The Shaykh Muhammad ibn Salih al-Uthaymeen said: "4- If he had jewelry for personal use and then intended it for trade, it became trade goods. And if he had clothes for personal use and then
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Fourth, if he had jewelry for personal use and then intended it for trade, it became trade goods. And if he had clothes for personal use and then intended them for trade, they did not become trade goods. They reasoned this by saying that the original ruling for jewelry is that zakah is due, so the intention was strengthened by this, unlike clothes. This is an admission on their part that the original ruling for jewelry is the obligation of zakah. So we say to them: What destroyed this original ruling without evidence?
The Shaykh : Correct, yes. If he had jewelry for personal use, meaning for use, and then intended it for trade, it became trade goods; it became trade commodities. And if he had clothes for personal use and then intended them for trade, they were not for trade. Do you understand this? Because for trade commodities, the school of thought requires that one owns them by his own action with the intention of trade. So if he had clothes he bought for use, and then it occurred to him to trade them, and he intended them for trade, there is no zakah on them. This is unlike the case where he had gold jewelry and then intended it for trade, in which case there is zakah. The difference in their view is that the original ruling for jewelry is that zakah is due, so the intention of trade commodities was strengthened by this original ruling. So we say: This is an admission on your part that the original ruling for jewelry is that zakah is due. So where is the evidence for dropping it? Yes.
The Shaykh : Correct, yes. If he had jewelry for personal use, meaning for use, and then intended it for trade, it became trade goods; it became trade commodities. And if he had clothes for personal use and then intended them for trade, they were not for trade. Do you understand this? Because for trade commodities, the school of thought requires that one owns them by his own action with the intention of trade. So if he had clothes he bought for use, and then it occurred to him to trade them, and he intended them for trade, there is no zakah on them. This is unlike the case where he had gold jewelry and then intended it for trade, in which case there is zakah. The difference in their view is that the original ruling for jewelry is that zakah is due, so the intention of trade commodities was strengthened by this original ruling. So we say: This is an admission on your part that the original ruling for jewelry is that zakah is due. So where is the evidence for dropping it? Yes.