What is the ruling on gold rings for women? And the word is based on the principle that when a prohibitive text and a permissive text conflict, the prohibitive text takes precedence over the permissive text.

The questioner: Our Shaykh.

The Shaykh: Yes.

The questioner : I said, my brother Murad, I mean, I hope that the research, as it were, Shaykh, was not something that took place between you two.

The Shaykh : Yes, that is right.

The questioner : Except that, if Allah wills, the tape will be complete with me.

The Shaykh: All right.

The questioner: May Allah reward you with good.

The Shaykh : I say, regarding my brother Murad, this research is on a specific issue, generally from the Shari'ah perspective, meaning, are gold rings for women lawful or forbidden, or is there something else?

The questioner : The research is on this specific issue.

The Shaykh : Well done. Now, it is supposed that you, and you must have, studied the issue from all its angles.

The questioner : That is what I do not think in my heart.

The Shaykh : And this is what I say, that it is supposed that you did that.

The questioner : Yes, my Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Okay, for your sake... So if the issue is like this, I think it would be good for us to remind each other of some of the principles of usul al-fiqh (the principles of jurisprudence) that are supposed to be a matter of agreement and not disagreement. For example, we always and forever circle around the idea that when a prohibitive text and a permissive text conflict, the prohibitive text takes precedence over the permissive text. This, if Allah wills, is one of the principles on which we are in agreement.

The questioner : Shaykh, the extent of my knowledge regarding this principle is that I do not say that the prohibitive text takes precedence, but rather I say that the prohibitive text is a text from Allah and the permissive text is a text from Allah. So if the prohibitive text and the permissive text conflict, I resort to combining them by any of the valid means. If I am unable to do so, I take a precaution for the sake of the prohibitive text.

The Shaykh : Who says this?

The questioner : Shaykh, the issue of who says this?
The Shaykh: The premise you stated is not disputed, meaning, is it an attempt at reconciliation?

The questioner : Another: Combining.

The Shaykh : Combining is the original rule in all differing texts. Another principle will come to us that if reconciliation is possible, one does not resort to claiming abrogation, correct?

The questioner : No.

The Shaykh : Okay, and if reconciliation is not possible, what do we do?

The questioner : We take the prohibitive text.

The Shaykh : No, because it is another issue.

The questioner : Another issue.

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : Meaning, if it occurs.

The Shaykh : But I felt that you returned to the first one without your choice.

The questioner : How, Shaykh?

The Shaykh : Because at first you said "as a precaution," and now you answered the second question with a definitive answer that you take the prohibitive text.

The questioner : Good, Shaykh. If we asked a person, why did you take the prohibitive text?

The Shaykh : No, we researched the second one, may Allah reward you. If reconciliation is not possible, is the principle now the second one?

The questioner : Good, Shaykh.

The Shaykh : And we will return to the first one. Do you want me to elaborate on it for you, meaning, more?

The questioner : Shaykh, believe me, I...

The Shaykh : Heh.

The questioner : I am ashamed, by Allah.

The Shaykh : Glory be to Allah.

The questioner : If it were not for the fact that it is knowledge, and there is no flattery in knowledge, by Allah, I am ashamed to discuss with you, Shaykh, and He is aware of the hearts.

The Shaykh : This is undoubtedly the case for all of us.

The questioner : But knowledge, meaning, a person must, if he does not strive, he will not benefit.

The Shaykh : Yes, this is the obligatory, may Allah reward you.

The questioner : We are between two confusions.

The Shaykh : And therefore, to reach knowledge, we must establish principles, foundations, pillars, and rules so that if my understanding differs from your understanding, or your understanding differs from mine, we return to them. Is there any error in this?

The questioner : There is no doubt, Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Okay, so I asked the first question and you answered me with an answer I did not expect to hear from you, until you ended by saying, "I take the prohibitive text as a precaution."

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Allow me, I said, "I take the prohibitive text as a precaution."

The questioner : Because it is safer to take it, that was my intention?

The Shaykh : What is this justification? This justification is not accepted from anyone else.

The questioner : It is not a problem, Shaykh. It is a word that came from me, and I am responsible for it.

The Shaykh: Hehehe.

The questioner : Haha, may Allah reward you with good.

The Shaykh : May Allah forgive you. This is a repetition of what has passed, my brother. The precaution, the matter is finished. But here, in truth, I will go with you on the first principle, even though I raised the other principle and we did not finish with it. When you say "as a precaution," there is no harm. I agree with you in principle, as a precaution. Is this precaution obligatory or recommended?

The questioner : Shaykh, I was going to ask a question that is in your pocket. I will answer you, and it is either obligatory or recommended.

The Shaykh : I hope you do not deviate!

The questioner : No, there will be no deviation, because the intention is benefit!
The student: Hehehe.

The questioner : The intention is benefit, there will be no deviation.