Personal, - The obligation of giving Zakaah of jewelry - II

If someone says,"What is the answer to the Hadeeth )narration( on which those who do not oblige Zakaah )purifying alms( on jewelry base their argument?"TheHadeethwas narrated by Ibn Al-Jawzi, may Allaah have mercy upon him, on the authority of ‘Aafiyah ibn Ayyoob, from Al-Layth ibn Sa‘d, from Az-Zubayr, from Jaabir, may Allaah be pleased with him, that the Prophet,sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, said:"There is no Zakaah on jewelry."]Al-Bayhaqi inMa‘rifat As-Sunan wal-Aathaar[
The answer comes in three points:
1- Al-Bayhaqi, may Allaah have mercy upon him, classified theHadeethas inauthentic, and it was narrated as part of Jaabir's words. Also, ‘Aafiyah is an unknown narrator.
2- Supposing that ‘Aafiyah is a trustworthy narrator, as Ibn Abi Haatim quoted from Abu Zur‘ah, this cannot contradict the authenticHadeethswhich obligeZakaahon jewelry, because it is very weak while they are authentic.
3- Supposing that thisHadeethis as authentic as the otherHadeeths, it is safer to adhere to theHadeethswhich makeZakaahon jewelry obligatory. In fact, what is safer is more entitled to be followed.
The Quranic verse and the fourHadeethsmentioned above clearly indicate that it is obligatory to giveZakaahon gold and silver jewelry, even if it is kept for wearing or borrowing.
As for the reported narrations, it was reported that ‘Umar, Ibn Mas‘ood, Ibn ‘Abbaas, ‘Aa’ishah and ‘Abdullaah ibn ‘Amr ibn Al-‘Aas, may Allaah be pleased with them, said thatZakaahis given on jewelry.
● Scholars who did not obligeZakaahon jewelry draw as evidence what Al-Athram reported from Ahmad ibn Hanbal, may Allaah have mercy upon him, saying,"Five Companions did not make Zakaah on jewelry obligatory: Anas ibn Maalik, Jaabir, Ibn ‘Umar, ‘Aa’ishah and Asmaa’, may Allaah be pleased with them."
The answer to this argument is that some of those Companions were reported to holdZakaahon jewelry as obligatory. Thus, supposing that all of them adopted one stance or that their final say on the issue was the non-obligation ofZakaahon jewelry, other Companions opined otherwise. In case of dispute, Muslims are commanded to refer to the Quran andSunnah, which sufficiently support the obligation, as stated above.
● If someone said that it was authentically narrated that the Prophet,sallallaahu'alayhi wa sallam, said:"O women, give charity even from your own jewelry."]Al-Bukhaari and Muslim[ and that thisHadeethserves as evidence of non-obligation ofZakaahon jewelry, for ifZakaahhad been obligatory on jewelry, the Prophet,sallallaahu‘alayhi wa sallam, would not have made it )the jewelry( a source for giving voluntary charity.
The answer to this argument is as follows:
The order to give charity from jewelry neither confirmsZakaahon it nor cancels it; rather, it is an order to give charity from the needs of man. For instance, when someone is requested to give charity even from the money with which he supports himself and his children, this request does not cancel the obligation ofZakaahon his money.
● If someone asks,"What is the difference then between lawful jewelry and lawful clothing? If we made Zakaah obligatory on the former, we should make it obligatory on the latter."
The answer is that theSharee‘ah)Islamic legislation( differentiates between them. It madeZakaahobligatory on gold and silver without exception, and there are even specific texts which obligateZakaahon the lawful jewelry which is worn. Clothing, however, resembles man's horse and slave about which the Prophet,sallallaahu ‘alayhi wasallam, said:"There is no charity ]Zakaah[ on the Muslim's slave or horse."]Al-Bukhaari and Muslim[ Therefore, if the clothing was kept for wearing, there would be noZakaahon them; if they were kept for trade,Zakaahwould be obligatory on them.
● If someone asks,"Is it correct to draw an analogy between the lawful jewelry which is made for wearing and the lawful clothes which are made for wearing?"as claimed by those who do not obligateZakaahon jewelry.
The answer is that it is not correct for the following reasons:
-It is an analogy which contradicts aSharee‘ahtext, and every analogy contradicting a text is invalid.
-In principle, there is noZakaahon clothing, and analogy would require thatZakaahis obligatory on jewelry whether it is kept for wearing or other purposes, exactly asZakaahis not obligatory on clothing, whether they are kept for wearing or for other purposes. This argument does not contradict the fact thatZakaahis obligatory on clothing which is kept as commercial commodities. That is becauseZakaahin this case is obligatory on the value of the clothing. Since lawful jewelry has rulings different from the clothing which is kept for wearing, how can we give clothing the same ruling of jewelry that the Prophet,sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, made a source for giving voluntary charity?
The answer is thatSharee‘ahtexts differentiated between them.
Therefore,Zakaahis not obligatory on jewelry unless it reaches theNisaab, which is twenty )golden(Dinaarsfor gold and two hundred )silver(Dirhamsfor silver. In the currency of Saudi Arabia, this is equal to 11 3/7 pounds of the gold currency available today, and equal to 56 Riyals of the silver currency. A Muslim who owns this amount of gold or silver, or banknotes, or commercial commodities equal to this amount of gold and silver must giveZakaahwhen oneHijriyear passes over them. There is noZakaahin what is less than that.
Note: The amount ofZakaahwhich is due on gold, silver and banknotes is 2.5 percent of the total amount. The same ruling applies toZakaahon the value of commercial commodities.