What is the meaning of gold al-muhallaq and what is its ruling?

The questioner : Oh Shaykh, regarding gold al-muhallaq... the question is about gold al-muhallaq.

The Shaykh : Allah is the Greatest.

The questioner : May Allah reward you, oh Shaykh, and of course, we want to hear it; in fact, we want to hear it, not read it.
Another questioner: Hearing it with the eyes, meaning.

The questioner : What... is meant by gold al-muhallaq?

The Shaykh : ...It is a name and a technical term.

The questioner : Yes, indeed.

The Shaykh : And finally... this is gold al-muhallaq; gold al-muhallaq is not... but rather... on the body part.
If we suppose a woman hung a gold ring on her chest, this is not gold al-muhallaq; what is meant is...
And for that reason, he (peace and blessings be upon him) said ... So these are the three types included in the term gold al-muhallaq. Then hadiths came that confirm this meaning and clarify that the term "his beloved" does not mean the male but rather the female. This is from two aspects, because what is on the pattern of fa'il in the Arabic language includes both male and female; for example, one says "a dead woman" and "a dead man." So when the hadith came with the word "beloved," it was ambiguous to some people; they said, "This is masculine, so how do you interpret it as the woman, the female?" The answer is this from the Arabic aspect. And the end of the hadith confirms that the intended meaning is the woman, not the male, as evidenced by his (peace and blessings be upon him) saying at the end of the hadith . The majority of those who hold the permissibility of all gold for women do not permit men to adorn themselves with silver, no matter its value. They say that silver is like gold; it is forbidden for a man to adorn himself with silver unless it is a small amount. They base this on a hadith recorded in "Sunan Abu Dawud" with a weak chain, that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered a man to make a ring from silver and said to him . And so they permitted the silver ring in this proportion as it came, so it is attached to gold. And if he said at the end of the hadith , then it includes the general permissibility of adorning with silver. So this is evidence that the address in "his beloved" is not for males but for females.
This is supported by a hadith more authentic than this one, because its chain is authentic according to the conditions of the two Shaykhs, and it is from the hadith of Thawban, the freed slave of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) entered upon the daughter of Hubayrah and saw on her fingers a tightness, not an opening, but a tightness of gold, which is a ring... and he (peace and blessings be upon him) had a stick in his hand and struck it on her finger. So she went out, naturally sad, and went to Fatimah, the daughter of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). Soon the Messenger came after her and entered upon his daughter (peace and blessings be upon him). Glory be to Allah, for a wisdom Allah intended, he saw on her hand a chain of gold and said . Thawban said, "And he rebuked her severely." He rebuked her, meaning he scolded her severely. And he went out, and what she (may Allah be pleased with her) did was take this chain and go to the market, sell it, and buy a slave with its value, then he freed him.
When that reached the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), he said . So this hadith meets the first hadith in the prohibition of the necklace and the prohibition of the ring.
Our scholars, past and present, respond to these hadiths in two ways. The bold one among them is bold in weakening them, and this is an encroachment upon the hadiths of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). Most of them say, "Yes, these are authentic hadiths, but they are abrogated." The first type... is the most erroneous, because these hadiths are authentic, and there is no scholarly or hadithic basis for weakening and rejecting them. The other group is closer to the truth, but they are also mistaken, because they claim abrogation for a type of hadiths that can be reconciled with the other hadiths on which they rely in arguing for the permissibility of all gold for women, including gold al-muhallaq.
For example, they argue with the famous hadith that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) came out to his Companions one day, with gold in one hand and silk in the other, and said . This is an authentic hadith, but there is no contradiction or conflict between it and the hadiths that prohibit gold al-muhallaq. Why? Because the second hadith... because... Abu Musa al-Ash'ari... it includes the permissibility of gold for women absolutely. The hadith of Thawban and the first hadith, which I think is from the narration of Abu Qatadah al-Ansari or someone else, includes the prohibition of specific gold. And so, according to the rules of the scholars of usul al-fiqh, when a general text conflicts with a specific text, the general text is restricted by the specific text. So it is said... this is a method of reconciling hadiths... known among all scholars of fiqh, and there are many, many examples of this from the Book and the Sunnah.
For example, we read in the Sunnah his (peace and blessings be upon him) saying . Is there in the Qur'an such a prohibition... or not? In the Qur'an . But the hadith came and added to this Qur'anic text. So we did not reject the hadith with this text, because the scope of the Qur'an is narrow; rather, we added the Qur'anic text to the hadith, and they matched and agreed and did not conflict. Similarly, for example, His saying (Glorified and Exalted is He) to the end of the verse. This is a text that is similar in its generality to the hadith of Abu Musa . But this generality has been specified, and what was specified in the hadith was specified... he (peace and blessings be upon him) said . Do we say this hadith conflicts with the Qur'an, so we say the Qur'an prohibited every carrion and prohibited every blood? Or do we say this is a general text specified by the hadith of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), and the result and fruit of this specification is that it is said "Prohibited to you is carrion, except the carrion of the fish and the locust, and blood, except the blood of the liver and the spleen"? This is how scholars reconcile the general text and the specific text.
We return to the hadith and find the operation is the same: . A general text that included all gold. Gold al-muhallaq was prohibited in the previous hadiths. So at that time we say... except what is excluded. What is excluded? ... One of them, which is gold al-muhallaq... But there is something forbidden, and of the most amazing things is that... the prohibition of gold al-muhallaq... those who say with the prohibition of gold al-muhallaq never circle around another prohibition of gold for women, which is his (peace and blessings be upon him) saying . Now what do we do with the hadith? Do we strike it with a hadith... or do we exclude from this hadith the golden vessels, so it is said, "It is permissible for females, except what is excluded. What is it? ... In... gold, and also gold al-muhallaq." No one among those who circle around this issue mentions the issue of the prohibited golden and silver vessels, even for women. What do they do with ? They do not give an answer, because this does not concern them, because it is not the topic of the hour. The topic of the hour is gold al-muhallaq... they pour all their efforts to prove that gold al-muhallaq is lawful. What is the evidence? The general text. The general text is not an evidence by which the specific text is rejected, otherwise we would find the saying with the prohibition of golden plates for women by the evidence of the general text .