The obligation of zakah in jewelry, with its evidence and its discussion.

The Shaykh : I say that zakah is obligatory in gold and silver, even if it is jewelry. But a man comes to us and says, "Your claim that zakah is obligatory in a woman's jewelry requires evidence. What is our position toward this man? Do we say, 'Go back'? We say that zakah is obligatory in a woman's jewelry, and we are not concerned if he is convinced or not. Or is it obligatory for the scholars to convince the one who asks for evidence with evidence? Yes, it is obligatory for the scholars to convince the one who asks for evidence with evidence, because he has a right. Allah the Exalted did not send the messengers to the creation except with signs by which the argument is established and which indicate their message. He did not say to the messengers, 'Go to the people and say, "We are the messengers of Allah, and we will fight you until you submit to what we have brought." Never. Rather, signs are necessary. We, too, when we say something and say, "This is the Shari'ah," or "This is obligatory," or "This is forbidden," or "This is lawful," every Muslim has the right to say, "Where is the evidence?" The man who says, "Where is the evidence?" is one whose heart is alive, who says, "I do not want to build my religion except on the foundation of the Shari'ah of Allah. I am not saying 'Where is the evidence?' as a challenge, but I am saying 'Where is the evidence?' seeking guidance. As for the one whom we know says, 'Where is the evidence?' as a challenge, we have the right to say, "We have conveyed it to you, and your reckoning is with Allah." And as for the one whom we know wants the evidence seeking guidance to build his worship on insight, we thank him for that and we explain to him the evidence as much as we can. Now, you demand evidence for the obligation of zakah in jewelry, and you do not submit.

The questioner : We do not demand.

The Shaykh : What is the evidence? The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said: And the woman who has jewelry, is she the owner of gold? She is the owner of gold, the owner of gold, the owner of gold. The jewelry is hers, not her husband's. Is she the owner of gold? Yes, she is the owner of gold. What is the right of the wealth? It is zakah. As al-Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him) said:
If Do we agree on this, or did you not understand the meaning? The one who speaks with the texts is the most knowledgeable of those who spoke with their intended meaning, yes or no? The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), when he speaks, is the most knowledgeable of people regarding the meaning of his words. Is he not the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him)? Yes. And he knows and understands everything that this term encompasses in meaning. If any of the individuals were excluded, he would have excluded it, because if there were something among the individuals that contradicted the ruling of the general term and he did not exclude it, he would not have conveyed what was revealed to him from his Lord. Second, we all know that the most merciful of creation to creation is whom? The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). It is not possible for him to come with a general address from which some of its individuals are excluded without clarifying that, because that would be contrary to advice. Third, we all know that the most eloquent of creation in what he utters is whom? The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). It is not possible for him to come with a general term while intending only some of its individuals, because that is clear, as it is contrary to eloquence. This is a defect in speech. This is the first answer to the one who claims that the indication of the general term to all its individuals is a probable indication. The second stage in the answer is to mention the specific evidence for the obligation of zakah in jewelry. Listen to the hadith of Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-As (may Allah be pleased with them both), who said: Two bracelets, meaning two bracelets. Then the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: Allahu Akbar. Did the woman say, "O Messenger of Allah, I prepared these two bracelets for wearing, so how is zakah obligatory on me in them, while zakah is not obligatory on me in the garment and the cloak?" She said, "So and so," no, rather she submitted and removed the bracelets and threw them to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and said: And Allah has chosen for the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) the most obedient of people to Allah and the most following of them to the Messenger of Allah. When the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) narrated the hadith to them, they did not hesitate in accepting it, nor did they hesitate in implementing it. Rather, they said with their tongues and actions, "We hear and we obey." There are many examples of this, but this is not the place to mention them. She removed them and threw them to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar said in *Bulugh al-Maram*: "It was narrated by the three, and its chain is strong, and it has a corroborating narration from the hadith of Aisha and Umm Salama (may Allah be pleased with them both)". Two corroborating narrations strengthen it, and it is strong without them, but the more strength there is, the more confidence there is. And we thank Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) for presenting this hadith in *Bulugh al-Maram* and supporting and strengthening it, even though his school is Shafi'i, and the Shafi'is do not see the obligation of zakah in jewelry. But such great scholars, even if they affiliate with a school, do not see that the school is obligatory to follow in every matter. Rather, if the evidence contradicts their school, they cast it aside and take the evidence. So he is truly to be thanked for presenting this hadith in *Bulugh al-Maram* and for strengthening and preferring it. So we have evidence from the Sunnah, general, and what else? And specific, there is evidence from the Qur'an. Yes, it is possible, since we say: That is, they are prevented from what is obligatory to be given from them. Does this fall under this or not? It falls under this. And based on this, the verse and the two hadiths we mentioned all indicate the obligation of zakah in jewelry and that it is included in the generality and specificity of the evidence. But a man comes to you and says, "The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: There is no zakah in jewelry." And this is specific, specifying the hadith of Abu Hurayrah: And it is known to the people of knowledge that the specific specifies the generality of the general. So what is the answer to this? Do you understand the objection or not? The objection objects to us and says, "It was narrated from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) that he said: So this text would be a specifier for the generality of his statement: So what do we say? We answer him with two answers. The first answer: Is this hadith authentic or not? This is necessary, because the one who argues with the Sunnah is required to do two things: First, the establishment of the text, and second, the establishment of its indication of the ruling. And the one who argues with the Qur'an is required to do only one thing, which is to establish the indication of the Qur'an of the ruling. So we say to this man, "Establish this for us from the saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) so that we can address your objection with it." And many of the people of knowledge said that this hadith is not authentic from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). And if it is not authentic, is it consistent for it to be opposed to the authentic hadiths? No, because what is not authentic is not permissible to act upon, let alone if it is opposed. And assuming its authenticity, we say to the one who objected with it, "Do you say by virtue of this hadith? Do you drop the zakah from all jewelry?" If he says yes, we say, "It is not so." And if he says no, we say, "You have contradicted your evidence." Pay attention, jewelry, bracelets, rings. Did you hear, my brother? I say to this objecting arguer, "First, what did you establish? The evidence?" Because the one who argues with the Sunnah needs two things: establishing the evidence and establishing the indication. Okay, establish the evidence. Let us assume he established the evidence, but it is not established. We demand of him, we say to him, "Do you say by virtue of this hadith and drop the zakah in all jewelry?" If he says yes, we say, "It is not so." And if he says no, we say, "You have contradicted your evidence," because the evidence is general, and you say that if the jewelry is prepared for wages, or prepared for spending, or is forbidden, then zakah is obligatory in it. So you have contradicted the evidence. And based on this, his argument with this hadith is invalid from the aspect of the chain and from the aspect of saying by virtue of it. When he saw that he had been defeated in his objection with this hadith, he came to us from another angle. He said to us, "Do you establish qiyas (analogical reasoning)?" We say to him, "Yes, we establish qiyas, valid qiyas, because Allah the Exalted said in His Book: We establish valid qiyas. He said, "So the worn jewelry is like the worn garment. Do you obligate the woman to pay zakah on the garment she wears?" We said, "No, we do not obligate her to pay zakah, because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: So the thing that a person has exclusively for himself, there is no charity in it, and no zakah is obligatory on him in the garments. He said, "So the jewelry is like the garments, there is no zakah in it." We say to him, "This qiyas is invalid in consideration. Invalid in consideration. Why? Because it is in opposition to the text, and every qiyas in opposition to the text is invalid in consideration and is never considered. And we also said to him, "Your qiyas is not valid from the aspect of qiyas, not from the aspect of contradicting the text. You are now saying that if the gold jewelry is prepared for wages, then there is zakah in it. Do you say that if the garments are prepared for wages, there is zakah in them?" He will say, "No, the garments prepared for wages do not have zakah, and the jewelry prepared for wages has zakah." Is the qiyas valid or not? It is not valid, because qiyas requires the equality of the branch with the root in the ruling, otherwise the valid qiyas is disrupted. I have lengthened the speech on this issue because some students of knowledge need its matter to be clarified clearly. So it is now clarified, under any consideration, that the opposition to the texts of the obligation of zakah in jewelry is not established. And the person who fears Allah must pay the zakah of the jewelry. But zakah is not obligatory unless it reaches the nisab (minimum threshold for zakah), and this will be mentioned, if Allah wills, shortly. Once again, among the wealth in which zakah is obligatory is gold and silver, whether it is currency, bullion, jewelry, or anything else, zakah is obligatory in it in all cases. And you have known the evidence for that.