“…of fire?’ She thereupon removed the two bangles and placed them before the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—saying, ‘They are for Allah and for His Messenger.’

Both of these reports are weak, Jābir’s narration in particular. The most decisive factor behind the jurists’ divergence is the ambiguous status of jewelry worn for adornment: does it resemble gold and silver bullion, whose first and foremost purpose is commercial exchange rather than personal use, or does it resemble ordinary merchandise, whose original purpose, by its very nature, is the opposite—personal benefit, not exchange? By ‘exchange’ I mean its being employed as a price or medium of payment.

Mālik’s ruling on jewelry that is rented out fluctuated: at times he likened it to jewelry worn for personal adornment, and at other times he likened it to bullion held for trade.

Regarding animals over which they differed, some disputes concern the species itself, others the particular category within a species.

1. Disagreement over the species: Horses. The majority maintain that no zakah is due on horses, whereas Abū Ḥanīfah held that if the horses are freely grazing and kept for breeding—meaning that both stallions and mares are present—then zakah is obligatory.

   The reason for their disagreement is the tension between analogy (qiyās) and textual evidence, and what is thought to be a conflict of one text with another.
   • The wording that indicates no zakah is due is the Prophet’s statement, peace be upon him: ‘A Muslim is not required to pay charity on his slave or on his horse.’
   • The analogy opposing this general wording is that freely grazing horses are animals intended for growth and reproduction, and therefore resemble camels and cattle.
   • The text thought to counter the foregoing generality is his saying—upon him be peace—when mentioning horses: ‘…and he did not neglect Allah’s right in their necks nor in their backs.’ Abū Ḥanīfah interpreted ‘Allah’s right’ here as zakah, applying to those horses that graze freely.

   Al-Qāḍī responded that this wording is more likely to be ambiguous than general and thus cannot be invoked as evidence for zakah. In this issue Abū Ḥanīfah’s two companions, Abū Yūsuf and Muḥammad, disagreed with him.

   An authentic report from ʿUmar—may Allah be pleased with him—relates that he used to collect charity on horses, though it was said that this was done with their owners’ consent.

2. Disagreement over the category: this concerns freely grazing camels, cattle, and sheep as opposed to animals of the same species that do not graze freely.