is that zakah is obligatory, whereas the basic ruling concerning horses, slaves, and clothing is that zakah is not obligatory. So how can we analogize something for which zakah is the basic ruling to something for which the basic ruling is that no zakah is due?

Third: it is inconsistent. If a person has a slave prepared for hire, no zakah is due on him; if he has horses prepared for hire, no zakah is due on them; but if he has jewelry prepared for hire, zakah is due on it. Likewise, if he has jewelry set aside for expenses, zakah is due on it; but if he has furniture and the like set aside for expenses, selling some of it whenever he needs to, no zakah is due on it.

If he has clothes for personal use and then intends them for trade, no zakah is due on them according to the madhhab, unlike jewelry.

Thus, this analogy is invalid. Strangely, according to their view, no zakah is due on the jewelry of a woman who has prepared it for adornment, even though it is a luxury; yet zakah is due on the jewelry of a poor woman who has prepared it for her expenses. Sound judgment would dictate that zakah be due from the one who has prepared it for luxuries, not from the one who has prepared it for necessities.

As for their statement that jewelry is not intended for increase, the response is that gold and silver are not subject to the condition that they be intended for increase. The evidence for this is that if a person possesses dirhams or dinars which he has saved, neither trading nor buying with them, but rather spending from them, or has set them aside for marriage or the purchase of a house, zakah is still due on them, because it is obligatory on the wealth itself.

Objections to the proofs of those who hold zakah to be obligatory:

First: They said: An objection may be raised against your position: the Prophet’s saying, “There is no owner