The Shaykh Muhammad ibn Salih al-Uthaymeen said: "3- If the jewelry is forbidden, zakah is obligatory on it, and if the clothing is forbidden, zakah is not obligatory on it."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Third, if the jewelry is forbidden, zakah is obligatory on it, and if the clothing is forbidden, zakah is not obligatory on it.
The Shaykh : Yes, and this is a contradiction. That is to say, if a woman has forbidden jewelry, such as a bracelet in the shape of a snake, she owes zakah on it. But if a man has clothing made of silk, zakah is not obligatory on it. It is said that the implication of the analogy is that either you make zakah obligatory on all of it, or you do not make it obligatory on any of it. They say the difference, the difference between them is that zakah is waived for gold and silver when used in a permissible manner that is authorized. But in the case of the forbidden, it is not waived because it is not authorized. Therefore, its preparation for wearing is not considered valid in the Shari'ah. So they ask: Have you not agreed that the original ruling for jewelry is that zakah is due? Where is the evidence for waiving it? Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, and this is a contradiction. That is to say, if a woman has forbidden jewelry, such as a bracelet in the shape of a snake, she owes zakah on it. But if a man has clothing made of silk, zakah is not obligatory on it. It is said that the implication of the analogy is that either you make zakah obligatory on all of it, or you do not make it obligatory on any of it. They say the difference, the difference between them is that zakah is waived for gold and silver when used in a permissible manner that is authorized. But in the case of the forbidden, it is not waived because it is not authorized. Therefore, its preparation for wearing is not considered valid in the Shari'ah. So they ask: Have you not agreed that the original ruling for jewelry is that zakah is due? Where is the evidence for waiving it? Yes.