What is your opinion of those who cite the hadith: “Do you pay its zakah?” as evidence for the permissibility of wearing gold rings?

The questioner : Shaykh, the ring on the hand of the one who said: , they say that this indicates that wearing it is permissible if one pays its zakah; what is your response to this claim?

The Shaykh : Wearing it while paying its zakah?

The questioner : Yes, when he says: ? They mean that the prohibition is because one does not pay its zakah, and when one pays its zakah, this ring is not prohibited. Some shaykhs say this. Is this understanding correct?

The Shaykh : No, we have already given the answer... Those who cite this evidence, we are forced to say: they are either ignorant or followers of desires = -- give me the paper -- =; why? If this hadith were alone, we would accept it, but there are hadiths that confirm the prohibition of using a gold ring. Therefore, it is not permissible for us to cite this for permissibility and reject those hadiths; because rulings come in stages -- ... -- This is an example, like those who cite the permissibility of drinking while standing. There are hadiths that the Prophet drank while standing; there is no doubt that if we did not have hadiths prohibiting drinking while standing, we would say this indicates permissibility. But since the prohibition of drinking while standing has come, we say: his drinking while standing was either before the prohibition, or it was due to an excuse, as came in some hadiths that he drank from a suspended water skin, or it was a special privilege for him, as is said in the end. Why these three interpretations? So that we do not negate the ruling of the Shari'ah, which is a general law for all people, “He prohibited drinking while standing,” , ; we would nullify all these hadiths because it is established that the Prophet drank while standing!! This is contrary to the path of the scholars. An example of what we are discussing: I mentioned to you at the beginning that the Prophet wore a gold ring, right? But it is not established that he continued to do so, and he prohibited it later. So we do not take the action he performed when it is established that he prohibited it. There are many, many examples.
The Shaykh : I have mentioned on more than one occasion a story in "Sahih al-Bukhari" that the Companions were in a night gathering and Ali ibn Abi Talib was with them, having tethered his camel in front of the house. His uncle Hamzah came and cut open the camel's belly! Ali was furious and went to the Prophet and said: Hamzah did such and such. The Prophet (peace be upon him) came out and took the matter seriously, so he went to Hamzah and spoke to him. It turned out Hamzah was drunk! So he did nothing but say to the Prophet: “Are you not but slaves to my fathers?” He did not say why was he drunk? Why was he intoxicated? Because it was not yet the time of prohibition. Yes, so the current incident of citing this for the permissibility of drinking intoxicants is exactly like citing it for the permissibility of drinking while standing or using gold rings. Why? Just as the Lawgiver later prohibited intoxicants absolutely, He also prohibited the use of gold in these days absolutely. He prohibited women from a specific type of gold.
The Shaykh : And the amazing thing, in the completeness of Allah’s arguments against His servants, is that the scholars who say all gold is halal for women say: gold vessels are haram for women. Do you see? So what happened to your statement that gold is halal for women? This gold you have prohibited for women; a hanging ornament is haram, a cup is haram, a glass is haram; men and women share this ruling. So, you say: gold is halal for women? No, except for this. Okay, where did you take this exception from? Our answer is from two angles; from the source from which you took this agreed-upon exception, we took the disputed exception from the same source; and that is the hadiths explicitly prohibiting gold rings. But despite that, our evidence for prohibiting this disputed gold is stronger than their evidence for prohibiting the gold agreed to be prohibited for women. Why? We do not have specific texts prohibiting gold vessels for women, we do not have a specific text prohibiting gold rings, in prohibiting gold vessels for women, we have a general hadith covering men and women: , Subhan Allah! This is a general text, why did you not specify it for women, why... for women just as you specified the prohibition of the gold ring. Hadiths agreed to be authentic prohibit the gold ring, this is a general prohibition but you exclude women from it. Why did you not exclude women from the text: , while our hadiths prohibiting gold rings are specific to women? So Subhan Allah! It is difficult for a person, if he lives in an idea, to retract from it; and therefore, among the thoughts that revolve in my mind is that I often correct my ideas and opinions in my books. You may have noticed such things. This will undoubtedly please the scholars, but it will not please the ignorant.

The questioner : They consider it a contradiction, they consider it a lack of knowledge.

The Shaykh : Ignorance, they consider it ignorance.

Another questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : They, due to their ignorance of knowledge, imagine that if a scholar says something, he must be infallible in it, and this is the height of ignorance; because then this scholar would become a partner to the Prophet in infallibility. Secondly, they do not know the Imams, they do not know the jurisprudence and knowledge of the Imams, they do not know that Abu Hanifa has two or three opinions in the same issue, especially among the four Imams, Imam Ahmad has more contradictory opinions in the same issue than anyone else. If they dare to say about Al-Albani that this is from his ignorance, but what would they say about the Imams; especially the Imam of the Sunnah, Imam Ahmad? So my answer to this is that knowledge does not accept stagnation, knowledge is always in development; especially what relates to hadith and the jurisprudence of hadith.