Is it true that there is no zakah on used gold, and what is its nisab in the known mithqals?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : I bought gold jewelry for my wife and wanted to pay its zakah, but I learned that there is no zakah on a woman's used jewelry. Is this correct, and what is the nisab of gold in the known mithqals?
The Shaykh : Scholars have differed regarding gold intended for use. Some said there is no zakah in it, comparing it to the clothes a person wears, in which there is no zakah. Others said, rather, that there is zakah in it. The correct view is that zakah is obligatory in it, because the evidence indicating the obligation of zakah on gold and silver is general and contains no exception. It is well known that people adorned themselves with gold and silver in the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). The fact that no exception was mentioned, despite their possession of it, indicates the generality of the ruling. Indeed, specific hadiths have been reported regarding jewelry, including one narrated by the three—Abu Dawud, al-Tirmidhi, and al-Nasa'i—from 'Abdullah ibn 'Amr ibn al-'As, with a chain of narration that the author of Bulugh al-Maram described as strong. This is a clear text regarding the obligation of zakah on jewelry. The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) did not ask her whether she intended to trade with it or not. Rather, the apparent situation was that she did not intend to trade with it, because she had put it on her daughter.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Furthermore, this opinion is the most cautious and the one that clears the conscience. What is most cautious is preferable when the caution is based on a scriptural proof. As for comparing it to clothes, that is an analogy that is not correct, even according to those who hold that view. This is because those who compared it to clothes say: if one intended to rent out the jewelry, meaning he acquired jewelry to rent it out, then he owes zakah on it. But if he intended to rent out clothes, meaning he acquired clothes to rent them out, then there is no zakah on them.
They also say that if one intended to trade with clothes meant for wearing, and he had owned them for the purpose of wearing, then if he later intended to trade with them, they do not become merchandise. But if he intended to trade with jewelry, and he had bought it for wearing, then it becomes merchandise.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : This is evidence that this is not like that, so it should not be equated with it. Therefore, the correct view is that zakah is obligatory on gold and silver jewelry. As for pearls, diamonds, and other minerals, there is no zakah on them, because the original ruling is the presumption of innocence of the conscience, and there is no evidence from the Book or the Sunnah regarding the obligation of zakah on them, unless they are prepared for trade.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Accordingly, if you pay the zakah on your wife's jewelry, there is no blame on you or on her. Rather, this is an act of excellence, and Allah loves those who do good. The amount of the nisab for gold is eighty-five grams, meaning eleven dinars and three-sevenths of a dinar. If a woman possesses a total weight reaching this amount, zakah becomes obligatory on it. If it is less than that, she owes no zakah on it.
The questioner : The last question says:
The Shaykh : Scholars have differed regarding gold intended for use. Some said there is no zakah in it, comparing it to the clothes a person wears, in which there is no zakah. Others said, rather, that there is zakah in it. The correct view is that zakah is obligatory in it, because the evidence indicating the obligation of zakah on gold and silver is general and contains no exception. It is well known that people adorned themselves with gold and silver in the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). The fact that no exception was mentioned, despite their possession of it, indicates the generality of the ruling. Indeed, specific hadiths have been reported regarding jewelry, including one narrated by the three—Abu Dawud, al-Tirmidhi, and al-Nasa'i—from 'Abdullah ibn 'Amr ibn al-'As, with a chain of narration that the author of Bulugh al-Maram described as strong.
A woman came to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and her daughter had two thick gold bracelets on her hand. He said to her: "Do you pay zakah on this?" She said: "No." He said: "Would you be pleased that Allah would brand you with two bracelets of fire?" So she took them off and threw them to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), saying: "They are for Allah and His Messenger."
أن امرأة أتت إلى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وفي يد ابنتها مسَكتان غليظتان من ذهب فقال لها أتؤدين زكاة هذا قالت لا قال : أيسرك أن يسورك الله بهما سوارين من نار فخلعتهما وألقتهما إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وقالت هما لله ورسولهThe questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Furthermore, this opinion is the most cautious and the one that clears the conscience. What is most cautious is preferable when the caution is based on a scriptural proof. As for comparing it to clothes, that is an analogy that is not correct, even according to those who hold that view. This is because those who compared it to clothes say: if one intended to rent out the jewelry, meaning he acquired jewelry to rent it out, then he owes zakah on it. But if he intended to rent out clothes, meaning he acquired clothes to rent them out, then there is no zakah on them.
They also say that if one intended to trade with clothes meant for wearing, and he had owned them for the purpose of wearing, then if he later intended to trade with them, they do not become merchandise. But if he intended to trade with jewelry, and he had bought it for wearing, then it becomes merchandise.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : This is evidence that this is not like that, so it should not be equated with it. Therefore, the correct view is that zakah is obligatory on gold and silver jewelry. As for pearls, diamonds, and other minerals, there is no zakah on them, because the original ruling is the presumption of innocence of the conscience, and there is no evidence from the Book or the Sunnah regarding the obligation of zakah on them, unless they are prepared for trade.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Accordingly, if you pay the zakah on your wife's jewelry, there is no blame on you or on her. Rather, this is an act of excellence, and Allah loves those who do good. The amount of the nisab for gold is eighty-five grams, meaning eleven dinars and three-sevenths of a dinar. If a woman possesses a total weight reaching this amount, zakah becomes obligatory on it. If it is less than that, she owes no zakah on it.
The questioner : The last question says: