What is your opinion of those who cite the hadith (Will you pay its zakah?) as evidence for the permissibility of wearing gold rings?

The questioner : Shaykh, regarding the ring on the hand of the one who said , they say that this indicates that he wore it while giving the zakah. What is your opinion of this statement?

The Shaykh : Wearing it even though it has zakah due on it?

The questioner : When it says, "Will you pay its zakah?" They mean that it is prohibited because one does not pay its zakah, and when the zakah becomes due, it is not prohibited, this is what some shaykhs said...

The Shaykh : No, we have given the answer that this evidence they use is either from ignorance or from following desires. Why? If this hadith came to us alone, we would accept your argument. But hadiths have come that confirm the prohibition of using a gold ring. Therefore, it is not permissible for us to use this as evidence for permissibility and reject those hadiths, because rulings come in stages. An example of this is the example of those who cite the permissibility of drinking while standing. They say there are hadiths that the Prophet drank while standing. Undoubtedly, the hadiths prohibiting drinking while standing have a meaning. If we said this indicates permissibility, but since the prohibition of drinking while standing has come, we would say that his drinking while standing was either before the prohibition, or it was for an excuse, as came in some hadiths that he drank from a suspended water skin, or it was a specific privilege for him. Why these three interpretations? So that we do not negate the ruling of the Shari'ah, which is a general legislation for all people. What did he say? , We would suspend 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 is that I mentioned to you at the beginning of the speech that the Prophet wore a gold ring. Well, brother, but it is not established that he continued to wear it, and he prohibited it afterwards. So we do not take the action he performed when it is established with us that he prohibited it. There are many, many examples. I mentioned on other occasions a story in Sahih al-Bukhari that the Companions were in a night gathering, and Ali ibn Abi Talib was with them. He had tied his camel in front of the house, and his uncle Hamzah came and slit the camel's belly. Ali was greatly upset and went to the Prophet. He said Hamzah did such and such. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) came out and took the matter seriously. He went to Hamzah and spoke to him, and found that Hamzah was drunk. So the Prophet did nothing but say to him, He did not say, "Why are you drunk?" or "Why are you intoxicated?" because it was not the time of prohibition. So using this incident as evidence for the permissibility of drinking intoxicants is exactly like using it as evidence 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 absolutely. He prohibited women from a specific type of gold. And the wonderful thing about the completeness of Allah's arguments against His servants is that the scholars who say all gold is lawful for women say that gold vessels are forbidden for women. What happened to your statement that gold is lawful for women? You have forbidden this gold for women: a hanging ornament is forbidden, a cup is forbidden, a glass is forbidden. Men and women share in this ruling. Well, you say gold is lawful for women 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 exception, which is agreed upon, we took from the same source the exception that is disputed, which are the hadiths explicitly prohibiting gold rings. But nevertheless, our evidence for prohibiting this disputed gold is stronger than their evidence for prohibiting the gold that is agreed to be forbidden 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 that includes men and women. Glory be to Allah, this is a general text. Why did you not specify it for women? Why do you say it is for women, just as you specified the prohibition of a gold ring? Hadiths agreed upon in their authenticity prohibit a gold ring. This is a general prohibition, but we exclude women from it. Why did you not exclude women from the text about eating or drinking from gold or silver vessels, while our hadiths prohibiting gold rings are specific to women? So glory be to Allah, it is difficult for a person to retract from an idea if he has lived with it. And therefore, among the thoughts that revolve in my mind is that I often correct my ideas and opinions in my books. You must have noticed these things. This undoubtedly pleases the scholars, but it does not please the ignorant.

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

The Shaykh : Due to their ignorance of knowledge, they imagine that if a scholar says something, he must be infallible in it. And this is the height of ignorance, because in that case, this scholar would become a partner to the Prophet in infallibility. Secondly, they do not know the imams, the jurisprudence of the imams, and their knowledge. They do not know that Abu Hanifah has two or three opinions in a single issue, especially among the four imams, Imam Ahmad has more contradictory opinions in a single 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 regarding hadith and the jurisprudence of hadith.