Home
Discover Islam
Quran Recitations
Lectures
Fatwa
Articles
Fiqh
E-Books
Women
Boys & Girls 
Hajj Rulings
Hajj Fatwas
If someone says, "What is the answer to the Hadeeth (narration) on which those who do not oblige Zakah (purifying alms) on jewelry base their argument?" The Hadeeth was narrated by Ibn Al-Jawzi 
on the authority of ‘Aafiyah ibn Ayyoob, from Al-Layth ibn Sa‘d, from Az-Zubayr, from Jaabir, may Allah be pleased with him, that the Prophet, 
, said: "There is no Zakah on jewelry." [Al-Bayhaqi in Ma‘rifat As-Sunan wal-Aathaar]
The answer comes in three points:
1- Al-Bayhaqi classified the Hadeeth as 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 authentic Hadeeths which oblige Zakah on jewelry, because it is very weak while they are authentic.
3- Supposing that this Hadeeth is as authentic as the other Hadeeths, it is safer to adhere to the Hadeeths which make Zakah on jewelry obligatory. In fact, what is safer is more entitled to be followed.
The Quranic verse and the four Hadeeths mentioned above clearly indicate that it is obligatory to give Zakah on 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 Allah be pleased with them, said that Zakah is given on jewelry.
● Scholars who did not oblige Zakah on jewelry draw as evidence what Al-Athram reported from Ahmad ibn Hanbal saying, "Five Companions did not make Zakah on jewelry obligatory: Anas ibn Maalik, Jaabir, Ibn ‘Umar, ‘Aa’ishah and Asmaa’, may Allah be pleased with them."
saying, "Five Companions did not make Zakah on jewelry obligatory: Anas ibn Maalik, Jaabir, Ibn ‘Umar, ‘Aa’ishah and Asmaa’, may Allah be pleased with them."The answer to this argument is that some of those Companions were reported to hold Zakah on jewelry as obligatory. Thus, supposing that all of them adopted one stance or that their final say on the issue was the non-obligation of Zakah on jewelry, other Companions opined otherwise. In case of dispute, Muslims are commanded to refer to the Quran and Sunnah, 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-Bukhari and Muslim] and that this Hadeeth serves as evidence of non-obligation of Zakah on jewelry, for if Zakah had 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 confirms Zakah on 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 of Zakah on his money.
● If someone asks, "What is the difference then between lawful jewelry and lawful clothing? If we made Zakah obligatory on the former, we should make it obligatory on the latter."
The answer is that the Sharee‘ah (Islamic legislation) differentiates between them. It made Zakah obligatory on gold and silver without exception, and there are even specific texts which obligate Zakah on the lawful jewelry which is worn. Clothing, however, resembles man's horse and slave about which the Prophet, sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, said: "There is no charity [Zakah] on the Muslim's slave or horse." [Al-Bukhari and Muslim] Therefore, if the clothing was kept for wearing, there would be no Zakah on them; if they were kept for trade, Zakah would 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 obligate Zakah on jewelry.
The answer is that it is not correct for the following reasons:
- It is an analogy which contradicts a Sharee‘ah text, and every analogy contradicting a text is invalid.
- In principle, there is no Zakah on clothing, and analogy would require that Zakah is obligatory on jewelry whether it is kept for wearing or other purposes, exactly as Zakah is not obligatory on clothing, whether they are kept for wearing or for other purposes. This argument does not contradict the fact that Zakah is obligatory on clothing which is kept as commercial commodities. That is because Zakah in 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, , made a source for giving voluntary charity?
, made a source for giving voluntary charity?The answer is that Sharee‘ah texts differentiated between them.
Therefore, Zakah is not obligatory on jewelry unless it reaches the Nisaab, which is twenty (golden) Dinaars for gold and two hundred (silver) Dirhams for 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 give Zakah when one Hijri year passes over them. There is no Zakah in what is less than that.
Note: The amount of Zakah which is due on gold, silver and banknotes is 2.5 percent of the total amount. The same ruling applies to Zakah on the value of commercial commodities.
