The second response is that the meaning is: “Would you be pleased for Allah to adorn you with two bracelets of fire because of them if you do not pay their zakah?” Thus, the hadith is understood in light of a condition already known from the Shariah: the threat applies to one who does not pay zakah; as for one who pays it, there is no threat upon her.

The first response—that what is intended is to establish the ruling without regard to this particular individual—is a beneficial principle. One example of this useful principle is that the Prophet ﷺ passed by two men in al-Baqi', one of whom was cupping the other, and the Prophet ﷺ said: “The cupper and the one being cupped have broken their fast.” (1)

Ibn al-Qayyim, may Allah have mercy on him, said that he raised an objection to his teacher, Shaykh al-Islam, may Allah have mercy on him: “How can we say that an ignorant person does not break his fast, when the Messenger ﷺ said, ‘The cupper and the one being cupped have broken their fast’?”

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, replied: “What is intended by this is to establish the ruling without regard to these two particular individuals. Once the ruling has been established, we then consider the particular individual and apply to him the conditions under which the implication of this ruling becomes binding.”

In truth, this is a beneficial principle for the student of knowledge, for the Shariah is not legislation for Zayd and Amr alone; rather, it is for the entire ummah, and its texts do not contradict one another.

There has been much disagreement concerning this issue—namely, the zakah of jewelry—and the disagreement has become apparent in recent times, when the people of Najd