even from a person’s necessities. A parallel example would be to say: “Give charity, even from the dirhams set aside for your own maintenance and that of your dependents.” This does not indicate that zakah is not obligatory on those dirhams (1).
If it is said: The wording of the hadith states: “With regard to silver, for every two hundred dirhams, one-quarter of a tenth is due” (2); and in the hadith of Ali, may Allah be pleased with him: “Nothing is due from you until you possess twenty dinars” (3). Now, riqqah means silver struck as coinage, and likewise a dinar is a coined currency. This proves that zakah is obligatory only on what is of this kind, whereas jewelry is not.
The response is twofold:
First, those who do not hold zakah on jewelry to be obligatory, yet cite such wording as evidence, do not confine the obligation of zakah to coined gold and silver. Rather, they hold it to be obligatory on bullion and the like, even when it has not been coined. This is inconsistent and arbitrary on their part: they include under it something which, according to their own claim, the wording does not encompass, while excluding something equivalent to what they have included with respect to whether the wording indicates it or not (4).
(1) We mentioned at the beginning of this treatise that we would briefly address the proofs advanced by those who hold that zakah is not obligatory. Here, they argue from the Prophet’s statement, peace be upon him: “Give charity, even from your jewelry.” They take the charity commanded here—which is voluntary—as their point of argument. The response is that the instruction to give charity from jewelry neither establishes nor negates the obligation of zakah on jewelry. It is like saying, “Give charity, even from your clothing”: this is an emphatic encouragement to give charity, even from one’s necessities. If one were to say, “Give charity from the silver coins set aside for your expenses,” would that mean that zakah is not due on those coins?
The answer is no, because zakah is obligatory on them on other grounds. Likewise, the obligation of zakah on this jewelry is established by evidence other than this proof. Thus, this proof establishes neither negation nor affirmation; it merely commands and encourages charity, even from what a person needs.
(2) Its source has been cited previously, p. 31.
(3) Its source has been cited previously, p. 97.
(4) What, in their view, is not included in the wording? The answer is tabr (bullion) and the like. They maintain that zakah is due on bullion, although they argue that zakah is not due on jewelry on the basis of the phrase, “in riqqah (silver currency) and dinars.” We therefore say: you have made zakah obligatory on bullion, even though, according to your own formulation, it is neither riqqah nor a dinar.