(1) The implication of analogy is that zakah must either be due on all of them or not due on any of them. But if one says that zakah is due on jewelry prepared for rental, while garments prepared for rental are not subject to zakah, how can this analogy be valid? Our reference here to the Hanbalis indicates that other schools, such as the Shafi'is, maintain that jewelry prepared for rental is not subject to zakah, just as working camels and cattle are not subject to zakah. Working camels and cattle are those used for carrying loads or hired out. Thus, when they are used for rental, no zakah is due on them. The Shafi'is applied this principle consistently, saying: so long as no zakah is due on this jewelry, no zakah is due on it when it is prepared for rental. The Hanbalis, however, say that zakah is due on it when it is prepared for rental. We address them all by asking: how can you first analogize jewelry to clothing, then say that no zakah is due on clothing prepared for rental, whereas zakah is due on jewelry prepared for rental? (2) This is a contradiction. If a woman wears prohibited jewelry, such as a bracelet in the form of a snake, zakah is due on it; but if a man wears silk garments, no zakah is due on them. It should be said: the implication of analogy requires that zakah either be imposed on all of them or not imposed on any of them. They say: the difference is that zakah has been waived from gold and silver when they are used in a permissible, sanctioned manner. It is not waived in the case of prohibited use, because such use is not sanctioned; thus, preparing it for wear has no legal effect. We reply: you have now acknowledged that the basic rule concerning jewelry is that zakah is due. Where, then, is the evidence for waiving it? (3) Qinyah means keeping something as a possession or storing it.