The Shaykh Muhammad ibn Salih al-Uthaymeen said: "The fourth: that clothing and jewelry differ in the view of those who exempt jewelry from zakah in many issues.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. Praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds, and blessings and peace be upon our Prophet Muhammad and upon his family and all his Companions. He who is preserved by Allah the Exalted said: "The fourth: that clothing" ...
The Shaykh : The fourth of what?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Of the explanation that the analogy is not valid, yes.
The questioner : The fourth is that clothing and jewelry differ in the view of those who exempt jewelry from zakah in many issues. Among the differences between them, first, if one sets aside jewelry for spending and sets aside clothing for spending, meaning that if he needs to spend, he sells from them and buys provisions, they said in this case zakah is obligatory on the jewelry but not on the clothing. And it is strange to say: a wealthy woman comes money to her from every direction, and whenever jewelry of the usual type of wear is mentioned to her, she buys it at high prices to adorn herself with it, not to escape from zakah. And when this woman herself differed, she kept her jewelry for spending and the necessity of living, so we said to her in the first case: there is no zakah on you in this jewelry, and we said to her in the last case: zakah is due on it. This is the implication of the statement of those who exempt permissible jewelry from zakah.
The Shaykh : Yes, so this is where jewelry differs from clothing, even among those who hold that there is no zakah in it. They say if one sets aside jewelry for spending, then there is zakah in it, and if one sets aside clothing for spending, then there is no zakah in it. So where is the analogy? And did you understand the scenario of what is set aside for spending? How is it? It is a woman who has jewelry, and whenever she needs, she sells and spends on herself, and another who has many clothes, and whenever she needs, she sells. The first has zakah due on her, and the second has no zakah due on her. So, where is the analogy? The implication of the analogy is that it must be obligatory on either all of them or not obligatory on any of them. They said the difference between them is that the original ruling for jewelry is zakah because it is gold and silver, unlike clothing, which are commodities, so the original ruling for them is the absence of zakah. We said: if you admit that the original ruling for jewelry, in gold and silver, is zakah, then who exempted it? Where is the evidence for its exemption? Yes.
The Shaykh : The fourth of what?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Of the explanation that the analogy is not valid, yes.
The questioner : The fourth is that clothing and jewelry differ in the view of those who exempt jewelry from zakah in many issues. Among the differences between them, first, if one sets aside jewelry for spending and sets aside clothing for spending, meaning that if he needs to spend, he sells from them and buys provisions, they said in this case zakah is obligatory on the jewelry but not on the clothing. And it is strange to say: a wealthy woman comes money to her from every direction, and whenever jewelry of the usual type of wear is mentioned to her, she buys it at high prices to adorn herself with it, not to escape from zakah. And when this woman herself differed, she kept her jewelry for spending and the necessity of living, so we said to her in the first case: there is no zakah on you in this jewelry, and we said to her in the last case: zakah is due on it. This is the implication of the statement of those who exempt permissible jewelry from zakah.
The Shaykh : Yes, so this is where jewelry differs from clothing, even among those who hold that there is no zakah in it. They say if one sets aside jewelry for spending, then there is zakah in it, and if one sets aside clothing for spending, then there is no zakah in it. So where is the analogy? And did you understand the scenario of what is set aside for spending? How is it? It is a woman who has jewelry, and whenever she needs, she sells and spends on herself, and another who has many clothes, and whenever she needs, she sells. The first has zakah due on her, and the second has no zakah due on her. So, where is the analogy? The implication of the analogy is that it must be obligatory on either all of them or not obligatory on any of them. They said the difference between them is that the original ruling for jewelry is zakah because it is gold and silver, unlike clothing, which are commodities, so the original ruling for them is the absence of zakah. We said: if you admit that the original ruling for jewelry, in gold and silver, is zakah, then who exempted it? Where is the evidence for its exemption? Yes.