Explanation of the statement of the author of al-Rawd al-Murba': "And it is permissible for them to adorn themselves with jewels and the like, and it is disliked for them to wear rings of iron, brass, copper, and lead."

The Shaykh : In a passage in the commentary, meaning that one should not go beyond it, he says: "And it is permissible for them—meaning the male and the female—to adorn themselves with jewels and the like, such as diamonds, yes, and it is disliked for them to wear rings of iron, brass, copper, and lead".
As for the first point, the permissibility, its evidence is clear: the generality of the statement of Allah the Exalted: The lam in His statement "He created for you" is a lam of causation. If something is created for our sake, it must be permissible for us. Did you understand? Did you understand that the lam is for causation? Or for permissibility? It is for causation, because permissibility is derived from causation, and something more is derived from it, which is the mercy of Allah toward His creation, and that He created for us, for our sake, the benefits in the earth. So the causation in the verse is undoubtedly more appropriate than saying it is for permissibility. But His statement, the Exalted: This lam is for permissibility, without doubt, meaning it is permissible for you to consume your wealth in riba.
As for his statement: "It is disliked for them to wear rings of iron", this is a point of disagreement among the scholars. Some said it is lawful based on the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): This hadith is in the two Sahihs. And some said it is disliked because a man came to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) wearing a ring of ... and he said: Al-Khattabi said: "That is the adornment of the disbelievers, and they are the people of the Fire."
So this is a matter of disagreement. Some said that this hadith is weak and anomalous because it contradicts what is more authentic. What is more authentic? What is in the two Sahihs: There is a defect in its chain and a defect in its text. And it is known that a hadith is not a proof unless it is free from anomaly and defect. Then we should say that if we authenticate the hadith and make it a proof, it is forbidden to wear iron, because adorning oneself with the adornment of the people of the Fire is not permissible. But they may respond to this by saying that we do not assert the prohibition because we do not assert the authenticity of the hadith, but we said it is disliked as a precaution. Some jurists and hadith scholars held this view and said that if a hadith is not rejected, it generates a doubt—may Allah have mercy on you—and if it generates a doubt, it is in a position between two positions. If it is a command, it is in a position between the two positions, between obligation and the clearing of the conscience, so the command is for recommendation. And if it is a prohibition, it is in a position between two positions, which are prohibition and what? And permissibility, so it is disliked.
In any case, this is a principle that can be taken from the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): , okay.