We reply as follows:

As for the hadith, “There is no zakah on jewelry” (1), it is weak and cannot serve as evidence, let alone be used to oppose the general purport of an authentic hadith. Moreover, those who cite it as proof do not themselves uphold what it entails. If we were to act upon its apparent meaning, there would be no zakah on jewelry whatsoever; yet they do not say this. Rather, they hold that zakah is due on jewelry prepared for rental or for expenditure. This means that they accept the hadith in one respect and abandon it in another—even assuming that the hadith were authentic.

As for the Prophet’s saying to the women on the day of Eid, “Give charity, even from your jewelry” (2), it does not indicate that zakah is not obligatory on jewelry. This is like saying to someone who has set aside wealth for expenses, and whose wealth has reached the niṣāb (minimum taxable threshold): “Give charity, even from what you have set aside for your expenses.” This does not indicate that zakah is not obligatory on that wealth.

As for what has been narrated from the five Companions, it cannot stand against the general hadiths narrated from the Prophet, especially since there is specific evidence on this issue: the hadith concerning the woman who was with her daughter. It is explicit on the matter. No one’s statement carries weight in the face of the statement of the Messenger of Allah. Moreover, these reports are contradicted by narrations from other Companions.

As for analogy, it is invalid for several reasons:

First: it stands in opposition to a textual proof, and every analogy that stands in opposition to a textual proof is invalid.

Second: it is an analogy with a relevant difference, for the basic ruling concerning gold and silver