What is your opinion of those who say that the hadiths prohibiting the wearing of gold jewelry are abrogated?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Regarding... regarding jewelry, it is a matter of raising the topic, even though they say there that the hadith about jewelry is abrogated, that gold jewelry is abrogated, and they argue that in the Battle of Tabuk, meaning when the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) encouraged the women to give charity; some of the women took off their bracelets, some took off their earrings, and some took off their rings, and the Battle of Tabuk was in the late period of Islam, so a large amount of gold had gathered with them, meaning, so they say that the hadith is authentic but it is abrogated; so I do not know if it is?
The Shaykh : First of all: soon, if Allah wills, a new edition of the book "Etiquettes of the Wedding" will be published, containing a nearly detailed response to al-Ansari's thesis, which he printed years ago under the title: "The Permissibility of Gold Jewelry for Women and a Response to Al-Albani in its Prohibition."
Yes. This is first of all.
The questioner : I have not read this thesis?
The Shaykh : It exists and has been printed more than once, unfortunately. Second: it is not hidden from every student of knowledge that the condition for the abrogating and the abrogated is that the earlier and the later must be known; so where is the date in the topic so that it can be said that this hadith is abrogated? And what you mentioned regarding the Battle of Tabuk is that there was available and gathered a great deal of gold jewelry that the women gave in charity, including gold bracelets and gold rings, and so on; this is truly the first time I am hearing it.
The questioner : This statement is mentioned... .
The Shaykh : Yes, but I know that in the Eid prayer, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), after he delivered the sermon to the men, delivered a sermon to the women, admonished them, and commanded them to give charity, so the woman would extend her hand and give her earring, her ring, and so on in charity, so it exists; but first: it has no connection to the Battle of Tabuk, and second: the hadith does not explicitly state that these items were of gold, and even if it were assumed that they were of gold, there is no evidence indicating that this was after the prohibition, the one who wants to claim the abrogation of the hadith must bring the text that compels one to say that this is abrogated. This text is either historical or it is.
The questioner : He is narrating two incidents.
The Shaykh : No; I want to say: and either it is, meaning the same text... and I said in that thesis, the Messenger of Allah prohibited such and such, which implies that what was prohibited was permissible. Do you understand how? Here we do not have a date, but the same sentence and the same expression gives us that what was prohibited before the prohibition was not forbidden, whereas to say that these hadiths that came in the prohibition of gold jewelry were before the women giving their gold jewelry in charity, this has absolutely no existence, it is impossible, and I challenge any scholar who claims this claim.
The questioner : Yes, I do.
The questioner : May Allah reward you with good.
The Shaykh : And to you.
The Shaykh : First of all: soon, if Allah wills, a new edition of the book "Etiquettes of the Wedding" will be published, containing a nearly detailed response to al-Ansari's thesis, which he printed years ago under the title: "The Permissibility of Gold Jewelry for Women and a Response to Al-Albani in its Prohibition."
Yes. This is first of all.
The questioner : I have not read this thesis?
The Shaykh : It exists and has been printed more than once, unfortunately. Second: it is not hidden from every student of knowledge that the condition for the abrogating and the abrogated is that the earlier and the later must be known; so where is the date in the topic so that it can be said that this hadith is abrogated? And what you mentioned regarding the Battle of Tabuk is that there was available and gathered a great deal of gold jewelry that the women gave in charity, including gold bracelets and gold rings, and so on; this is truly the first time I am hearing it.
The questioner : This statement is mentioned... .
The Shaykh : Yes, but I know that in the Eid prayer, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), after he delivered the sermon to the men, delivered a sermon to the women, admonished them, and commanded them to give charity, so the woman would extend her hand and give her earring, her ring, and so on in charity, so it exists; but first: it has no connection to the Battle of Tabuk, and second: the hadith does not explicitly state that these items were of gold, and even if it were assumed that they were of gold, there is no evidence indicating that this was after the prohibition, the one who wants to claim the abrogation of the hadith must bring the text that compels one to say that this is abrogated. This text is either historical or it is.
The questioner : He is narrating two incidents.
The Shaykh : No; I want to say: and either it is, meaning the same text... and I said in that thesis, the Messenger of Allah prohibited such and such, which implies that what was prohibited was permissible. Do you understand how? Here we do not have a date, but the same sentence and the same expression gives us that what was prohibited before the prohibition was not forbidden, whereas to say that these hadiths that came in the prohibition of gold jewelry were before the women giving their gold jewelry in charity, this has absolutely no existence, it is impossible, and I challenge any scholar who claims this claim.
The questioner : Yes, I do.
The questioner : May Allah reward you with good.
The Shaykh : And to you.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.