Second: They argue that the hadith concerning the woman and her daughter cannot be used as evidence for two reasons.

The first reason: We do not know whether the nisab was reached or not, whereas you yourselves maintain that zakah is not obligatory on wealth below the nisab.

The second reason: How could he say, “Would you be pleased if Allah were to adorn you with two bracelets of fire because of them?” (1), when she was ignorant? An ignorant person is excused and is not threatened.

The scholars who hold that zakah is obligatory responded as follows:

As for the first reason, it has been answered in several ways:

The first response: Sufyan al-Thawri said: “It is to be combined with what she already possesses.” It is well known that a small amount of gold, when added to a larger amount, reaches the nisab.

The second response: They said: We hold zakah to be obligatory on jewelry, whether it reaches the nisab or not, based on the apparent meaning of this hadith.

The third response: One wording of the hadith states, “two thick bracelets,” and two thick bracelets reach the nisab. The other narrations are therefore interpreted in light of this narration, so that the condition of reaching the nisab is fulfilled.

As for the second reason—namely, that she was threatened with punishment despite being ignorant—they responded in two ways:

One of them is that the purpose is to establish the ruling without considering the ruling concerning this particular individual. This response is very profound: whoever withholds the zakah due on the two bracelets will be adorned with them on the Day of Resurrection as two bracelets of fire.