to abrogate the sound hadiths that explicitly forbid such adornments for women. The answer may be summarized in three points: 1. The hadith in question does not expressly state that the jewelry was gold, so it is not at odds with the prohibitive texts. 2. In order to claim that the prohibitions were abrogated by the permitting reports, one must prove that the latter were issued later—a task that is next to impossible. In fact, as will be shown, the reverse is more likely. 3. Even if a report were found that explicitly mentions gold, it should be read in light of the original rule—permissibility—followed by a later restriction established by the prohibitive hadiths. Such prohibitions are ordinarily sent by the Lawgiver only to override that default. Hence the scholars of usul say: “When a prohibiting text and a permitting text conflict, the prohibiting text takes precedence.” In this case we need not demonstrate that the prohibitive text is later than the permissive one, for its very wording indicates the repeal of the earlier permission. I have discussed at length the issue of gold for women—what is allowed and what is forbidden—citing the prohibitive evidence, the objections raised against it, and the replies, in my book Adab al-Zifaf fi al-Sunnah al-Mutahharah. Whoever wishes may consult it, especially the Islamic Library edition, whose introduction contains an ample refutation of certain agitators and partisans of whim. (2) Reported by al-Bukhari, 3/295, 4/54, 11/8; Muslim, 4/101; Abu Dawud, 1/286; al-Nasai, 2/5—cited also by Ibn Hazm, 3/218—and by Ibn Majah, 1/214; Malik, 1/329; and al-Bayhaqi. The first parenthetical addition (and the phrase immediately before it) is found in al-Bukhari, al-Nasai, Ibn Majah, and one narration of Ahmad; the second addition is in al-Bukhari, as is the third; the last appears in a narration of al-Bukhari and Muslim, and likewise in Sahih Ibn Khuzaymah, 4/342.