—may Allah have mercy on him—that they tested it and found that it was not gold. On this basis, the issue does not arise in the first place.

Second: Even if we assume that it is gold, then the foremost scholar of his age and the imam of his time, Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah—may Allah have mercy on him—held that whatever subordinate amount of gold is permissible is the same as what is permissible of subordinate silk. This is because the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—gave them the same ruling, saying: “Gold and silk have been made lawful for the women of my Ummah and forbidden to its men.” (1)

Accordingly, the amount found on bisht cloaks does not reach the level of prohibition, because the prohibited silk is either a garment made entirely of silk, or that in which silk predominates, or silk exceeding four finger-widths. As for a band of silk four finger-widths or less, there is no harm in it; and according to the Shaykh’s view, there is likewise no harm in it even if it is made of gold.

However, when we say that something is permissible, it is permissible in itself; yet it may become prohibited for another reason, in which case it is prohibited on account of that external reason.

For example, if we suppose that a man wore pure gold by having it set as embellishment on his bisht, people would say, “This man is extravagant or insane.” In that case, we would say that it is prohibited because of extravagance. This is a general principle concerning all permissible matters: “Every permissible thing that involves something prohibited becomes prohibited.”

Fifth: Is silk bedding permissible for women? What appears correct to me is that it is not permissible, because it is unrelated to the clothing in which silk was made permissible for them, on account of adornment.