Explanation of the author's statement: "And of gold, the pommel of the sword, and what is necessitated by dire necessity, such as a nose and the like."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"And it is permissible of gold" means it is permissible for whom? For a man, the pommel of the sword. What is the pommel of the sword? It is the head of the sword's hilt. It is permissible for it to contain gold. This was narrated from 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) that he made a gold covering for the hilt of his sword. We also say regarding the operative cause that it is one of the instruments of war, so adopting it diminishes the disbelievers. Now, the pommel of the sword and what is necessitated by dire necessity, such as a nose and the like, means it is permissible for him what is necessitated by dire necessity, like a nose. How is a nose made? I mean the actual... no, but if it is cut off and a person needs to remove the disfigurement with this nose, there is nothing wrong with it. If someone asks why it is not made of silver, we say because silver becomes foul-smelling. If 'Urwah ibn... (may Allah be pleased with him) had his nose cut off, he made a nose of silver, and it became foul-smelling, then he made a nose of gold. Now.
Is it required that one be necessitated to gold, meaning that if it is possible to attach something other than gold, gold is forbidden for him? The author's statement "what is necessitated by dire necessity" implies that one must be necessitated to the gold itself, not just to placing a nose, but to the gold itself. Based on this, in our current time, something else can take its place. Now they perform operations where they transfer something from parts of the body and place it on the nose, so it becomes like a natural nose made of flesh. This is better than it being made of gold. So if it is possible to make it from a material other than gold, it is not permissible from gold, because it is a dire necessity, for the permissibility of gold is due to dire necessity.
And the author's statement "and the like" is like a tooth. If a man's tooth is broken and he needs a binding of gold or a tooth of gold, there is nothing wrong with it and no blame on them for that. But the question that we raised before comes to us: if it is possible to make him a tooth from something other than gold, like the known teeth, then it appears that it is not permissible from gold, because now there is no dire necessity. Also, the non-gold material made now is closer to the natural tooth than a gold tooth. Now, "and what is necessitated by dire necessity, such as a nose and the like".
Is it required that one be necessitated to gold, meaning that if it is possible to attach something other than gold, gold is forbidden for him? The author's statement "what is necessitated by dire necessity" implies that one must be necessitated to the gold itself, not just to placing a nose, but to the gold itself. Based on this, in our current time, something else can take its place. Now they perform operations where they transfer something from parts of the body and place it on the nose, so it becomes like a natural nose made of flesh. This is better than it being made of gold. So if it is possible to make it from a material other than gold, it is not permissible from gold, because it is a dire necessity, for the permissibility of gold is due to dire necessity.
And the author's statement "and the like" is like a tooth. If a man's tooth is broken and he needs a binding of gold or a tooth of gold, there is nothing wrong with it and no blame on them for that. But the question that we raised before comes to us: if it is possible to make him a tooth from something other than gold, like the known teeth, then it appears that it is not permissible from gold, because now there is no dire necessity. Also, the non-gold material made now is closer to the natural tooth than a gold tooth. Now, "and what is necessitated by dire necessity, such as a nose and the like".