Second: even if we grant that riqqah and dinar refer specifically to coined silver and gold, the hadith merely mentions certain individual instances and categories of a general ruling whose ruling does not differ from that of the general category. This does not indicate restriction, just as if you were to say, “Honor the scholars,” then say, “Honor Zayd,” who is among the scholars; this would not indicate that he alone is to be honored. Thus, some texts state in general terms that zakah is obligatory on gold and silver, while others use the terms riqqah and dinar, which are among the individual instances of that general category. This therefore does not indicate restriction (1).

If it is said: What is the difference between permissible jewelry and permissible clothing, if we hold that zakah is obligatory on the former but not on the latter?

The response is that the Lawgiver differentiated between them: He made it obligatory on gold and silver without exception. Indeed, specific texts have been transmitted concerning its obligation on permissible jewelry that is worn, as mentioned previously. Clothing, however, is analogous to a horse and a servant kept for service, concerning which the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said: “No charity is due from a Muslim on his slave or his horse” (2). Thus, if clothing is for wearing,