—are not prohibited, as this is not a usage of the vessel nor a disposal of it; it only occurs after lifting the water from the vessel and separating it from it. It is thus similar to one who scoops water with a silver vessel into someone else's container and then performs wudu with it. Furthermore, the place is a condition for prayer, as it cannot exist without a place, while the vessel is not a condition; thus, it is similar to one who prays while wearing a gold ring.

Section: If one makes a vessel of gold or silver a basin for the water of wudu, such that the water separates from his limbs into it, the wudu is valid, because the separated water that falls into the vessel had already removed the impurity, so that is not undone by its falling into the vessel. It is possible that it is like the one preceding it, because pride, arrogance, and wounding the hearts of the poor occur by using it here just as they occur in the former. The act of purification happens here before the water reaches the vessel, and in the former [case] it happens after separating from it, so they are the same in meaning, even if they differ in form.

Section: It is prohibited to possess vessels of gold and silver. It is narrated from al-Shafi'i that this is not prohibited, because the report only mentions the prohibition of usage, so possession is not prohibited, just as if a man were to possess silk garments.

Our argument is that whatever is prohibited to use absolutely is prohibited to possess in a form that allows usage, such as the tanbur(7). As for silk garments, they are not prohibited absolutely, for they are permitted for women and permitted for trade, whereas the usage of vessels is prohibited absolutely in drinking, eating, and other activities, because the text mentions the prohibition of drinking and eating, and other activities are equivalent in meaning.