The ruling on the zakah of jewelry.

The Shaykh : A woman has gold jewelry that reaches the nisab. Is it obligatory for her to pay its zakah or not? There is a disagreement among the scholars on this; there is a disagreement among the scholars. Some say: No, there is no zakah in it, because this is used for adornment, so it is like the clothes on a person, in which there is no zakah. And the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: . So these are necessities prepared for a person to use. A woman uses them for adornment, like clothes, so there is no zakah in them. Did you understand? Good. And others said: Zakah is obligatory in it. Zakah is obligatory when it reaches the nisab, because the evidence is general, and nothing has been specified from it. And it is obligatory for the Muslim community, in the texts of the Book and the Sunnah, to follow what? The generality of the Book and the Sunnah. So if it is general, the ruling is generalized. And if it is specific, it is specified. Did you understand, my brothers? Good. And no person can prove that there is no zakah in jewelry and that it is an exception. So there is no evidence in the Book, nor in the Sunnah, nor in the consensus of the community, nor in valid analogical reasoning for the absence of the obligation of zakah in jewelry. And how many are the evidences? Four: the Book, the Sunnah, consensus, and analogical reasoning. None of them contains evidence. Did you understand? On my responsibility, there is no evidence in them. And whoever finds evidence, let him please present it. And may Allah reward our Shaykh, Abdul Aziz ibn Baz (may Allah have mercy on him), with good. We used to follow the school of thought in this issue and say: Jewelry prepared for wearing has no zakah in it. Until Allah the Exalted and Majestic willed that we study in Riyadh at the Institute of Islamic Studies, and we studied under Shaykh Abdul Aziz (may Allah have mercy on him) in his home or in the mosque. This issue passed by us, and we saw that he held the view that zakah on jewelry is obligatory. And he wrote a treatise on the obligation of zakah. So we said to him: What is your evidence, O Shaykh? He said: The evidence is the generalities and the specificities. Generality and specificity. The generality is the Qur'an and the Sunnah: The scholars said: The meaning of "hoarding it" is what? That one does not pay its zakah, even if it is on the back of a mountain, it is a hoard. And whatever its zakah is not paid, even if it is in the bottom of the earth, it is not a hoard. And he also said (may Allah have mercy on him) — and he mentioned it in his treatise — the hadith of Abu Hurayrah in Muslim: . And the establishment of this evidence is to say: Is the woman who owns jewelry called the owner of gold or silver? The answer: Yes, it is said without doubt. All people say this, so she falls under the generality of the hadith. And he also said (may Allah have mercy on him): There is a specific evidence, which is what Amr ibn Shu'ayb narrated from his father from his grandfather Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-As (may Allah be pleased with them): The answer: Does it please her or not? It does not please her. It is as if he said: If you do not pay its zakah, Allah will adorn you with them as two bracelets of fire . And this is a specific evidence. And this is the school of Abu Hanifah (may Allah have mercy on him) and a narration from our Imam, Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal. And it has been said: That in the middle ages, the school of Abu Hanifah was held by three-quarters of the Muslim community, because the caliphs in the Ottoman state were all on the school of the Hanafis, and the people are on the religion of their kings. In any case, the truth is not known by the majority. It is true that the majority of scholars is a factor of preference, without doubt. But when the evidence is found, it is the Imam, and no one's statement comes after it. Good. Those who said: It is analogized to clothes. The answer: This analogy is defective from two aspects. The first aspect: That it is against the text, so the text indicates the obligation of zakah, so how do you analogize something that invalidates a text?! This is not possible, for this reason the scholars call the analogy that opposes the text what? Defective consideration, meaning its consideration is defective and it has no value. Second: That this analogy is also incorrect. What is the original ruling for gold and silver? The obligation of zakah. And the original ruling for clothes is the opposite of this. The original ruling is the absence of the obligation of zakah. So how is something whose original ruling is obligation analogized to something whose original ruling is the absence of obligation? This does not hold. Then it is a contradictory analogy. They say: If a woman has gold dinars that she counts for expenses, there is zakah in them. And if she does not count them? Answer. So there is zakah in them also, according to these people, dinars have zakah whether they are counted for expenses or not. And they say regarding jewelry: If it is prepared for expenses, there is zakah in it, and if it is prepared for wearing, there is no zakah in it. And the analogy requires that the original and the branch be equal. In any case, I do not like to lengthen this issue. The issue is one of disagreement: Some scholars said: It is obligatory, and some said: It is not obligatory. And if we fear that we will stand before Allah on the Day of Resurrection, then without doubt, the precaution for us is to pay zakah on this.