We are told that it is haram for Muslim men to wear gold. There were some claims done that it was proven scientifically that men wearing gold causes men to have trouble making children. Please provide some insight on this matter for me. There is a Muslim woman at work that is interested and since we have a scholar along with other knowledgeable people here, I may be able to provide her with something more substantial than what I know myself. Thanks.

Should be something fairly easy to research. In the end, it would depend on what source you would consider as legitimate.

A hadeeth of ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib (may Allaah be pleased with him), said that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) took a piece of silk in his right hand and a piece of gold in his left, held them aloft and said: “These are haraam for the males of my ummah and permitted for the females.” (Reported by Ibn Maajah, 2/1189).


As always, there are exceptions to the case.

I am going only on memory here. One companion had a golden nose, having lost his natural one in battle. The allowance for silk in classical fiqh is know to be a hand's width or so for men. The view this lady is coming from seems to be the artificial support of what seems to be islamic by "scientific" proof. The prohibition of gold had to do with ego and pomp, and not with science. And if one does not wish to be among the hadith crowd, one may point out that "fassala lakum maa harama alaykum" is in the Qur'an and neither gold nor silk is there. YEt, the prohibitions, even if not based in the Qur'an and from the (problematic) hadith seem in keeping with the PHILOSOPHY of Islam.

Can both of you elaborate a bit more. I don't wear gold but do wear non-gold jewelry, some with diamonds which is more expensive than gold. Would my jewelry fit against the philosophy of Islam because the ego and pomp is present?

This woman's husband does wear gold jewelry that he likes.

Send all your gold and jewelery to me then you don't have to worry bout haram i will take care of it for you.
Now if the women can wear silk and gold does that not make them haram also?

quote:

Originally posted by ksazma:
Can both of you elaborate a bit more. I don't wear gold but do wear non-gold jewelry, some with diamonds which is more expensive than gold. Would my jewelry fit against the philosophy of Islam because the ego and pomp is present?

This woman's husband does wear gold jewelry that he likes.

I think it has to do with what is called "adah". I usually stay quiet about this since the idea of "pomp" and glory varies from person to person, and sometimes to take a dogmatic position, even if U R right, can lead to disharmony.
IN the prphet's day, it seems that men wore gold and silk to make certain statements. It also seems that the early egalitarianism and puritanism of Islam was against the show of pomp. Nowadays, I don't necc. buy into this. I think ON A PERSONAL LEVEL< it is wrong for a man to dress like mr. T..but a graduation ring, or even a wedding ring is not TO ME, a problem.
See Bird's question below. In an androcentric society, the woman's wearing jewellry is inherently a sexual imagery...so she can look good for her hubby. Or also becasue it was normal for women to accumulate jewellry while men were seen as macho warriors. In short. a lot of it had to do with arab society. I don't know but think a copy of "al halal wa'l haram" of Qaradawi might have some useful stuff.

quote:

Originally posted by bird:
Send all your gold and jewelery to me then you don't have to worry bout haram i will take care of it for you.
Now if the women can wear silk and gold does that not make them haram also?

Hnce I said the nonsense about gold affecting the bones etc. I first heard this in Syria..it seems to be a ploy for encouraging men to avoid jewellry.. It is like what the saudi arabian shaykhs say "if you are an ugly woman, you don't have to cover your face." Which woman, after hearing this, wants to go forth in public uncovered?

quote:

Originally posted by limer:
A hadeeth of ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib (may Allaah be pleased with him), said that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) took a piece of silk in his right hand and a piece of gold in his left, held them aloft and said: “These are haraam for the males of my ummah and permitted for the females.” (Reported by Ibn Maajah, 2/1189).


As always, there are exceptions to the case.

Yu mean I have to throw away all dem silk buktas and meh gold teeth?

quote:

Originally posted by Terry Ishmael:

quote:

Originally posted by limer:
A hadeeth of ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib (may Allaah be pleased with him), said that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) took a piece of silk in his right hand and a piece of gold in his left, held them aloft and said: “These are haraam for the males of my ummah and permitted for the females.” (Reported by Ibn Maajah, 2/1189).


As always, there are exceptions to the case.

Yu mean I have to throw away all dem silk buktas and meh gold teeth?

Jus cova yuh mouth when smilin'...as for the bukta, no one will know the difference ;-)

quote:

Originally posted by dara shikoh:

quote:

Originally posted by ksazma:
Can both of you elaborate a bit more. I don't wear gold but do wear non-gold jewelry, some with diamonds which is more expensive than gold. Would my jewelry fit against the philosophy of Islam because the ego and pomp is present?

This woman's husband does wear gold jewelry that he likes.

I think it has to do with what is called "adah". I usually stay quiet about this since the idea of "pomp" and glory varies from person to person, and sometimes to take a dogmatic position, even if U R right, can lead to disharmony.
IN the prphet's day, it seems that men wore gold and silk to make certain statements. It also seems that the early egalitarianism and puritanism of Islam was against the show of pomp. Nowadays, I don't necc. buy into this. I think ON A PERSONAL LEVEL< it is wrong for a man to dress like mr. T..but a graduation ring, or even a wedding ring is not TO ME, a problem.
See Bird's question below. In an androcentric society, the woman's wearing jewellry is inherently a sexual imagery...so she can look good for her hubby. Or also becasue it was normal for women to accumulate jewellry while men were seen as macho warriors. In short. a lot of it had to do with arab society. I don't know but think a copy of "al halal wa'l haram" of Qaradawi might have some useful stuff.

Qaradawi's book says it's haram...many ahadith to support.

Thanks limer. The concept of what is right or wrong in such cases might vary from person to person. for those who view the hadith as having passed muster: on this issue there can be no doubt. For those who see the hadith as problematic, if not in toto, but on this issue, then "libaas al taqwa dhalika khayr" says volumes. Supported by "actions are by intention."
And some of us use WRONG angles to support our positions: such as the bros who point out that the saudis might not wear gold rings, but drive maseratis etc. Good point. But another person's shortcomings should not influence OUR relationship with OUR Maker. Same goes for those who don't observe the prayer. If a saudi does it and rapes his maid, what does that have to do with ME and MY GOd?
I know I am going off on a tangent, but there is hopefully a reason...I get a lot of questions thru personal email (not from Gni'ers), and website that makes me wonder sometimes: are people worried about their relationship to the creator, or do they use the actions of others to sneak out of certain duties?

Brothers this is where we would argue and the answer will not be clear to us. Let’s ask ourselves how the Prophet (PBUM) would have addressed this issue. One thing comes to my mind and I always try to adopt this way. Whenever there is doubt in a matter I would just leave that issue alone. Leave off that which is doubtful for that which is not. By simply doing this we can all have a better and peaceful life Brothers. Once there is some doubt then leave that matter alone and continue to ask Allah (SWT) for guidance.

the question is a cogent one..but it points out the diff. in philosophy. THose who see god as a legist follow "leave that which causes you doubt." To stay more on the so-called straight and obedient path. In their estimation.
Those who see God as a loving, benevolent deity say "Wa fasala lakum maa harama alaykum" and "al asl fi'l ashyaa al ibaaha".God has clearly explained for you what is forbidden; and "the basic rule in everything is allowability.:
This is what was good about early islam: the different philosophies could abide side by side..but later legalism came, and following the Jewish idea of building a fence around the torah, came up with constructs like "leave that which causes you doubt." I am not saying it is wrong..simply that there are others..such as sufis..who would see it completely alien to the spirit of "taysir" (ease).
How does that translate personally? Not that it matters..I don't see the gold and haram thingy...as being forbidden now..although FUReals explanation is right on...since values change..and a university ring for example, is not on the same level as someone wearing a rock just to show s/he is better than all. but I still don't normally wear a ring...just me...
A funny thing is that half the shaykhs who don't wear rings, wear Rados and Seikos....

FuReal: this is one of the issues; the answer will not be clear..that depends on juristic acumen, but solely ona personal level, i would go with "libaas al taqwa, dhalika khayr"..as long as one takes a position, based on taqwa, and realises his/her limitations (i.e. a jurist will know more than a person in the street who does not study), then even if JURISTICALLY the layperson is wrong, as long as s/he does not seek to impose his/her view, that person will still be CORRECT in the eyes of God since "God does not take to task a being for that which is beyond its ability."
Here again, I am departing from the FIqh legalism and going more with philosophy of ISlam...some fuqaha call it "tasaahul"..liberalism.

quote:

Originally posted by dara shikoh:
FuReal: this is one of the issues; the answer will not be clear..that depends on juristic acumen, but solely ona personal level, i would go with "libaas al taqwa, dhalika khayr"..as long as one takes a position, based on taqwa, and realises his/her limitations (i.e. a jurist will know more than a person in the street who does not study), then even if JURISTICALLY the layperson is wrong, as long as s/he does not seek to impose his/her view, that person will still be CORRECT in the eyes of God since "God does not take to task a being for that which is beyond its ability."
Here again, I am departing from the FIqh legalism and going more with philosophy of ISlam...some fuqaha call it "tasaahul"..liberalism.

Allah (SWT) says in Holy Qur’an 39:18 :Those who listen to the Word, and follow the best (meaning) in it: those are the ones whom Allah has guided, and those are the ones endued with understanding.
We were given all that we need to prevail and prosper in this life, and Inshallah earn lasting peace in the next. Our duty is to seek, learn and understand. Moreover, it is our duty to follow what we proclaim to be the Truth, and follow the example of our righteous predecessors. They truly appreciated the value of Allah’s gift, and lived their lives accordingly. Emulating their lives, is the path to the revival of this Ummah.

follow the example of our righteous predecessors. They truly appreciated the value of Allah’s gift, and lived their lives accordingly. .[/QUOTE]
Agreed for some. I howver, have problems with some of them. "righteous predecessors"...these are the very people who killed the family of the prophet, the very people who formulated fiqh....

That is because we were for a long time taught to see them as righteous predecessors. For example, many of us today would not do more than 8 rakaah tarawih because we see the prophet doing only eight. The reality is that the format used by the prophet was never consistent and it was nawafil and not sunnah tarawih. The 20 rakaahs came later on and Umar approved it but while we may disagree that it is not correct, we will always maintain that Umar was rightly guided or that he approved bidda.

quote:

Originally posted by ksazma:
That is because we were for a long time taught to see them as righteous predecessors. For example, many of us today would not do more than 8 rakaah tarawih because we see the prophet doing only eight. The reality is that the format used by the prophet was never consistent and it was nawafil and not sunnah tarawih. The 20 rakaahs came later on and Umar approved it but while we may disagree that it is not correct, we will always maintain that Umar was rightly guided or that he approved bidda.

This is all about choice,the Prophet(PBUH) did not want to make the 20 a fard upon us. Omar did well in establishing the 20 only for the reasons that we can build up our blessings which so many people seem to have a problem with. Reading 8 or 20 is fine in my opinion. Reading none is my greatest concern.

quote:

Agreed for some. I howver, have problems with some of them. "righteous predecessors"...these are the very people who killed the family of the prophet, the very people who formulated fiqh....

Dara, I am looking for a good book on History/lSeerah dealing with the period between Uthman to lets say the Ummayyad.

I am basically looking for the conflict period. Most of the books I have read is just too brief (Karen Armstrong etc) and do not get into the details of the conflict.

That is a problematic period...and little is reliably written. Tabari's "Tarikh al mulook" has been translated into English, and should have all the details you are looking for. That would be in a particular volume...but I am afraid you can only get this through a university library. Hugh Kennedy's "Muhammad and the Age of the caliphates" is not bad, but rather sparse in detail....and the shia stuff is filled with polemic...I think Tabari's english tran is your best bet..

A History of the Middle East was also a good book. I cannot remember the author right now.

quote:

Originally posted by ksazma:
A History of the Middle East was also a good book. I cannot remember the author right now.

Keddie, Hourani?

quote:

Originally posted by Fu Real:

quote:

Originally posted by ksazma:
That is because we were for a long time taught to see them as righteous predecessors. For example, many of us today would not do more than 8 rakaah tarawih because we see the prophet doing only eight. The reality is that the format used by the prophet was never consistent and it was nawafil and not sunnah tarawih. The 20 rakaahs came later on and Umar approved it but while we may disagree that it is not correct, we will always maintain that Umar was rightly guided or that he approved bidda.

This is all about choice,the Prophet(PBUH) did not want to make the 20 a fard upon us. Omar did well in establishing the 20 only for the reasons that we can build up our blessings which so many people seem to have a problem with. Reading 8 or 20 is fine in my opinion. Reading none is my greatest concern.

I don't have a problem with doing 20. I will shorten it if I am tired or something and will also not be too concerned if I miss it as long as my reason is one I can live with. The point is that while some will stay far away from the 20, they will also stay far away from seeing any adverse part on Umar here. Did he or did he not commit bidda?