The scholars' disagreement on the obligation of zakah on jewelry and the refutation of the evidence of those who deny it.

The Shaykh : If someone were to ask whether this issue is a matter of consensus, we would say no, it is not a matter of consensus. Some scholars have differed on this, and there are two narrations from Imam Ahmad: one regarding the obligation of zakah, and the other, which is the well-known position from him, regarding the non-obligation of zakah. Thus, this issue is one of the matters of scholarly disagreement, and it is known among the people of knowledge that matters of disagreement are referred to what? The Book and the Sunnah, in accordance with the saying of Allah the Exalted: We do not know any proof that refutes the evidence we have mentioned except a hadith narrated from Jabir ibn Abdullah (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: This hadith is one in which the scholars have differed regarding its authenticity, and in its general form, it does not hold up, even according to the opinion of those who say there is no zakah on jewelry. Because those who say there is zakah on jewelry, some of them say that if the jewelry is prepared for spending or prepared for renting, then there is zakah on it. And I do not know any reasoning that holds up for those who say there is no zakah on jewelry except the analogy to a person's clothing, i.e., his clothes, his mount, and his slave. And this analogy is not valid, first because it is in opposition to the explicit text, second because it is not consistent, and third because the original and the branch are not equal. The original for clothes, slaves, and horses is what? The absence of zakah, whereas the original for gold and silver is zakah. So there is a difference between the original and the branch. Second, if clothes, slaves, and horses are prepared for rental, there is no zakah on them, but if jewelry is prepared for rental, there is zakah on it, even according to those who say there is no zakah on jewelry. Third, if the clothes are forbidden, for example, silk clothes worn by men, there is no zakah on them, but if the jewelry is forbidden, such as gold worn by men, there is zakah on it. So where is the analogy? As long as the original and the branch differ in this way, the rule in analogy is that it is not valid, because analogy is attaching a branch to an original in a ruling due to a common cause between them. And finally, even if we assume that the evidence is balanced, and in reality it is not balanced, then taking the path of precaution is part of certainty and the perfection of mindfulness of Allah. And it is known that whoever pays the zakah on jewelry has taken precaution, purified his religion, and his conscience is safe from doubt according to those who have doubt in this issue. As for those for whom the matter is clear, the situation is clear, but the least we can say about it is that it is a matter of precaution, even though what we see is that zakah on jewelry is obligatory, and whoever does not pay his zakah has exposed himself to what came in the hadiths of warning. So the first category of zakatable wealth is gold and silver.