the prohibitive narrations; and as for the second condition, reconciliation is in fact quite easy. The permissive hadith and others like it are unrestricted, whereas the earlier reports are restricted to gold fashioned into a necklace, bracelet, or ring. Such items are forbidden to women, while any other form—namely gold cut into separate pieces—is lawful for them. This is the kind of gold intended by the hadith declaring gold permissible for them; the unrestricted text is therefore implicitly qualified by the aforementioned narrations, so there is no contradiction and, consequently, no abrogation.

For that reason we have found no author of works on abrogation who listed these narrations among the abrogated. Neither did the ḥāfiẓ Abū’l-Faraj Ibn al-Jawzī in his epistle “Informing the Firmly Grounded in Jurisprudence and Ḥadith of the Quantity of Abrogated Reports,” nor the ḥāfiẓ Abū Bakr al-Ḥāzimī in his book “al-Iʿtibār fī’n-Nāsikh wa’l-Mansūkh mina’l-Āthār,” nor anyone else. Indeed, Ibn al-Jawzī—may Allah have mercy on him—explicitly rejected the claim that these narrations were abrogated, stating in the introduction to the aforementioned epistle:

“I have set apart in this booklet only what is authentically abrogated or what could plausibly be so, and I have left out anything for which there is no basis or possibility of abrogation. Whoever…"