The Shaykh Muhammad ibn Salih al-Uthaymeen said: "5- They said: If one intends to evade zakah by acquiring jewelry, the zakah is not waived.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Fifth, they said: If one intends to evade zakah by acquiring jewelry, the zakah is not waived, and the apparent statement of most of the followers of Imam Ahmad is that if one excessively purchases real estate to evade zakah, the zakah is waived, and by analogy, if one excessively purchases clothing to evade zakah, the zakah is waived, since there is no difference between clothing and real estate. If permissible jewelry is distinct...
The Shaykh : Do you understand the issue? A person has a lot of wealth, so he says, "I will buy gold jewelry for use in order to waive the zakah, because jewelry for use has no zakah." They said, "No, it does not waive the zakah, because he acquired the jewelry to evade the zakah, so it is not waived from him. If he bought a lot of expensive clothing in order to waive the zakah, the zakah is waived, as the jurists (may Allah have mercy on them) said. If a person has millions and buys a lot of real estate to evade the zakah, it is waived. And if this is the case, may Allah will it, the discussion will come to it and there is consideration in it, but this is their statement. We are discussing with them what they acknowledge, so we say, "Glory be to Allah, what is the difference?" They said, "Because the original ruling for jewelry is zakah, so evading it does not benefit him, because he evaded gold and silver and bought jewelry with it, and jewelry is that in which zakah is obligatory." We say, "Then this is an acknowledgment of the obligation of zakah, so show us the evidence for waiving it." Yes.
The questioner : If permissible jewelry is distinct from clothing prepared for wearing in these rulings, how can we obligate or permit including it with them in a ruling where the text indicates their distinction? If that is clarified, then zakah is not obligatory in jewelry until it reaches...
The Shaykh : How can we obligate including it with them in a ruling where the text indicates their distinction? These people obligated us to include what? Jewelry with clothing, or permit it, meaning that we do not permit including jewelry with clothing, so we do not obligate zakah on it. Therefore, we do not obligate zakah in it without evidence. We do not see the permissibility or obligation of including it with clothing, because the analogy is not valid. Yes.
The Shaykh : Do you understand the issue? A person has a lot of wealth, so he says, "I will buy gold jewelry for use in order to waive the zakah, because jewelry for use has no zakah." They said, "No, it does not waive the zakah, because he acquired the jewelry to evade the zakah, so it is not waived from him. If he bought a lot of expensive clothing in order to waive the zakah, the zakah is waived, as the jurists (may Allah have mercy on them) said. If a person has millions and buys a lot of real estate to evade the zakah, it is waived. And if this is the case, may Allah will it, the discussion will come to it and there is consideration in it, but this is their statement. We are discussing with them what they acknowledge, so we say, "Glory be to Allah, what is the difference?" They said, "Because the original ruling for jewelry is zakah, so evading it does not benefit him, because he evaded gold and silver and bought jewelry with it, and jewelry is that in which zakah is obligatory." We say, "Then this is an acknowledgment of the obligation of zakah, so show us the evidence for waiving it." Yes.
The questioner : If permissible jewelry is distinct from clothing prepared for wearing in these rulings, how can we obligate or permit including it with them in a ruling where the text indicates their distinction? If that is clarified, then zakah is not obligatory in jewelry until it reaches...
The Shaykh : How can we obligate including it with them in a ruling where the text indicates their distinction? These people obligated us to include what? Jewelry with clothing, or permit it, meaning that we do not permit including jewelry with clothing, so we do not obligate zakah on it. Therefore, we do not obligate zakah in it without evidence. We do not see the permissibility or obligation of including it with clothing, because the analogy is not valid. Yes.