zakat on jewellerygreenspun.com : LUSENET : Zakbt : One Thread
dear sir can you please tell me whether zakat on jewellery is paid on the cost that you bought it or on the current value of that piece of jewellery
please sir i would really appreciate it if i receive a prompt reply
-- sidra naqvi (firstname.lastname@example.org), November 21, 2001
Jewellery is that of which a woman adorns and beautifies herself with, of gold or silver, on her wrists, neck, ears or other parts of her body. There is no Zakat upon jewellery, whether gold, silver or other types of gems like pearls, rubies, chrysolites/peridots, carnelians (‘Aqiq) and other types of precious stones, whether the jewellery is of a small or large quantity or has reached the Nisab or exceeded it. There is no Zakat on all this for it is owned for use and women take it for adornment and beauty, and not for hoarding and trade. If the jewellery is for hoarding or trading, then there is Zakat on it. Al-Laith b. S’ad narrated from Abu Zubayr from Jabir from the Prophet _ who said: “There is no Zakat upon jewellery.” Amru b. Dinar said: “Jabir b. Abdullah was asked: ‘Is there Zakat upon jewellery?’ He said: ‘No’. It was said: ‘Even if they reach 10,000?’ He said: ‘Yes.’” Nafi’a narrated from ibn ‘Umar “that he used to marry off all his daughters for 10,000 and made 4,000 of that as jewellery. He said: ‘He did not give Zakat upon that.’” Abdur Rahman b. al-Qasim narrated from his father “that Aisha, the Prophet ’s wife, used to look after the orphan daughters of her brother in her house. They had jewellery and she did not give Zakat of their jewellery.” As for the Ahadith which are used as evidences by those who oblige Zakat upon jewellery, the terms Riqqa, ounces, silver and golden Dinars which came in the Ahadith obliging Zakat on gold and silver do not include jewellery. This is because these words are used in the Arabic language for Dirhams and Dinars of gold and silver that are engraved and circulated among the people; this is the currency which is taken as prices for things and payments for services and benefits unlike jewellery. If the wording of the Ahadith used the expression “if silver reaches such amount then it is due in it is so much”, then jewellery would have been covered by the word silver. However, the Ahadith used the words Riqqa, ounces, silver and golden Dinars, all of which are used for minted and coined gold and silver currency, so jewellery is not included. These Ahadith specify the general Hadith, “No owner of gold and silver will fail to render its due Zakat except that he will be struck with metal sheets on the Day of Judgement.”
As for the Hadith of Amru b. Shuaib which mentions: “A woman came to the Prophet _ _ along with her child with two gold bracelets in her hand. He said: ‘Do you give the Zakat upon these?’ She said: ‘No.’ He said: ‘Would you like that Allah makes them into bracelets of Fire?’” Abu Ubaid said of this Hadith: “We only know of it having been narrated in one way through a chain of narrators which people have criticised in the past and present. If the matter is like what is narrated, and it is reported from the Prophet _ , then it is likely to mean of the Zakat, the loan ‘Ariyya, as was interpreted by the scholars of whom we mention: Said b. al-Musayyib, Ash-Sh’abi, Al- Hassan and Qatada in their statement: “Its Zakat is its loan.” If Zakat on jewellery was obligatory like that on the Riqqa, it would have been like the rest of the Sadaqat that are common and known from the Prophet _ in the world through his letters and Sunnah. At-Tirmizi said: “There is nothing authentic in this chapter.” As for what came from Aisha of her saying: “There is nothing wrong in wearing jewellery if its Zakat is paid” and the Prophet ’s saying when he saw her wearing bracelets of silver i.e. large rings: “This is sufficient for you of Hellfire”, these can be explained like the Hadith of Amru b. Shuaib. This is especially because something came from Aisha that contradicts this. The son of her brother (i.e. nephew), Al-Qasim b. Muhammad, narrated: “I never saw Aisha commanding this of her women slaves nor her brother’s daughters (nieces).” She used to adorn her brother’s daughters with gold and silver and did not pay Zakat on it. The Hadith of Aisha regarding the rings of silver is narrated by Yahya b. Ayyub and he is weak. Furthermore, it is not possible for the weight of the rings to be the weight of silver’s Nisab such that the Zakat is obliged in it and a year had not passed on it. All of these emphasise the weakness of this Hadith. As for the Hadith of the Awdhah (anklets) narrated from Umm Salamah, it is narrated by way of Utab who is unknown.
As for the Hadith of Abdullah b. Amru mentioning that he used to give Zakat on his daughter’s jewellery, in its chain is the same criticism as the chain of the previously mentioned Hadith of Amru b. Shuaib.
Ibn ‘Umar, Jabir, Anas, Aisha and Asma all considered that there is no Zakat upon jewellery. The same was said by al-Qasim, Ash-Sh’abi, Qatada, Muhammad b. Ali, Malik, Ash-Shafii, Ahmad, Abu Ubaid, Ishaq and Abu Thawr.
This is all regarding jewellery used by a woman. If it is taken by a man for his own use, this is prohibited for him and he is obliged to pay Zakat. Whereas, if he takes them not for his own use but rather to give or lend to his wives, daughters or others then there is no Zakat upon them. This is because they are for a permitted use so there is no Zakat against him. If he takes them for business, then Zakat is obliged on them.
-- Mohammad (email@example.com), November 24, 2002.