Explanation of the author's statement: "And there is no zakah in their jewelry intended for use or for lending."

The Shaykh : Then he said "And there is no zakah in their jewelry intended for use or for lending" "There is no zakah in their jewelry". Whose jewelry? That of the male and the female. However, a condition is necessary, which is that it be permissible, because the author stated at the end of the discussion that if it is forbidden, then there is zakah in it. It must be permissible jewelry intended for use or for lending. This means that the zakah on jewelry is dropped under two conditions: the first condition is that it be permissible, and the second condition is that it be intended for use or for lending, whether it is actually used and lent out or not. The important point is that it is intended for use or for lending.
As for the first condition, which is that it be permissible, this is because the dropping of zakah from jewelry is a matter of dispensation (rukhsah), and one who uses what is forbidden is not worthy of it, meaning the dispensation. For example, if a man wears a gold ring, zakah becomes obligatory on him for this ring if it reaches the nisab, or if he has with him what completes the nisab. Why? Because it is forbidden. Or if a woman wears jewelry in the shape of a snake, a butterfly, or something similar, then she owes zakah on it. Why? Because it is forbidden, as it is forbidden for a person to have what contains an image or what is made in the shape of an animal, whether it contains an animal image or is made in the shape of an animal.
The second condition is that he says "intended for use or for lending". For personal use, or for lending as a form of kindness to others, because lending is giving the item itself to one who benefits from it and returns it, and it is pure kindness. Our statement that lending is giving the item itself to one who benefits from it and returns it excludes leasing (ijarah) and pledging (rahn) and the like. For this reason, we say that the borrower does not have the right to lend it to another, whereas the lessee has the right to lease it to another under conditions known among scholars. Why? Because the borrower owns the benefit of use, while the lessee owns the benefit itself. The owner of the benefit disposes of it, while the owner of the use does not dispose of it; he either uses it or leaves it. Good.
There is no zakah in what is intended for use or for lending. In this, there are three proofs for the dropping of zakah on jewelry intended for use or for lending: a proof from the Sunnah, a proof from the reports (athar) of the Companions, and a proof from the reasoning (ta'leel), from the cause and wisdom. Thus, three aspects of evidence have converged in it: the Sunnah, the reports of the Companions, and reasoning. Good.
What is the Sunnah? The Sunnah is that it is narrated from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) that he said "There is no zakah in jewelry". This is a proof of negation. Second, as for the reports, I have... and it is the statement of Anas, Jabir, Ibn 'Umar, 'Aishah, and Asma'. How many is that? Five of the Companions. Their statement is supported by this narrated report traced to the Prophet. As for reasoning, it is because this jewelry is intended for a specific need, the person's specific need. And the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said . This is like a slave or a horse kept for a specific need, so there is no zakah in it.
Likewise, there is no zakah in clothing. So the analogy (qiyas) is that zakah should not be obligatory on jewelry intended for use or for lending. This is the position (madhhab) adopted by Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him), Malik, and al-Shafi'i, although they disagreed on some issues. But in general, they agreed on the non-obligation of zakah on jewelry intended for use or for lending.
And from Imam Ahmad there is another narration that zakah is obligatory on jewelry, and this is the position of Abu Hanifah. These people argued with the hadith, or rather with several hadiths traced to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), among which is what Abu Hurayrah narrated from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) that he said . This is general . The woman who has jewelry, whether silver or gold, the owner of gold or silver, this generality includes jewelry and non-jewelry. And whoever says that jewelry is excluded must provide evidence. The evidence has been mentioned, but the people of this position will respond to it.
They also argued with what the people of the Sunan narrated from 'Amr ibn Shu'ayb from his father from his grandfather . This hadith has a corroborating narration (shahid) in the Sahih, which is what we referred to, what we mentioned first. It also has a corroborating narration in other than the Sahih, from the hadith of 'Aishah and Umm Salimah (may Allah be pleased with them both). There is no doubt that these proofs are stronger than the proofs of those who said it is not obligatory. If someone asks, "How do we respond to the proofs of those who say it is not obligatory?" We say: As for the hadith , it is a weak hadith that does not serve as a proof, let alone be used to counter the generality of the authentic hadith. Moreover, those who argue with it do not act according to its implication. If we acted according to its implication, there would be no zakah in jewelry absolutely, and they do not say that. They say that jewelry intended for leasing or for spending has zakah. This means that we took the hadith from one angle and left it from another angle. This is if the hadith were authentic. As for what was narrated from the five Companions, it cannot stand against the generalities of the hadiths, especially since there is a specific proof in the matter, which is the hadith of the woman with her son. This is a text on the matter, and the statement of anyone is of no account against the statement of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). As for the analogy, it is an analogy with a difference and a contradictory analogy. As for it being an analogy with a difference, the original ruling for gold and silver is what? It is obligation, the obligation of zakah. And there is no original ruling for a horse, a slave, or clothing in the obligation of zakah. How can we analogize this to that, when the original ruling for horses is no zakah, the original ruling for slaves is no zakah if they are not for trade, and the original ruling for clothing is no zakah? How can we analogize what is originally subject to zakah to something whose original ruling is no zakah? Then it is contradictory. If a man has a slave he has prepared for hire, is there zakah in it? They say no. If he has horses he has prepared for hire, is there zakah in them? They say no. Good. If he has jewelry he has prepared for hire?

The questioner : There is zakah in it.

The Shaykh : There is zakah in it. So it is a contradiction. Thus, the analogy is not valid. When it became clear that the traced hadith (marfu') is questionable, and that the stopped reports (mawquf) are countered by the traced texts, and that the analogy is not valid and is contradictory, it became clear that the proofs of those who say it is not obligatory have collapsed. What remains for us are difficulties in the proofs of those who say it is obligatory. First, they said that it is objected to your position that it is general. It is objected to this that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said . And "raqqah" is struck silver, due to the saying of the Exalted . So raqqah is dirhams. The statement is to be understood as referring to struck silver and struck gold.
The response to that is from two angles. The first angle is that we do not concede that what is meant by raqqah is the struck coin, because Ibn Hazm (may Allah have mercy on him) says that raqqah is a name for silver absolutely, whether it is struck or not. If we say that Ibn Hazm is an authority in language, the matter is clear. If we say he is not an authority, we say that the Messenger said and said . This is evidence that what is considered is merely silver. Then we say, suppose that what is meant by silver is silver, mentioning some individuals of the general with a ruling that agrees with the general is not considered a specification. Have you seen if I said "Honor the students" and then said "Honor Muhammad," and he is among them? Does this general become specified? No, everyone is honored, and Muhammad has a special distinction in the honoring.
They objected to this that the hadith of the woman and her daughter does not hold up from two angles. The first angle is that we do not know if it reached the nisab or not. The second angle is how can he say when she does not know, she is ignorant, and the ignorant is not threatened. Do you understand? So the response: The scholars who say it is obligatory responded to this. They said: As for the first point, which is that it did not reach the nisab, Sufyan al-Thawri said to add it to what she has, and it is known that a little gold, when added to a lot, reaches the nisab. This is one statement. A second statement, meaning a second response, they said: We make zakah obligatory on jewelry whether it reaches the nisab or not, due to the apparent meaning of this hadith.
The third answer: They said that in some of the wordings of the hadith , the two thick bracelets reach the nisab (minimum threshold for zakah), so the other narrations are interpreted based on this narration in order to align with the condition of the nisab. The second issue: They asked how he threatens her with the Fire when she is ignorant. They answered that the intent is to establish the ruling regardless of the specific individual. This answer is very, very deep; you must pay attention to it. The intent is what? It is to establish the ruling regardless of the ruling concerning this specific individual, meaning that whoever withholds the zakah of jewelry will be encircled with them on the Day of Resurrection with two bracelets.
The second aspect: They said that if one does not pay its zakah, the hadith is based on a known condition from the Shari'ah, which is that the threat is only for whom? Ah? For whom? For the one who does not pay the zakah. As for the one who pays it, there is no threat on him. But the first aspect, as I told you, is very important and deep: the intent is to establish the ruling regardless of, or looking away from, this specific individual. An example of this beneficial rule is that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) passed by two men in al-Baqi', one of whom was cupping the other, and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) said . Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) said that he presented this to his Shaykh, Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, asking: How do we say that the ignorant person does not break his fast, while the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said ? The Shaykh (may Allah have mercy on him) answered: The intent here is to establish the ruling regardless of these two specific individuals. Once the ruling is established, we look at the specific individual and apply the conditions for the obligation of the implications of this ruling.
This is, in fact, a rule for the student of knowledge, because the Shari'ah is not a Shari'ah for Zayd and 'Amr, but for the entire ummah (Muslim community). We return to the issue of jewelry and its zakah. People have differed greatly on this issue, and the disagreement became apparent recently, when people in Najd, and I think even in the Hijaz, knew only the famous position of Imam Ahmad's madhhab (school of jurisprudence), which is that zakah is not obligatory, and people were following this. Then, when the opinion that zakah is obligatory on jewelry appeared through our Shaykh, 'Abd al-'Aziz ibn Baz (may Allah have mercy on him), and may Allah grant him success and assist him, students of knowledge began to research this issue and examine it with effort. The number of those who hold this opinion increased, it became widespread, and, praise be to Allah, people committed to this opinion, except for those who had some taqlid (following a scholar without knowing his evidence) or who read some of the treatises recently written in support of the opinion that it is not obligatory. But whoever reflects on these treatises finds that they do not contain anything that indicates the negation of the obligation. We will read, if Allah wills, in the next lesson the small treatise we wrote on the obligation of zakah on jewelry in order to discuss it. A person, if Allah wills, intends the truth, and perhaps we say that we love to lighten the burden on people; meaning, if we were given a choice between two opinions—one that is heavy for people and one that is light for them—we would choose what is light for them, unless it contradicts the evidence. Yes?