Clarification of the evidence of those who say that zakah is not obligatory on jewelry, along with the refutation of their position.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Some of those who do not consider zakah obligatory on jewelry have said: "Jewelry is clothing. Just as there is no zakah on the clothing of a man or a woman, so there is no zakah on jewelry." The answer to this is that this analogy is not correct, even according to those who advocate for it. First, because it contradicts the explicit text, and an analogy that contradicts the text is called defective in the estimation of the scholars. Second, you yourselves say that it is analogous to a garment. So what would you say if a man or a woman prepared clothing to rent it out for a fee? Is there zakah on it? They say, "No, there is no zakah." And if a woman prepared jewelry to rent it out for a fee, is there zakah on it? They say, "Yes." Where is the analogy? The analogy would require that if you make zakah obligatory on jewelry prepared for rental, you must make it obligatory on clothing prepared for rental. And if you drop the obligation of zakah on clothing prepared for rental, you must drop it on jewelry prepared for rental.
Second, if a person prepares forbidden clothing, such as a man who starts wearing silk, and silk is forbidden for men, is there zakah on these clothes? Is there or is there not? There is no zakah on them. Those who do not make zakah obligatory on jewelry say that if one uses forbidden clothing, there is no zakah on it for him. But if a woman uses forbidden jewelry, they say there is zakah on it. This is a contradiction, or is it not a contradiction? It is a contradiction. How do you make zakah obligatory on forbidden jewelry and not on forbidden clothing, when you are analogizing jewelry to clothing regarding the non-obligation of zakah? Third, a man has a great deal of clothing that he prepares for spending, meaning that whenever he needs to spend, he takes from these clothes, sells some, and spends on himself. Is there zakah on it? They say, "No, there is no zakah."
A woman has jewelry that she prepares for spending; whenever she needs to spend, she sells some of it and spends on herself. Is there zakah on it? They say, "There is zakah on it." Where is the analogy? If you make zakah obligatory on jewelry prepared for spending, make it obligatory on clothing prepared for spending. And if you drop it on clothing prepared for spending, drop it on jewelry prepared for spending. This is the requirement of the analogy. And if you do not agree with these three points, then you should not say that gold is analogous to clothing in the dropping of zakah when prepared for use, when gold has come in the texts as being subject to the obligation of zakah.
Second, if a person prepares forbidden clothing, such as a man who starts wearing silk, and silk is forbidden for men, is there zakah on these clothes? Is there or is there not? There is no zakah on them. Those who do not make zakah obligatory on jewelry say that if one uses forbidden clothing, there is no zakah on it for him. But if a woman uses forbidden jewelry, they say there is zakah on it. This is a contradiction, or is it not a contradiction? It is a contradiction. How do you make zakah obligatory on forbidden jewelry and not on forbidden clothing, when you are analogizing jewelry to clothing regarding the non-obligation of zakah? Third, a man has a great deal of clothing that he prepares for spending, meaning that whenever he needs to spend, he takes from these clothes, sells some, and spends on himself. Is there zakah on it? They say, "No, there is no zakah."
A woman has jewelry that she prepares for spending; whenever she needs to spend, she sells some of it and spends on herself. Is there zakah on it? They say, "There is zakah on it." Where is the analogy? If you make zakah obligatory on jewelry prepared for spending, make it obligatory on clothing prepared for spending. And if you drop it on clothing prepared for spending, drop it on jewelry prepared for spending. This is the requirement of the analogy. And if you do not agree with these three points, then you should not say that gold is analogous to clothing in the dropping of zakah when prepared for use, when gold has come in the texts as being subject to the obligation of zakah.