(Gold and silk are lawful for the women of my Ummah . . . . . ) Is it weak or abrogated, and what is its intended meaning?

The questioner : The hadith says: Is it weak, or is there another hadith that abrogated this hadith until ... ?

The Shaykh : No, neither this nor that; it is not weak, and there is no abrogating hadith for this.

The questioner : Is the hadith denounced?

The Shaykh : Yes? Denounced, what do you mean by denounced?

The questioner : I mean, is the hadith denounced?

The Shaykh : I told him neither this nor that. What does that mean? Your question was: Is the hadith weak? Or is there an abrogator, is that not so?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Fine, I answered you: the hadith is not weak, and there is no abrogator. So, your saying "is it denounced" is a repetition of your question "is it weak?" And the answer is that it is not weak. But if we want to expand on the interpretation of the second part of your question, namely, is it abrogated by an abrogator? In that case, it is possible to expand and interpret your words according to the old Salafi understanding, which is that they used the term "abrogation" to mean "specification," whereas the usage of later scholars does not mean specification, and their usage is undoubtedly more precise from a scientific standpoint; because they distinguish between the abrogator and the abrogated, and between the general and the specific. But the Salaf used to call the general hadith that is specified "abrogated." Here, this applies to you, even if that was not your intention, but for the sake of clarification, they called the hadith that specifies the general one the "abrogator." This was the old usage. As for the new terminology on which the opinion of all scholars has settled, it is the distinction between the abrogator and the abrogated, and between the general and the specific. The difference is that the ruling of the abrogated hadith is entirely cancelled, and the ruling of the abrogating hadith remains. As for the general hadith, its ruling is not entirely cancelled; only a part of it is cancelled by the specific text. On this basis, we answer you that the hadith: is abrogated in the Salafi expression, even if that was not your intention. And in the terminology that has finally been established, it is a general hadith that has been specified. And the meaning of that is: It is lawful for its females except for what is excluded. That is: Silk and gold are absolutely lawful for women except for what is excluded. What is excluded? Two things, one of which is agreed upon, and the other is disputed. And when the other disputed matter is researched, unfortunately, most of those who research this disputed matter go to the opinion of the majority, which is permissibility, and they ignore the first agreed-upon matter, which is gold vessels, and even silver vessels, for there is no difference in the prohibition between men and women. So when they enter into the discussion about this hadith, which was specified by his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): and so on, they say this hadith is abrogated. What abrogated it? The general hadith. And this is a reversal of the jurisprudential and usuli truth. The more specific hadith is not abrogated; rather, it is the general hadith that abrogates any part of it. The point is: when they research this topic, they argue with the generality of his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): and they ignore that gold vessels are forbidden for women. So where is this generality? If they are cornered, they answer with two answers. The one that concerns us now in our research is that this is general and that is specific. And this is the answer regarding the ring and everything that is a loop. So we say, as we said at the beginning of the answer: , What is the exception? Gold vessels and looped jewelry, and that is all. Yes.