Males Wearing Silver Chains, Bracelets, and Earrings

As salām ʿalaikum wa raḥmatullāhī wa barakātuhu

In the Name of Allāh, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.

Brother in Islām,

We take note of your query and quotations you have presented. We commend you for seeking clarity.

Before answering your query, kindly refer the following inaccuracies in your query:

- You state, “It is well established that silver itself is permissible for men”

Brother, whereas the fuqahāʾ have permitted wearing a silver ring with specifications of weight, its medicinal use, its decorative use on weapons, and other specific permitted use, there is no general permission for males to use silver. In fact, it is better for one with no practical use of a silver ring, contrary to a judge or sulṭān, to not wear the same.

The statement “It is well established that silver itself is permissible for men” is thus misleading in its generality.

- You state, “There is also historical precedent showing that some Tabiʿūn, such as Abu Barzah….”

Abū Barzah رضي الله عنه who has been referenced is in fact a Ṣaḥābī and not a Tabiʿī. Thus, the above statement is inaccurate.

- You state, Abu Barzah and Sufyān ibn ʿUyaynah wore earrings as boys (Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ 8/462; Musnad Abī Yaʿlā 3645)

The narration referenced from Musnad Abī Yaʿlā does not state that Abū Barzah رضي الله عنه wore an earring, neither as a boy, nor as an adult. It does in fact state that a young boy Sayyār ibn Salāmah had qurṭ in both his ears.

The incident of Sufyān ibn ʿUyaynah which has been correctly referenced, in addition to the word qurṭ, als ouses the word shanaf. Shanaf refers to an ear cuff that is placed above the ear and not an earring.

So, neither of these incidents necessarily point to earrings, they may instead refer to ear cuffs. These ear cuffs could have been made from gold, silver, or other materials. Further, their use might have been purely decorative, or they may have served other purposes, such as functioning as a talisman.

Brother, there is a well-known principle:

إذا جاء الاحتمال بطل الاستدلال

“When a possibility (alternative interpretation) arises, the inference (as proof) is invalidated.”

Thus, the statement “There is also historical precedent showing…” is invalidated and cannot establish that Sayyār ibn Salāmah and Sufyān ibn ʿUyaynah wore earrings, in the manner one would wear jewellery, as young boys.

- You state, “Additionally, the Ḥanafī jurist Qāḍī Khān permitted ear-piercing for male children, stating that it was practiced during Jāhiliyyah and that the Prophet ﷺ did not explicitly forbid it (Subul al-Salām 4/183).”

This is a mischaracterisation and mistranslation of Qāḍī Khān’s statement. Although the statement is referenced accurately, the translation and inference are both incorrect. The correct translation would be:

وفي فتاوى قاضي خان من الحنفية: لا بأس ‌بثقب ‌أذن ‌الطفل لأنهم كانوا في الجاهلية يفعلونه ولم ينكر عليهم النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم

And in the Fatāwā of Qāḍī Khān from the Hanafis: there is no harm in piercing the ear of a child, because they used to do so in the pre-Islamic era and the Prophet ﷺ did not object to them.

Further, academic honestly would dictate that one contextualises this statement. It becomes clear from reading the discussion in the book referenced, this is not discussing boys, it is discussing piercing the ears of young girls.

This is also supported by other clear texts from earlier scholars in the madhhab. Consider the following from al-Muḥīt al-Burhānī:

لا بأس ‌بثقب ‌أذن ‌الطفل من البنات، فقد صح أنهم كانوا يفعلون ذلك في زمن رسول الله عليه السلام من غير إنكاره.

“There is no harm in piercing the ears of young girls, for it is authentically established that they used to do this during the time of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ without him objecting to it.”

Niṣāb al-Iḥtisāb has the following:

ولا بأس ‌بثقب ‌أذن ‌الطفل من النساء وفيه دليل على أن ثقب اذن الطفل من الذكور مكروه فيحتسب على من فعله

“There is no harm in piercing the ear of a female child, and in this is an indication that piercing the ear of a male child is disliked; therefore, it should be objected to (as a wrong) when done.”

Accordingly, the statement quoted does not support the view of permissibility. In fact, it establishes the direct opposite.

We are not in agreement that wearing silver chains, bracelets, and earrings have shifted from being a predominantly feminine trait to a masculine practice. Thus, the prohibition of imitating women by wearing the items under discussion will still be ḥarām.

Further, establishing ʿurf (customary practice) is not within the purview of the ʿawām (general public), the determination of ʿurf is by way of the ʿulamāʾ.

If, for arguments sake, one was to concur that wearing silver chains, bracelets, and earrings have shifted from being a predominantly feminine trait to a masculine practice, and it no longer falls under the prohibition of imitating women, it would still not lift the prohibition of wearing the items listed as it would still constitute imitating open sinners.

Rasūlullāh r said:

‌مَنْ ‌تَشَبَّهَ ‌بِقَوْمٍ ‌فَهُوَ ‌مِنْهُمْ

Whoever imitates a people is from amongst them.

The following excerpt is reproduced from the footnotes of Fatāwā Maḥmūdiyyah:

Nowadays, wearing pants and shirts (coat and trousers) and adopting Western hairstyles has unfortunately become common among Muslims. However, despite this widespread practice, such attire is still considered Western clothing.

In short, even if one argues that it is not an imitation of the disbelievers (kuffār), there is certainly no doubt that it is an imitation of the openly sinful (fussāq). Therefore, it is necessary to avoid such clothing. (Taʿlīq Fatāwā Maḥmūdiyyah 19/280).

Ḥakīm al-Ummah (raḥmatullāhī ʿalayh) says:

This ruling is explicitly found in the Qur’ān itself, where Allah Taʿālā states:

وَلَا تَرْكَنُوا إِلَى ٱلَّذِينَ ظَلَمُوا فَتَمَسَّكُمُ ٱلنَّارُ

Translation: ‘Do not incline towards those who have wronged (i.e., the oppressors), lest the Fire touch you.’ (Sūrah Hūd: 113)

From this, it is clear that inclining towards the people of falsehood is ḥarām.

Now, if we combine this with a general principle, we learn that imitation (تشبّه) does not occur without some degree of inclination and emotional attachment. First, there arises a sense of reverence for them in the heart. Then, one begins to admire and approve of them. This leads to a gradual inclination towards them.

Therefore, since inclination and emotional leaning (rukūn) are prohibited, imitation (tashabbuh) is also ḥarām.” (Al-Iḍāfāt, vol. 8, p. 326; quoted in: Principles and Maxims of Ḥanafī Fiqh, p. 148).

In conclusion, it is permissible for men to wear a silver ring weighs 4.374 grams or less. Whilst wearing silver chains, silver bracelets, and silver earrings remain impermissible and ḥarām.

And Allāh Taʿālā knows best.