What is your opinion of those who say that the hadiths prohibiting the wearing of gold rings are abrogated, and their evidence for this is what happened in the Battle of Tabuk when the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him)
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : ... regarding jewelry, which is raising the issue, even though they say there that the hadith about jewelry is abrogated, that the gold ring is abrogated, and they argue that in the Battle of Tabuk, meaning when the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) called upon the women to donate, 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 was gathered with him, meaning, so he says that the hadith is authentic but it is abrogated. And I do not know if ...?
The Shaykh : First, soon, if Allah wills, a book will be published, "Etiquette of the Wedding", the new edition contains a nearly detailed response to al-Ansari's paper that he printed years ago titled "The Permissibility of Gold Rings for Women and the Response to Al-Albani in its Prohibition"
The questioner : I have not read this paper?
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 issue so that it can be said that this hadith is abrogated? And what you mentioned regarding the Battle of Tabuk is that there was an availability and gathering of jewelry, gold, that the women donated a lot of it, including gold bracelets and gold rings, and so on. This is truly, I am hearing it for the first time ... .
The questioner : This statement is mentioned ... .
The Shaykh : 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 the sermon to the women and admonished them and ordered them to give charity, so the woman would extend her hand and donate her earring, and her ring, and so on, so it exists, but first, it has no connection to the Battle of Tabuk, and second, there is no explicit statement in the hadith that these things were of gold, and even if it is assumed that they were of gold, there is no evidence indicating that this was after the prohibition. This one who claims the abrogation of the hadith must bring the text that compels a person to say: that this is abrogated. This text must either be historical or it must be ... .
The questioner : He is narrating two incidents
The Shaykh : No, I want to say that it must be, meaning the same text ... and I said in that paper that the Messenger of Allah prohibited such and such, which implies that what was prohibited was permissible before the prohibition. Do you understand how? Here we do not have a date, but the same sentence and the same expression give 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 donated their gold jewelry, this does not exist at all, it is impossible, and I challenge any scholar who claims this claim
The questioner : May Allah reward you with good.
The Shaykh : And you as well.
The Shaykh : First, soon, if Allah wills, a book will be published, "Etiquette of the Wedding", the new edition contains a nearly detailed response to al-Ansari's paper that he printed years ago titled "The Permissibility of Gold Rings for Women and the Response to Al-Albani in its Prohibition"
The questioner : I have not read this paper?
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 issue so that it can be said that this hadith is abrogated? And what you mentioned regarding the Battle of Tabuk is that there was an availability and gathering of jewelry, gold, that the women donated a lot of it, including gold bracelets and gold rings, and so on. This is truly, I am hearing it for the first time ... .
The questioner : This statement is mentioned ... .
The Shaykh : 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 the sermon to the women and admonished them and ordered them to give charity, so the woman would extend her hand and donate her earring, and her ring, and so on, so it exists, but first, it has no connection to the Battle of Tabuk, and second, there is no explicit statement in the hadith that these things were of gold, and even if it is assumed that they were of gold, there is no evidence indicating that this was after the prohibition. This one who claims the abrogation of the hadith must bring the text that compels a person to say: that this is abrogated. This text must either be historical or it must be ... .
The questioner : He is narrating two incidents
The Shaykh : No, I want to say that it must be, meaning the same text ... and I said in that paper that the Messenger of Allah prohibited such and such, which implies that what was prohibited was permissible before the prohibition. Do you understand how? Here we do not have a date, but the same sentence and the same expression give 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 donated their gold jewelry, this does not exist at all, it is impossible, and I challenge any scholar who claims this claim
The questioner : May Allah reward you with good.
The Shaykh : And you as well.