Fiqh Al Zakah by Dr. Yusuf al Qardawi

Gold and silver are useful precious metals. Many nations have used gold as money and a measure of value. Shari'ah considers gold and silver growing wealth by definition, and they are zakatable whether they are used in the form of coins or bullion, or even as ornaments and decorative materials. However, they carry a different ruling when they are used as women's ornament and jewelry. This chapter will have two sections, one devoted to zakah on money and another to zakah on jewelry and ornament.

Barter was the method of exchange for primitive tribes. Once society and trade grew, barter could not satisfy all transactions because of the difficulty of finding another party that wants to exchange exactly what the first party wants. God guided humanity to use money as a medium of exchange and a measure of value in order to facilitate exchanges and transactions.1 Man used many items as money until the rise of precious metals. Gold and silver dominated international and national trade for centuries because of the natural physical characteristics God implanted in them.2

When the Messenger (p) was receiving revelation, Arabs used these two metals as money. Gold was used in the form of the coin dinar, and silver in the form of the coin dirham. Dinars and dirhams came to Arabia from the neighboring kingdoms, gold mainly from the Byzantines and silver mainly from the Persian Empire. Dirhams had different weight, heavy and light, and so pre-Islamic Makkans used silver dirhams by weight and not by number, as if they were not minted. They had their weight measure system, which is composed of ratl (equals twelve uqiyyah), uqiyyah (equals 40

dirhams), nash (equals 20 dirhams or one-half uqiyyah), and nawat (equals five dirhams).3 The Prophet (p) said "The weight [measurement system] is that of the Makkans."4 He obligated zakah on dirhams and dinars, as we will see. This gave gold and silver recognized status as currency in Muslim lands. They have come to be subject to many Shari'ah rulings in transactions related to civil and commercial matters in addition to zakah and they are used as measures in determining many values, such as dowries, ransoms, and nisab in zakah.

The obligation of zakah on money is confirmed by the Qur'an, Sunnah, and ijma'.

God says, "and there are those who hoard gold and silver and spend it not in the way of God. Announce unto them a most grevious penalty on the day when heat will be produced out of that wealth in the fire of Hell and with it will be branded their foreheads, their flanks, and their backs. This is the treasure which ye hoarded for yourselves. Taste ye then the treasure ye buried."5 These two verses indicate--with a strong warning--that there is a right for God on gold and silver. The words "and do not spend it" refer to the monetary character of gold and silver, since money can be spent.

The verse says ''do not spend it" instead of "them" because "it" refers to money, while the pronoun "them" could have been used to refer to gold and silver. These verses indicated also that there is grevious penalty promised for two evil actions, hoarding and abstention from spending for the sake of God. No doubt non-payment of zakah is the most obvious sort of abstention from spending for the sake of God.

Sunnah gives some details of these verses, Muslim reports from Abu Hurairah that the Messenger (p) said "No one who owns gold or silver and does not pay their due, but will have his wealth on the Day of Resurrection made into sheets of fire, heated in the fire of Hell, and with it will be branded his forehead, his flanks, and his back. The moment they cool off they are heated again, during a day the length of which is fifty thousand years, until judgement is given to God's servants, and he will then be shown his way to the Garden or to the Fire."6 All this warning is for non-payment of dues on gold and silver. Another version of this saying provides the meaning of this due as zakah: "No one who owns a treasure and does not pay its zakah but will have it heated in the fire of Hell . . . ." etc.7 In the saying from Anas that gives the instructions of zakah that were ordained by God to His Messenger, as written to Anas by Abu Bakr when sent to Bahrain,8 "And on silver, in each two hundred dirhams, the due is onefourth or a tenth. If there are only one hundred and ninety dirhams, they are not zakatable unless the owner volunteers to pay." As for ijma', Muslims, unanimously agree throughout all generations that zakah is obligatory on these two currencies.

Money should always be circulating; hoarding money diffuses its usefulness and leads to stagnation in business, the spread of unemployment, and regression in economic activity in general. Hoarding can become epidemic sometimes, and it is feared by economists to the degree that some propose the issuance of currency that has a determined expiration date and thus cannot be hoarded. They call this kind of currency "melting money".9 Some Western economists experiment with another idea to discourage hoarding, by cutting off monthly vouchers from paper currency, in order to reduce its value and prevent its hoarding.10 These means aim at enhancing circulation and penalizing hoarding, but they are surrounded by complexities and practical difficulties; however, they all reaffirm the Islamic point of view against hoarding. By imposing a due of two-and-a-half percent every year, Islam encourages people to invest money , for otherwise zakah payments year after year will use up all the capital. Thus the Prophet (p) urged the guardians of orphans to invest the funds of orphans in order that they would not be consumed by zakah.l1 This urging comes for investment of the funds of orphans since it is expected that adults would not neglect to invest their own wealth, because of the inner impulse to be richer, while orphans do not have control over their own wealth.

There is unanimous agreement among Muslims that the rate of zakah on money is two and a half percent. The. author of al Mughni says, "I am aware of no dispute among scholars that zakah on gold and silver is one-fourth of a tenth." This is authentically reported from the Prophet (p): ''On, silver, one-fourth of a tenth is due."12 It is apparent that Shari'ah makes the rate of zakah low on money, because it is calculated on both principal and accumulated profit. This rate is much lower than the one-tenth or one-twentieth imposed on crops and fruits, but crops and fruits to land are like profit to capital. Zakah on fruits and crops is calculated only on the profit, while zakah on money is taken from the capital itself, whether it actually grows or not and whether it has made profit during the year or not.

Some non-specialized writers argue that the proceeds of zakah as regulated in Shari'ah may not be sufficient to satisfy all the complex needs of today's life, especially with changing economic circumstances, so there is a need for revising the regulations of zakah and possibly raising the rate of zakah on money.13

I reject this proposal on the following grounds:

1. It contradicts clear and authentic texts from the Sunnah of the Messenger of God and his Wise Successors. We are ordained to hold strongly to this Sunnah and are warned by God about the consequences of deviating from it. God says, "Then let those beware who withstand the Apostle's order, lest some trial befall them or a grevious penalty be inflicted on them."14

2. It is in opposition to the ijma of all Muslims throughout fourteen centuries, during which many social and economic changes took place and many internal and external political situations changed. Needs arose for additional funds and the state treasury emptied many times, but in spite of all that, not a single Muslim scholar suggested a change in the rate of zakah.

3. This ijma is supported by the fact that Muslim scholars have always thought of additional dues besides zakah . If the rate of zakah is changeable, why should they have brought about additional levies? The very discussion of additional taxes indicates that the rates of zakah are fixed.

4. Jurists accustomed to applying analogy, such as the Hanafites, argue that rates of zakah cannot be derived by analogy, because their determination comes only from the Legislator, and has been given and done with. If these rates cannot be derived by analogy, how could a rate fixed by texts and ijma' be changed?

5. Zakah is, before anything else, a religious obligation , fixed and eternal, one of the pillars of Islam, and one of its great institutions. Allowing its rates to change according to changing circumstances is equal to removing this sacred character of zakah and putting it in the hands of governments and rulers to tamper with. One time they may make it 20% and another time they may make it 30% or a progressive tax. This pillar of Islam symbolizes the unity of all Muslims by the fact that Muslims in all places under all governments are required to apply the same rates.

6. Moreover, if zakah rates are allowed to increase, they should also be allowed to decline or to he eliminated. If a time of prosperity comes to Muslim land with huge resources (such as oil), those who call for its increase today may then call for its reduction or complete elimination. Zakah loses its validity as a given worship and becomes a tool in the hands of the state.

7. The allowance of any change in the rates of zakah would pave the way for changes in other areas of Shari'ah. If today's society needs more resources, we can impose other taxes in addition to zakah, to the degree that is needed. We need not change zakah.

The agreed-upon saying states, "There is no sadaqah on anything less than five uqiyyah of silver currency."15 uqiyyah equals 40 dirhams, according to many texts and ijma, as quoted be al Nawawi.16 Thus five uqiyyah equals 200 dirhams. It seems, however, that silver currency was predominantly used by Arabs at the time of the Prophet (p),17 so the sayings determine nisab and rates on silver currency. These are not disputed by Muslim scholars.18

As for gold currency (dinar) we have no sayings determining its nisab, or at least not as strong and commonly known sayings as those about silver. Hence the nisab of gold is not agreed upon unanimously, but the great majority of scholars are of the opinion that nisab on gold is 20 dinars. It is reported from al Hasan al Basri once that it is 40 dinars, and once that it is 20 dinars.19 Nisab on gold is independent from that on silver, except according to Taus, who evaluates gold by silver. Hence, according to him, an amount of gold whose value is 200 dirhams is the nisab.19 A similar view is also reported from 'Ata al Zuhri, Sulaiman bin Harb, Ayub and al Sakhtiani.20

The opinion of the majority is supported by the following points:

1. A few sayings, none of the free from criticism, but when taken together are strengthened by each other, include (a) Ibn Majah and al Daraqutnii (p. 199) reporting from Ibn 'Umar and 'Aishah that the Prophet (p) used to collect half a dinar on each 20

dinars,21 (b) al Daraqutni (p. 199) reports from 'Amr bin shu'aib, from his father from his grandfather, from the Prophet (p), "There is no [obligated sadaqah] on any less than 20 mithqal. [dinar] of gold or 200 dirhams,"22 (c) Abu 'Ubaid--with his own chain-- reports from Muhammad bin 'Abd al Rahman al Ansari, a Follower, that in the letter of the Messenger of God (p) and in the letter of 'Umar on sadaqah it is written, "From gold, nothing must be taken until it reaches 20 dinars. Once it is 20 dinars, then on it there is one half dinar due,"23 (d) Abu Daud reports from 'Ali, linked up to the Prophet, "If you have 200 dirhams, and a year passes on them, there must be five dirhams [taken as zakah]. You are not obligated to pay anything [on gold] until you have 20 dinars. If you have 20 dinars and a year passes on them, there is a half dinar due on it [as zakah]." Some hafizes [hadith critics] grade this good. Al Daraqutni considers it correct when it ends at 'Ali.24

Those jurists who view the quantities as given by Shari'ah and not deducted through reasoning, like the Hanafites,25 say, "If it is authentically reported from 'Ali that the nisab of gold is 20 dinars, then this has the same authority as if it were linked up to the Prophet (p)", because 'Ali would not say it from his own opinion.

2. It is known historically that, at the time of the Prophet (p), one dinar equalled ten dirhams.26

3. Muslims since the time of the Companions practiced zakah on gold on the basis of this nisab, by which an ijma' has been established after the era of al Hasan [who had a different view according to a version of a report from him]. From the time of the Companions we have a report from Anas bin Malik that "I was commissioned by 'Umar to collect sadaqah. He instructed me to take from each 20 dinars one-half a dinar, and from more than 20 at the rate of one dirham from each four dinars."27 'Ali says, "There is nothing due on less than 20 dinars, on 20 dinars there is one-half dinar due, and on 40 dinars there is one dinar due."28 This is part of the saying that is linked up to the Prophet by some narrators. Ibrahim al Nakha'e says, "The wife of Ibn Mas'ud has a necklace that contained 20 mithqal. Her husband instructed her to give five dirhams as its zakah."28 That on each 20 dinars there is due one-half dinar is also reported from leading Followers, such as al Sha'bi, Ibn Sirin, Ibrahim, al Hasan, al Hakam bin 'Utbah, and 'Umar bin 'Abd al 'Aziz.29 Abu 'Ubaid and Ibn Hazm report from Zuraiq bin Habban, "'Umar bin 'Abd al 'Aziz wrote me to look for Muslims who pass by you, and take out of their apparent wealth and what they conduct of trade, one dinar out of each 40 dinars, and apply the same proportion for what is less than that until you reach the amount of 20 dinars, Once it is less than 20 dinars, even by one-third of a dinar, leave it intact."30

On this estimation of snisab, zakah application stabilized and has continued since the time of 'Umar bin 'Abd al 'Aziz. No variation or dispute is mentioned, and some leading jurists consider this a virtual unanimity. Malik relies on such an established practice, especially among Madinans. In affirming this ruling is his al Muwatta', Malik writes, "The undisputed Sunnah, in my opinion, in that zakah is obligatory on 20 dinars of gold as it is on 200 dirhams."31 Al Shafi'i in al Umm says, "I know of no controversy that there is no sadaqah on gold until it reaches 20 dinars and once it does, then it is zakatable,"32 Abu 'Ubaid comments in al Amwal on the saying from 'Amr bin Shu'aib that nisab on gold is 20 mithqal, "There is no controversy about this among all Muslims.

If a person owns at the beginning of a year what is zakatable, i.e. 200 dirhams, 20

dinars, five camels, 30 cows, or 40 sheep, and continues to own it until the end of the year, sadaqah. is obligatory on him indisputably among all people."33 'Iyad says, "Ijma' is relied upon in determining the nisab of gold, although a disregarded deviant view is reported."34

Many leading scholars have established that if all Muslims embrace a saying, even if it were criticized from the point of view of the chain, this embracing raises it to the degree of acceptance, as in the case of the saying, "There must be no last will to an heir." This principle is supported by al Shafi'i, al Hafiz Ibn 'Abd al Barr, Ibn al Humam, Ibn Hajar, Ibn al Qayyim, and many others. On this ground we notice that al Tirmidhi may sometimes report a saying about which he expresses doubt or weakness, with the qualifier that it is accepted among scholars. Also, Ibn 'Abd al Barr says that a saying sometimes is correct because scholars espouse it, or that the people's ijma' on the meaning of a saying renders any criticism of its chain obsolete.35

However, this principle must not be applied indiscriminately. I think it is only applicable if the saying is not extremely weak, if the acceptance is expressed by the generation of the Companions and Followers, and not only by later generations, and lastly, if the saying does not stand in opposition to a well established principle or ruling in Shari'ah. These three conditions are satisfied in the case on hand about nisab of gold.

The chains of narrators in the above mentioned sayings are close to being accepted.

Companions and Followers practiced zakah on gold in accordance with the meaning of these sayings, and there is no ruling in Shari'ah that opposes them. In fact there is a ruling which supports their meaning, that 20 dinars equal 200 dirhams.

Some argue that al Hasan's opinion according to one version of the report from him-- that nisab is 40 dinars, may be supported by the saying from 'Amr bin Hazm that the Prophet (p) wrote for him. That letter continues, after the mention of the nisab of silver, "and on each 40 dinars there is due one dinar."36 One can easily disprove this argument by the very text cited, which talks obviously about the rate of zakah and not about nisab.

It is essential in order to complete the picture of zakah on gold and silver to find out how much, exactly, is the dirham of silver and the dinar of gold worth today. We can then determine the current equivalent of nisab. Many scholars early and late, have attempted to find out the exact quantity of the dirham and dinar. They include Abu 'Ubaid in al Amwal,37 al Baladhari in Futuh al Buldan,38 al Khattabi in Ma'alim al Sunan39, al Mawardi in al Ahkam al Sultaniyah,40 al Nawawi in al Majmu'41, al Maqrizi in Ancient Islamic Currencies,42 Ibn Khaldun in the Introduction,43 and several others.

Ibn Khaldun summarizes, "One must realize that it is unanimously agreed upon since the early ages of Islam, the era of the Companions and Followers, that the dirham in Shari'ah is that ten of which equal in weight seven mithqal of gold. Uqiyyah is 30

dirhams. Consequently, the weight of a dirham of silver equals seven-tenths the weight of a dinar of gold. One dinar of pure gold equals 72 grains of rye of average weight; thus, one dirham weighs fifty-five grains. All these measures are affirmed by unanimous agreement." The dinar [which is the same as a mithqal] did not change from the era before Islam.

However, Muslim currencies, at the above mentioned weights, were used in a wide area, since the time of Ummayad caliph 'Abd al Malik bin Marwan. At this time, there were different dirhams with different weights, and he unified them, in accordance with the above ratios. Changes were incorporated in later minting of dirhams and dinars after 'Abd al Malik in several countries, so the above-cited definition by Ibn Khaldun became only theoretical, and people had to find out the proportion between their local currencies and those definitions in determining nisab and other Shari'ah quantities.

The Prophet (p) guides us to a very useful practice, in unifying measures and quantities all over the country. He said, "Weight measures are those used by Makkans, and volume measures are those used by Madinans." Makkans were people of trade, accustomed circulating dinars and dirhams by weight, and they wore more precise in their weight measurements. Madinans were cultivators of crops and fruits, and they were more accurate in using volume measures, such as al Wasq, al Sa', and al mudd. It was hoped that all Muslim countries would unify and standardize their measure of weight and volume, in accordance with those of the Makkans, and Madinans, in order to make the application of quantities mentioned in Shari'ah easier. Unfortunately, Muslims have not given sufficient attention to that useful directive of the Prophet (p). They have differences in their measures of weight and volume from one country to the other, and we came to see ratl defined differently in Baghdad, Madinah, Egypt, and Syria, the same way the dirham and dinar were given different weights in different countries. All this makes our task of finding the exact equivalent of the dirham and the dinar today even more difficult. Those grains that were used in defining the dirham and the dinar are not themselves precise, which adds yet another difficulty to the problem on hand.

Yet we must determine the exact weight of the dirham and the dinar in order to define nisab of gold and silver in our days.

'Abd al Rahman Fahmy, secretary of the Islamic Art Museum in Cairo, after a thorough examination of the tools used for minting, and many historical coins, comes up with the estimation that a dirham equals 3.104 grams of silver in his book on coin minting in the early ages of Islam.44 Ibn 'Abidin, after narrating several views of the Hanafites, comes up with a conclusion that it is very difficult to find an agreement on the exact weights of dirhams and dinars.45 A more recent researcher, using al Maqrizi's writings and comparing Greek and Islamic weights for the dirham and dinar, concludes that the dirham should be 3.12 grams of silver, which is close to Fahmy's figure.46 But it seems that the latter study does not distinguish between the dirham that used to be a unit of weight and the dirham that was used as a unit of silver currency. Al Maqrizi himself quotes from al Khattabi that there used to be several dirhams, one a weight unit and another a currency unit.47 Some other studies depend on actually weighing coins that were saved from the early Islamic eras and preserved in museums throughout the world.

It seems, however, that the mithqal, which is the same as the dinar, is more constant and stable than the dirham. If we can determine the weight of a mithqal, then the weight of a dirham can easily be derived. Fortunately, several dinars that were minted at the time of 'Abd al Malik have been preserved. Some European scholars and the Egyptian 'Ali Basha Mubarak,48 in separate studies, take the weight of several Islamic dinars that exist in London, Paris, Madrid, and Berlin. They come to the conclusion that the dinar of 'Abd al Malik weighed 4.25 grams. The Encyclopedia of Islam cites this as the same weight of the Byzantine dinar.49 Thus the dirham would be 4.25 x 7/10 = 2.975 grams.50

This is supported by many contemporary researchers, Arab and European,51 including the Orientalist Zembaro, who writes in the Encyclopedia of Islam, Arabic translation, vol. 9, p. 226, under the title "Dirham and Dinar," that "Historians differ greatly on the exact weight of the dirham and dinar. But they agree that ten dirhams equal seven dinars, which is the same as seven mithqal. The mithqal of the of the Makkans equals 4.25 grams. This means that a dirham is 2.97 grams, which coincides with the weight of coins minted at the time of al Muqtadir (the years 295-320 H / 903-932 AD) discovered by Roger in al Fayum, Egypt. It seems that 'Umar was the first to stabilize the legal weight of the dirham, and later 'Abd al Mllik unified all coins on that legal weight, 2.97

grams." Zembaro continues, "Historians are unanimously of the opinion that 'Abd al Malik in his currency reform did not alter the weights of gold coins. The weight of gold coins can easily be determined by weighing the existing dinars in museums. The exact weight of the dinar is 4.25 grams. This is also equal to the actual weight of the Byzantine dinar." It seems that the survey of preserved coins is the most accurate means of determining the exact weight of the dinar and the dirham. The nisab of silver must then be 200 x 2.975 = 595 grams, and the nisab of gold should be 20 x 4.25 = 85 grams of gold.

Paper currency is now predominantly used in transactions in all countries, and gold and silver have disappeared from circulation as currencies. What is, then the nisab of paper money? Is it that of silver or gold? It is apparent that 20 dinar of gold (85 grams)

and 200 dirhams of silver (595 grams) are no longer equal in value to each other as they were at the time of the Prophet (p).

It is expected that since this is a matter of human reasoning, some scholars will be inclined to consider the nisab of silver most appropriate for non-metal money because it is determined explicitly by Sunnah and ijma', and it is the smaller amount of the two in today's value, so using it as nisab would be of more benefit to the poor. This is perhaps why it is commonly used in countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the gulf states, India, and Pakistan.52 Other scholars tend to consider the nisab of gold more appropriate because the value of gold did not change through the centuries as much as did the value or silver.53 Scholars favoring gold nisab include the late Abu Zahrah, Khallaf, and Hasan.54 This view can be supported by comparing nisab on gold with nisab on camels, sheep, and crops, because one finds that under today's prices, the nisab of gold is more comparable to nisab on other items of wealth than the nisab of silver. Five camels or 40

sheep are a value that is very close to 85 grams of gold, while the 595 grams of silver may not equal the price of one camel. Waliyullah al Dahlawi in his Hujjat Allah al Balighah, says, "Nisab on silver was estimated at five uqiyyah because that was sufficient for the smallest household to live on for one year, under reasonable prices and with average dietary habits."55 Can we find any country today in which the value of 595

grams of silver would be sufficient for one year's expenses for a small household? In fact, that much silver would hardly be sufficient for one month or even one week. It is much better to determine the nisab on money today at the equivalent of that on gold, i.e.

the value of 85 grams of gold, because doing it otherwise would inflict great injustice on zakah payers.

The value of money is not fixed; it goes up and down from time to time in accordance with many variables. The real value of money is its purchasing power,56 and the only reason paper currency could succeed was because it has purchasing power. We noted that silver money decreased in value to the extent that made silver nisab extremely low, compared to nisab on other items of wealth. That is the reason I prefer to use the equivalent of the nisab on gold for paper money. What would happen if the value of gold declined drastically? Can we discover a standard and stable measurement that can be used as a nisab for money? Some may look to nisabs applicable on other items, such as animals, crops, or fruits, whose value may be more stable than that of money.

The immediate observation on nisab of crops (five wasq) is that its current value is very low in relation to nisab on livestock. This may be explained by the following points: First, the bounty of God is more apparent in agriculture, where the human role is relatively less than in generating other forms of wealth. God says, "that they may enjoy the fruits of this artistry. It was not their hands that made this; will they not then give thanks?"57 Second, humanity cannot survive without what comes out of the soil as crops and fruits the way they can do without animals for food. Nisab on crops is made low in order to provide larger proceeds of zakah to benefit the needy. Third, crops and fruits are to land as profit is to capital. While zakah on cows, camels, and sheep is obligated on the capital and profit together, zakah on crops and fruits is only taken from the profit.

To compensate for that difference, nisab is made low and the zakah rate is made high.

If nisab on crops is not adequate approximation, then the nisab on livestock may be another alternative. To start with, the nisab on cows must be disregarded because it is not obligated by a clear-cut text. Nisab on camels and sheep are obligated in noncontroversial texts and are confirmed by ijma'. Can we take the value of five camels or 40 sheep as the nisab on money?

To answer this question we must first consider whether the nisab of camels and sheep equalled the nisab of silver money at the time of the Prophet (p). A leading scholar, al Sarakhsi, in al Mabsut, argues that the answer to this question is affirmative.

A one-year-old she-camel used to be valued at about 40 dirhams, and one sheep at five dirhams. Thus, five camels should equal 200 dirhams of silver.58 But we mentioned earlier that Ibn al Humam in al Fath and Ibn Nujaim in al Bahr both critically investigate the argument of the author of al Mabsut. They contrast it with a saying reported in the correct collection of al Bukhari, which indicates that the difference in value of one year of age in camel is estimated by the Messenger (p) at 2 sheep or 20

dirhams. This is an explicit text that contradicts the calculation of Sarakhsi.59 According to this authentic saying, 40 sheep equalled at the time of the Prophet (p) 400 dirhams, that is, twice as much as the nisab of silver money.

It seems, however, that the nisab of silver was intentionally made lower than nisab of livestock for a special reason in Shari'ah. Owning money enables the owner to select from a wide range of uses, certainly many more choices than owning camels or sheep presents. Money is a liquid asset, while camels and sheep are not. Holding on to money for one full year, despite all temptations to spend it, is more of an indication of richness and ability to save than retaining livestock for a year. There is an implication, especially according to Hanafites, who even make it an explicit condition, that this money is above and beyond the basic needs of the owner. These reasons may have been considered by the Legislator in determining nisab of money as below that of livestock.

Thus, if we decide to determine a nisab for paper money that can be stabilized and used as a standard when the purchasing power of money drastically varies, this nisab should be equal to one-half the value of five camels or forty sheep in an average country. I suggest an average country in order to avoid the two extremes, lands where these two animals are very expensive, and lands where they are very cheap.

Paper money is fiat money, printed by the government or a government-authorized body and circulated among people for use in their transactions. This kind of money is commonly used all over the world, via which many national and international transactions take place. Paper money is used as a means of exchange, a store of value, a measure of future values, and a means of evaluating financial transactions.60

Paper money evolved through time from obligatory convertibility to nonconvertibility.

In its early stage, paper money took the form of I.O.U's issued by banks, that guaranteed their substitution for fixed amount of gold or silver. Banks were obliged to convert these I.O.U.'s into gold or silver on demand. As time went on, the banking machinery was able to influence the government and gain permission to hold only partial reserves of gold and silver against issued I.O.U.'s. Governments themselves went into the business of producing paper money because it seemed lucrative. At first governments issued paper money on partial precious metal reserves to the system of government authorizations given to central banks to issue a certain quantity of paper money. Thus we entered the phase of non-convertibility, where national currencies become compulsory and non-convertible to gold or silver within the borders of each country.61

Obviously, we do not expect to find any opinion about the zakatability of paper money in the early generations of Islam because paper money is an invention of the last few centuries. Contemporary scholars look at this money from different angles and express different opinion about its zakatability. Shaikh 'Alaish, a Malakite in Egypt, says paper money is unlike dinars and dirhams and consequently not zakatable.62 Some Shafi'ites add a condition for the zakatability of paper money, the actual conversion of paper money into gold and silver.63 The group of scholars who authored the book al Fiqh 'ala al Madhahib al Arba'ah write:64

1. Shafi'ites consider paper money to be drafts representing debts of the issuing banks. Since the bank is fully capable of payment, the rules of zakah on debts apply.

This draft is zakatable.

2. Hanafites consider paper money to be claims on the bank that circulate among individuals. They are zakatable.

3. Malikites find in these bank notes a means of exchange, representing gold and silver, convertible into these metals on demand. They are zakatable 4. Hanbalites consider paper currency not zakatable until it is converted into gold or silver, and then the conditions of zakatability of gold and silver apply.

It is apparent that all these views are based on the principle of obligatory convertibility, whereas the latest development in paper currency makes it nonconvertible at all, which means that these views, even those that count paper currency zakatable, should be revised according to this reality.

We should recognize the fact that paper currency is now the backbone of transactions. Gold and silver are used only exceptionally. Paper currency, issued and guaranteed by the state, is the measure of current and future values. Laws provide for its acceptability and enforce its non-convertibility. Paper money is used to perform all the activities and functions of monetary gold and silver. It is true, however, that the precious metals have value of their own, which may at times be different from their monetary value, a value that is determined by the supply and demand for these two metals, merely on the grounds of their industrial and commercial value. It is imposed on gold and silver in consideration of their characteristics as growing assets used as a measure of value.

That is perhaps why gold and silver are usually called in jurist literature "the values" or "the two currencies." It is not fair or acceptable for anyone to claim that some schools of thought do not consider paper money tzakatable or to attribute such a owing to the schools of Ahmad, Malik, or al Shafi'i, simply because paper money is a new invention and was not in existence at the time of these leading scholars.

One should feel proud of what is written by the late scholar, Muhammad Hasanain Makhluf al 'Adawi in his booklet titled al Tibyan fi Zakat al Athman. He comments on those who consider paper currency as representing bank debts:

It is obvious that there are essential differences between paper currency and I.O.U.'s.

I.O.U.'s are not growing assets. Paper currency is a growing asset, used for obtaining goods and services. zakatability of debts is based on the ability of debtors to pay back, knowing that debts do not grow, while the zakatability of money is derived from its use as a means of exchange. The fact that paper currency is not any kind of debt known to jurists means it must be zakatable because it is completely substitutable for other wealth. If we look at paper currency, regardless of any consideration of reserves, we find in it a measure of value. Paper money is perhaps the only measure of present and future values in most countries, especially with the government taking full responsibility for issuance.

As such, paper currency is similar to gold and silver, and it is zakatable because the reason for the zakatability of gold and silver is their use as measures of value.

Paper money is zakatable on four rounds: (1) It represents funds deposited in the bank, which is similar to present disposable assets, (2) it represents the stock of gold or silver in the vaults of the bank, (3) it is a debt on the bank, which is fully capable of payment, and (4) it is a measure of value acceptable in transactions, so it is also zakatable like coins and other things used as currency.

This last consideration of Shaikh al Makhluf is, in my opinion, the most relevant one today, because of the prevalence of non-convertability of paper currency. In the early use of paper currency, people differed because of its vagueness and unknown future,65

but now paper money has become well-established, so we must be certain about its zakatability. Besides, money is anything used as a measure of value and a means of exchange, regardless of what material it is made from. This form of money is used for all the monetary functions of gold and silver as known in Shari'ah and must likewise be zakatable.

Four conditions are required for the zakatability of money:

1. Nisab The first condition is that the amount of money should be at least equal to nisab.

Anything that is below nisab is exempted from zakah, since the owner is not considered rich. nisab on gold is the equivalent of 85 grams of pure gold, which equals 20 dinar.

On silver, nisab is 595 grams, which is equal to the 200 dirhams mentioned in the saying, and nisab on paper currency was discussed in the previous subsection.

Is it necessary that the owner be one person?

Take the example of a partnership or a corporation, in which the owners are several individuals and the company has cash assets of more than nisab, but the share of each partner of the cash money is lass than nisab. According to Abu Hanifah and Malik, partners are zakatable only if the share of each one alone is nisab or more. Al Shafi'i treats this common property as one unit and considers it zakatable if the total is at least nisab. The reason for this difference in opinion is the general terminology of the saying of the Prophet (p), "On that which is lass than five uqiyyah there is no sadaqah due." This text leaves undetermined whether these five uqiyyah (200 dirham) belong to one owner or more, but I may add that the very reason for which nisab is a condition of zakah is to exempt owners of small quantities. This may indicate that nisab should perhaps be applied to one owner, since otherwise it loses its virtue.

Al Shafi'i look at the similarity between common property in a partnership and mixing cattle together in grazing, but here again the same difference in views appears with respect to the effect of mixing cattle in grazing.67 The majority's view is based on the assumption that since zakah is an obligation on the rich only, a partnership may contain some poor partners, and why should these poor fellows become azakatable simply because of their association with the rich? On the other hand, al Shafi'i's view appears to be simpler in application in a time when corporations have become of major importance in the business world. However, it could be suggested that part of the proceeds of zakah taken from corporations be distributed among the poor shareholders or partners of that corporation.68

2. The passage of a year The second condition is that a full lunar year must have passed on the ownership of nisab. zakah on money is a yearly obligation, and cannot be imposed at shorter intervals.

Hanafites require that nisab at least exist at the beginning and end of the year. If the amount of money owned declines from nisab during the year, and increases again at the year's end, zakatability is not affected.69 The other three schools of jurisprudence require that nisab stay in ownership during the whole year. They argue that the Prophet's saying, "There is no zakah on an asset until a year passes on It."70 Implies that the year should pass on it all and it is not sufficient that the amount of nisab exist only at the beginning and end of the year.71

All this applies on money as a stock asset. Earned money, such as salaries, wages, awards, professional income, and the rental proceeds of leased buildings or cars, are all disputed. The majority of jurists require that a year must pass on every amount of money, stock or flow, for zakah to be obligatory. Abu Hanifah suggests adding the flow to the stock and making zakah due on the total at the end of the year that started on the stock. An exception is made in the case where the flow of cash is a substitution for an asset whose zakah was already paid.72 It is authentically reported from some Companions that such flow of money is zakatable at the time of its receipt. We shall study this issue in detail in chapter nine.

3. Money should be free of debt The third condition is that the owned nisab must be free of any debt whose liability would reduce the amount of money to below nisab. Debts that prevent zakatability are those that prevent liability toward other human beings, including personal debts and past due zakah,73 while debts that belong to God are not deductible, such as the cost of making pilgrimage.74 According to some scholars, deferred debts do not prevent the zakatability of present sums of money.75 Al Nawawi summarizes the Shafi'ite view, "If debts prevent zakatability, then debts due to God and debts due to others should be treated the same.76

4. Excess above basic needs Some leading Hanafite jurists require that nisab be counted only above the satisfaction of basic needs of the owners. According to Ibn Malik,77 basic needs are those that prevent the destruction of a person and his dependents; such as food, shelter, defence tools, clothes that protect from cold and heat, money to pay back debts, furniture, utensils, basic transportation, and books of knowledgs. According to Hanafites, ignorance and demoralization are like personal destruction.78 If a person owns an amount of money that is above nisab but needs it for any of the above expenses, he or she is not considered zakatable79 on the grounds that this person is not rich and zakah is collected only from the rich. The Prophet (p) proclaims that "There is no sadaqah except out of richness," and "Start with those whom you support."

In order to complete our study of zakah on gold and silver, we must understand zakah on utensils, ornaments, decorative objective, statuery, and men and women's jewelry made of gold and silver.

It is not disputed among Muslim scholars that whenever gold and silver are used in a forbidden manner they are subject to zakah. Authentic and correct sayings are reported which forbid the use of gold and silver as kitchen and dining utensils because that is a feature of a lavish and ostentatious way of living and constitutes a form of hoarding.80

The author of al Mughni explains, "Whatever is prohibited for use is also prohibited for decoration," no matter whether such utensils and decorative objects are owned by men or women. Women's jewelry is allowed on the grounds that women wear it for their husbands. This need cannot be extended to utensils and other ornaments. Additionally, statues are prohibited regardless of the metal or stone they are made from. If they are made of gold or silver, the grounds for their prohibition is doubled. Ibn Qudamah adds, "Once this is realized, ornaments and utensils are indisputably zakatable, if they reach nisab either alone or when added to other owned gold and silver."82 The author of al Mughni attributes an opinion to some Hanbalites that the market value of such items should be considered and not only their weight, because of the high artistic value incorporated in them.83

Men are forbidden to wear jewelry made of gold, silver, or any other substance, except for a plain silver ring which is permissible.84 Men's jewelry is thus subject to zakah if it reaches nisab, because the use of jewelry by men is not considered a satisfaction of a natural need like that of women.85 Zakah is obligated on men's jewelry as a reminder of the error of owning and of the need to put its value back into productive use. As for the use of gold by men, it is prohibited completely, except for such necessities as its use as caps for teeth, tooth filling, or as a substitute for a broken nose or a cut ear.

Abu Daud reports from 'Abd al Rahman bin Tarafah that "the nose of his grandfather, 'Arfajah bin Sa'd, was severed the day of al Kilab. He got an artificial nose made of silver, but it got rotten and smelly. The Prophet ordered him to get a gold nose." Ahmad says, "It is all right in cases of necessity to tie the teeth with gold thread, if it is feared the teeth may fall out." Any other use of gold by men is forbidden and is subject to zakah. We should recognize, however, that it is preferred to consider value and not only weight in the case of men's jewelry, because of the value added by the artistic labor. Once the value of this jewelry reaches the equivalent of 85 grams of gold, it becomes zakatable.

Women's jewelry made of other than gold and silver, such as pearls, diamonds, and other precious stones and metals are not zakatable, because they are designated for personal and lawful use by women, as determined by God, "And that ye may extract therefrom ornaments to wear,"86 and are not considered growing assets. Some leading Shi'ite scholars of Ahl al Bait disagree and consider any women's jewelry that reaches nisab in value is subject to zakah on the grounds that are jewels valuable items of wealth, and God says, "Out of their wealth take a sadaqah." They indicate that the words "their wealth" in this verse are in the plural, attributed to Muslims, and the general implication of the verse means take from the wealth of each one of them.

Women's jewels, precious stones, and metals are items of wealth included in this general meaning.87 The majority of scholars argue that even if we accept the generality of the verse, we must recognize that Sunnah restricts the meaning of the verse to only growing wealth or wealth with growth potential. Thus, actual or potential growth is the reason for zakatability and not the precious nature of the item.88 These jewels are usually obtained for personal ornamentation and not for growth or investment, as long as they are not kept for the purpose of hoarding wealth.

In the letter on sadaqat sent by the Prophet (p) there is no reference to women's gold and silver jewelry, nor do we have any authentic, explicit texts which obligate zakah or exempt it on this jewelry. All we have is a few sayings whose authenticity and indications are controversial.89 The reason for the differences in opinion is that some scholars take into consideration the metal of which jewelry is made. Gold and silver are both zakatable as money, so these scholars consider gold and silver jewelry also zakatable. Other scholars consider the labor involved and the industrial process required to make jewelry and transform the metal from its monetary nature into a commodity ready for personal use that satisfies a natural need of women. Thus jewelry is similar to cloths furniture, and other personal objects that are unanimously exempt from zakah.

According to these scholars, women's jewelry is not zakatable. These rulings apply only to lawful jewelry. Forbidden jewelry is unanimously zakatable. Accordingly, there are two groups of scholars, those who consider jewelry zakatable exactly like money, and those who consider them non-zakatable or zakatable within certain restrictions.

Al Baihaqi and others report from 'Alqamah the wife of Ibn Mas'ud asked him about her jewels. He replied, "If they reach 200 dirhams, they are zakatable." She said, "May I spend their zakah on my [orphaned] nephew whose guardian I am?" "Yes," he answered. Al Baihaqi comments, "This is also narrated and linked up to the Prophet (p), but it is unsupported."90 He also reports from Shu'aib bin Yasar that 'Umar wrote Abu Musa to90 "Instruct Muslim women in your area to pay zakah on their ornaments." But this is not authentically reported from 'Umar.91 Ibn Abi Shaibah quotes al Hasan as saying, "I know that none of the [four] Successors said that ornaments are zakatable."92

Al Baihaqi reports from 'A'ishah, "It is all right to wear jewelry if its zakah is paid,"93

But we have on hand a correct report from 'A'ishah contradicting this, as will be seen later. It is reported that 'Abd Allah bin 'Amr used to write his treasurer Salim instructions to pay zakah on the ornaments of his daughters every year.94 Abu 'Ubaid reports from him that he gave his three daughters ornaments worth six thousand dinars.

He used to send his slave Jalid every year to pay their zakah.95

The chains of all the above reports are controversial. Abu 'Ubaid comments, "We have nothing authentic about zakah on ornaments from any of the Companions except from Ibn Mas'ud.96 Ibn Hazm says "The report of Ibn Mas'ud is topmost in its authenticity."97 Among those who believe that ornaments are zakatable are Sa'id bin Musayyib, Sa'ad bin Jubair, 'Ata, Mujahid, 'Abd Allah bin Shaddad, Jabir bin Zaid, Ibn Shabrumah, Maimun bin Mahran, al Zuhri, al Thawri, Abu Hanifah, and his disciples, al Awza'i and al Hasan bin Hay.98

1. The general implication of the verse, "and there are those who hoard gold and silver and spend it not in the way of God. Announce unto them a most grevious penalty." Gold and silver mentioned in this verse include that which is used in women's ornaments as much as it includes money and bullion. Consequently, unless zakah is paid, the owner will be branded with its heat on the Day of Resurrection.

2. The general meaning of the sayings of the Prophet (p), "On silver, one-fourth of one-tenth is obligated; no sadaqah is required on what is less than five uqiyyah." This implies that silver is zakatable once it reaches five uqiyyah, as do the general texts of zakah on gold, such as "There is no owner of gold that does not pay its zakah . . . etc.

3. There are a few sayings about zakah on ornaments in particular that are considered correct by some leading scholars. Among these sayings are the following:

(a) Abu Daud reports from 'Amr bin Shu'aib from his father from his grandfather, that a women99 with her daughter came to the Prophet (p). On the wrist of her daughter were two thick bracelets of gold. the Prophet asked, "Do you give zakah on this? She replied "No." "Does it please you for God to embrace you with two bracelets of fire on the Day of Resurrection?" he warned. The narrator says, "She took them off and tossed them to the Prophet (p), saying, They belong to God and His Messenger."100

(b) Abu Daud, al Daraqutni, al Hakim, and al Baihaqi report from 'A'ishah that "The Messenger of God (p) entered my room and found in my hand a few rings of silver. He said, A'ishah, what is this?' I said, 'I made them in order to use them as ornament [to please you] O Messenger of God.' He said, Do you pay their zakah?' I answered 'No,' or negatively. He said, 'That would be enough for you of the fire,'101

(c) Abu Daud and others report from Umm Salamah, "I used to wear some ornaments of gold, and I asked, O Messenger of God, is this hoarding? He said, "That which reaches [nisab], if zakated, is not hoarding." Al Mundhiri comments, "In its chain there is 'Attab bin Bashir (Abu al Hassan al Harrani); al Bukhari reports from him, but others cricize him."102

Ibn Hazm in al Muhalla writes, "Jabir bin 'Abd Allah and Ibn 'Umar said, "There is no zakah on ornaments " This is also the view of Asma' bint Abu Bakr, and similar view is correctly reported from 'A'ishah. This is also the opinion of al Sha'bi, 'Amrah bint 'Abd al Rahman, Abu Ja'far, and Muhammad 'Ali. It is reported from Taus, al Hasan, and Sa'id bin al Musayyib, There are two differing reports from Sufian al Thawri, one that women's jewelry is zakatable and one that it is not.104 Al Qasim bin Muhammad ('A'ishah's nephew), Malik bin Anas, Ahmad bin Hanbal, and Ishaq bin Rahwayh say that women's jewelry is not zakatable. This is the most famous opinion of al Shafi'i, according to al Khattabi,105 and it is the opinion of Abu 'Ubaid as well.

In principle, people are not obligated to pay zakah without a text from Shari'ah, and there is neither an authentic text about zakah on women's jewelry nor a correct analogy to a ruling based on an authentic text. Moreover, zakah is obligated on actually or potentially growing wealth, and jewelry is neither. Jewelry is for wearing and do for investment. The analogy to animals for personal use is obvious. Those animals are not zakatable because they are not used for growth.

There are also authentic reports from some Companions to the effect that zakah is not obligated on ornaments: Malik in al Muwatta' reports from al Qasim bin Muhammad106 that 'A'ishah, the wife of the Prophet (p) was the guardian of her orphaned nieces. They used to wear ornaments, and she did not give zakah on their ornaments.107 He also reports from Nafi that 'Abd Allah bin 'Umar's daughters and female slaves wore gold ornaments, and he did not pay zakah on their ornaments.l07 Ibn Abi Shaibah reports from al Qasim that "Our assets were kept with 'A'ishah. She used to pay zakah on them, except for the ornaments," and from 'Amrah that "We were orphans under the guardianship of 'A'ishah. We had ornaments and she did not pay zakah on them." Ibn Abi Shaibah and Abu 'Ubaid and others report similar things from Jabir bin 'Abd Allah and Asma bint Abu Bakr in addition to 'A'ishah and Ibn 'Umar.l08 Ibn al Zubair narrates from Jabir, "There is no zakah on ornaments. I said, 'It may be as much as a thousand dinars.' He answered, 'It is for wearing or lending.'" In another version he says, "Verily, that is too much." It is reported from Asma' that she did not use to pay zakah on ornaments, and al Shafi'i adds, "It is also reported from Ibn 'Abbas and Anas bin Malik, but I do not know whether it is authentic from them. The meaning of those reports is that there is no zakah on ornaments."109

Al Qadi Abu al Walid al Baji, in his commentary on al Muwatta', writes, "This is a known opinion among the Companions. 'A'ishah (m) is perhaps the most knowledgeable, since she is the wife of the Prophet (p) and not a person who may have missed his ordinances on such a matter. Also, 'Abd Allah bin 'Umar is the brother of Hafsah, the wife of the Prophet (p) and she would have been aware of any requirement on them."110 One can use as supporting evidence what is said by Yahya bin Sa'id, "I asked 'Amrah about zakah on ornaments. She said, 'I have never seen a person that pays zakah on them.' Al Hasan is reported to have said, "I know of none of the Successors who said there is zakah on ornaments."111

Ibn al Jawzi in al Tahqiq reports, with his own chain, from 'Afiah bin Ayub from al Laith bin Sa'd from Abu Zubair from Jabir from the Prophet, (p), that "There is no [obligated] zakah on ornaments."112 Al Baihaqi notes that 'Afiyah is unknown. "We know of no criticism of him," Ibn al Jawzi counters. Ibn Daqiq al 'Id adds, "I have read it handwritten by our teacher, al Mundhiri, that 'nothing reached me that makes 'Afiyah bin Ayub weak.'"113 The Prophet said, "O womenfolk, give for charity even out of your ornaments."114 This is reported by al Bukhari, al Tirmidhi, and others, Ibn al 'Arabi comments, "The obvious literal implication of this saying is that there is no obligated zakah on ornaments." His telling women to "give charity even out of your ornaments" means zakah is not obligated on them, and they are urged to give voluntary contributions.115 It is not linguistically correct or usual to ask someone to give voluntarily something he or she is obligated to give anyway as zakah. It makes more sense to encourage someone to give voluntarily what is spared from zakah.

After presenting the differing views of jurists, I may say that what seems to carry most weight is that zakah is not obligatory on jewelry, within certain limits. This opinion is consistent with the general conditions of zakatability. That is, zakah is compulsory on actually or potentially growing assets, such as money and business inventory. Women's jewelry is worn not for growth but for personal use and lawful ornamentation. It satisfies personal needs of women, natural desires which are taken into consideration in Islam. Gold and silver jewelry is lawful for women, while it is not for men. Hence jewelry for women is something like expensive clothes, furniture, and other sorts of personal ornaments that are lawful for her. It carries great similarities to jewelry made of pearls, diamonds, and other precious stones, which are made lawful for woman by the texts of Qur'an.116 These pearls, precious stones, and valuable clothes are exempt from zakah by the unanimous opinion of leading scholars, in spite of their high value.

We realize from the Prophet's tradition that zakah is not required on all kinds of wealth, but only on growing items. Homes inhabited by their owners, means of personal transportation, and tools are indisputably exempt from zakah. Even the Hanfite jurists, who consider zakah obligatory on jewelry, have decided that the reason for zakatability is the position of an asset in excess of personal needs, that is designed for profit.117

Does this reason apply in the case of lawful jewelry for women, which is neither designated for growth nor in excess of personal needs?

Hanafites also exempt from zakah working animals used in watering and cultivating, in spite of the fact that the same animals, were they naturally pastured and not used in work., would be zakated. Being working animals makes them similar to tools and things designated for personal use. How can the same Hanafites obligate zakah on jewelry, which is also for personal use? I firmly believe that Shari'ah treats similarly things that are similar, and whenever similar things are not treated similarly, it is an error of judgement on the part of the jurists. This is perhaps the reason for which Abu 'Ubaid criticizes those who obligate zakah on jewelry while exempting working animals. It is extremely unlikely that Shari'ah would exempt jewelry made of pearls, diamonds, and other precious stones that are very often more expensive than gold and silver, and obligate zakah on jewelry of gold and silver only. The first kind of jewelry is usually used by rich women, while the second is used by middle class and sometimes poor women. Does it make sense for Shari'ah to make middle class and poor women pay zakah on their jewelry and exempt the higher class women from similar payment?

Exempting them all from zakah is just and reasonable according to the whole spirit of zakah rulings.

The leading Zaidi scholar al Hadi is consistent with himself when he declares that zakah is required from all jewelry, whether made of gold and silver or of pearls and precious stones. On the other hand, exempting one and obligating the other does not seem rational to those who look for the reason behind the rulings of Shari'ah, who constitute the majority of Muslim scholars. The opinion I select is supported by the rule of zakah collection which states that zakah is paid out of the same zakatable asset and its increment. This rule is not broken except in necessity, as in the case of owning less than 25 animals, where zakah is paid in sheep and not camels, for reasons described earlier in this part. How can a woman pay zakah (2.5%) out of her jewelry, except by being unnecessarily forced to sell some or all of it? In all other applications of zakah there is no such requirement. 'Why should an exception be made here? The theory of "growing assets" assumes that zakah is collected out of the increments of the asset without reducing the asset itself, in order to preserve it as a source of income for the owner. The result of obligating zakah on jewelry, which does not grow, is to consume the asset itself as the years go by. Maimun bin Mahran points out that "We have a necklace whose zakah that I paid throughout the years reached about its value."118 I think that the spirit of Shari'ah in regard to zakah does not approve of this.

Ibn al 'Arabi in Ahkam al Qur'an argues that "the intent of growth would obligate zakah on things that since they do not grow on their own are not otherwise zakatable, such as all commodities that comprise business inventory. By the same token, the intent of abstention from growth in gold and silver by making them into jewelry for person use must waive zakah. If a condition whose existence makes zakah required on an asset that is not otherwise zakatable, its absence must exempt from zakah an asset that would otherwise be zakatable."119

Additionally, the texts that talk about the zakatability of gold and silver consider their use as measures of prices; that is, as money. Even the verse "and those who hoard gold and silver and spend it not in way of Cod. . . " indicates by using the words "hoard" and "spend" that gold and silver are meant here as money, because money is what is usually hoarded and not spent, while common jewelry is not considered a treasure and is not readied for spending.

The view that I select here is the same as that of the great scholar Abu 'Ubaid, who says in his book al Amwal:

"The Prophet (p) said , "If sliver money reaches five uqiyyah, there is one-fourth of a tenth due on it." Here the Messenger of God (p) restricts zakah to silver money. He does not include all forms of silver, but minted silver only, by using a word that is only used for silver coins that have been minted and are used as money.120 By the same token, the word "uqiyyah" only has the meaning of dirhams. Each uqiyyah is worth is worth 40 dirhams, and zakah is obligated on dirhams. Muslims unanimously consider dinars also zakatable, for dinars are also mentioned in some sayings linked up to the Prophet (p).121 Muslims have no difference in regard to the dirham and the dinar, while they differ on jewelry because the latter is for personal use, while the only use for gold and silver money is in circulation. The zakatability of money must then be different from that of jewelry, which is more similar to furniture and clothes, and this is the reason many scholars consider jewelry non-zakatable.

On similar grounds, Hanafites, who obligate zakah on jewelry, say that working camels and cows are not zakatable because of their similarity to things designed for personal use. Jurists of Hijaz obligate zakah on working camels and cows and exempt jewelry. Both these scholars are not being consistent. Since these items are similar with regard to being commodities designated for personal use, they should all be either exempt from zakah or not.

In my view, both are not zakatable on the grounds mentioned above. As for the saying in which the Prophet asked the Yemeni woman who had two gold bracelets, "Do you pay their zakah?" it is only known through one chain, which is criticized by many scholars in the past and the present.122 If this saying is correct, the Prophet may have meant by "zakah" lending those bracelets to others free of charge, as explained by some scholars, including Sa'id bin al Musayyib, al Sha'bi, al Hasan, and Qataiah, who says, "Its zakah is lending it to other women free of charge."123 If zakah on jewelry were obligated the same way it is obligated on silver money, the Prophet (p) would not have limited himself to giving that advice to a particular women when he saw her bracelets. That issue would have been treated like zakah on other items that are repeatedly mentioned in many of his letters, instructions, and traditions. It would have been practiced by the Successors after him. In none of their instructions do we find anything about zakah on women's jewelry. As for the saying from 'A'ishah, "It is all right to wear jewelry if you pay its zakah," I find that its zakah is lending it freely to others, especially since her nephew al Qasim bin Muhammad denied that she instructed any woman in her family, including he nieces, to pay zakah on their jewelry. Nothing is authentic about the zakatability of jewelry from a Companion except from Ibn Mas'ud. The saying of Abd Allah bin 'Amr that he used to pay zakah on the jewelry of his daughters has problems in its chain similar to those in the saying linked to the Prophet that is mentioned above. The other opinion [that jewelry is not zakatable] is reported from 'A'ishah, Ibn 'Umar, Jabir bin 'Abd Allah, and Anas bin Malik [Companions] and many Followers after them. This is also supported by our explanation of the tradition of the Prophet (p)."124

After this lengthy but brilliant quotation from Abu 'Ubaid, I would like to mention the following remarks on the arguments presented by these who obligate zakah on jewelry.

1. The use of the verse "who hoard gold and silver and spend it not in the way of God . . . ." along with the interpretation that hoarding includes women's jewelry is not acceptable.125 The verse refers to gold and silver that are designated as jewelry for the personal use and enjoyment of women. No one requires that jewelry be circulated and spent in the way of God, except in emergencies.

2. The sayings used by those who obligate zakah on jewelry are also disputed by others from the point of view of their authenticity as well as from the point of view of their indications.

(a) The first saying, "and there is one-fourth of a tenth due on silver," is agreed upon as correct, but the Arabic word used for silver in this saying is "al riqqah" which literally means silver that has been minted in the form of coins. The word is not used in Arabic for manufactured jewelry.

(b) Some of the other sayings are not proven authentic, to the extent that al Tirmidhi could say, "No saying is correct on this question."126 Ibn Hazm, who obligates zakah on jewelry, does not depend on those sayings. He, in fact, disagrees with the very use of those sayings as arguments for obligating zakah on jewelry. He argues, "Those who see that zakah is required on jewelry use fumbling sayings and reports which we need not be occupied with."127 In his argument, Ibn Hazm depends only on the comprehensive implications of the basic texts of zakah on gold and silver. However, let me take time to review the chains of those sayings anyway.

The saying from 'Amr bin Shu'aib is reported by al Nasa'i as mursal. Al Mundhiri marks it in al Targhib wa al Tarhib as weak. We have discussed it earlier and quoted the opinion of Abu 'Ubaid on it. The saying reported from 'A'ishah about the bracelets has Yahya bin Ayub al Ghafiqi in its chain. Yahya is acceptable to al Bukhari and Muslim and others; he was trusted, but al Dhahabi quotes differing opinions about him from several critics. He quotes Ibn Ma'in as saying, "His sayings' reports are fair," and Ahmad as saying, "He had a bad memory" Ibn al Qattan and Abu Hatim are quoted as saying, "His reports must not be accepted," and al Nasa'i saying he was not a strong link, and al Daraqutni saying "Some of his reported sayings have discrepancies."128 The latter mentions several of these discrepancies of Yahya, which are rejected. The report of a person who is extremely controversial should not be used on issues that are not agreed upon, especially when we have on hand correct reports that 'A'ishah's practices are in opposition to his saying.

The saying from Umm Salamah is commented on by al Mundhiri, who says, "'Attab bin Bashir is in its chain. Al Bukhari uses his reports, but more than one scholar criticizes him." In al Mizan, al Dhahabi says about 'Attab, "Ahmad said, 'I hope he is all right, he reports from Khasif some unacceptable reports which I think are the mistake of Khasif.'" Al Nasa'i says, "He is not that [good] in [reporting] sayings." Ibn al Madini notes, "Our colleagues consider him weak." Ibn Ma'in once remarked, "He is trustworthy" and another time "He is weak." "We leave his reports aside" 'Ali indicates.

Lastly, Ibn 'Adi says, "I hope he is all right."129 All this means that none of the leading critics are firm about Yahya bin Ayub's trustworthiness, and some of them grade him weak. The fact that al Bukhari reports from him should not be over-estimated by the reader. Ibn Hajar notes that, "Al Bukhari reports from him only two sayings. In one of them there is another supporting it, while in the other his name is associated with other names."130

Al Zaila'i in Nasb al Rayah says, "The authors of the two correct books [al Bukhari and Muslim] may report from a person who is controversial, but when they do so, they select from his reports those sayings that are either supported by other chains or that are obviously witnessed and known from other sources. They do not report from the controversial person saying in whose chain he is singled out, especially in cases where trustworthy reporters contradict his reports."131 Moreover, in the chain of this saying, Thabit bin 'Ajlan is the only one who reports from 'Attab bin Bashir, as stated by al Baihaqi.132

Thabit, whose reports are used by al Bukhari, is also controversial. Ibn Ma'in views him as trustworthy. Ahmad says, "I abstain from giving an opinion on him." Abu Hatim says, "He is fair, "and Ibn 'Adi gives three strange examples reported by him. Al Aqili comments on him in The Weak, "He is not usually followed by others in his reports." Al Baihaqi adds, "And among his reports that are negated is the saying reported from 'Attab bin Bashir from 'Ata from Umm Salamah," and he cites the saying we have on hand. Al Hafiz 'Abd al Haqq says, "It is authentic but must not be used in argument." This is rejected by Abu al Hasan bin al Qattan, who continues, "al 'Aqili is also biased against him. Those who are not known at all as trustworthy may be described as such, but if a person who is known as trustworthy is singled out in the chain, this does not bring harm to the chain, unless singling out occurs very often." Al Dhahabi argues with Ibn al Qattan, "This is true if the person is known as trustworthy, but a person about whom a leading critic like Ahmad abstains from giving an opinion, while some others consider him trustworthy and Abu Hatim calls him 'fair',133 must not easily be upgraded to the degree of trustworthiness. If such a person is singled out in the chain, then it must be negated." Thus al Dhahabi gives weight to the opinion expressed by 'Aqili and 'Abd al Haqq.134

Moreover, al Bukhari only reports one saying from Thabit in the chapter on slaughtering. This saying is supported by other sayings in the chapter on cleansing, according to al Hafiz.135 As we know from the methods of al Bukhari and Muslim, the inclusion of this saying must not be taken as grading of Thabit trustworthy. Both Muslim and al Bukhari do not mention the saying under discussion, or any other on the subject of zakah on jewelry. The saying reported from Umm Salamah through Thabit and 'Attab, in view of this controversy about them, must not be accepted as proof in such a controversial question.

Ibn Hajar, in the introduction to Tahdhib al Tahdhib, says, "The benefit of bringing out all that is said about a reporter, whether good or bad, becomes obvious in controversial matters."136

Furthermore, I should mention that I see these reported sayings as even more dubious because they were not commonly known to Companions, in spite of the fact that the Companions had different opinions on the zakatability of jewelry. If such sayings were known to the Companions, they would not have been so varied in their opinions and practices. This may mean that those reported sayings are either overridden by later sayings or are not authentic, since it is extremely unlikely that the Companions would differ on an issue and not use what they heard from the Messenger of God to support their views. We know, however, that 'Aishah's practice to the opposite of these sayings is authentically reported.137

Lastly, al Baihaqi, supported on this point by al Nawawi and al Mundhiri,138 says "The report of al Qasim and Ibn Abi Mulaikah from 'A'ishah that she was not paying zakah on the jewels of her nieces, in spite of the fact that she is correctly reported to have believed in paying zakah or, orphan's wealth, brings some doubt to the report raised to the Prophet [that there is zakah on jewelry] for how could she not practice something that she herself reports from the Prophet (p), unless she knew it was annulled?"139

(c) Some scholars attempt to find a consistent interpretation of these sayings, assuming they are acceptable, in that zakah on jewelry was obligatory in the early stage in Madinah, when the use of gold as jewelry by women was itself forbidden, but the moment the use of gold jewelry became permissible for women, zakah on that jewelry was waived, the same way zakah was waived on working livestock. Al Baihaqi says, "This is the view of many of our colleagues." He gives a report of sayings which indicate the prohibition of golden jewelry and an account of sayings that allowed it later for women. He comments that these sayings indicate that the use of golden jewelry by women is permissible, which means that those reports on its prohibition are superseded by the newer sayings that allow it.140 This interpretation has no bearing on the report from A'ishah that bracelets of silver were zakatable, since not a single scholar claims that silver jewelry was also prohibited for women.141

(d) Another interpretation may come to mind with regard to the two sayings from 'A'ishah and from Umm Salamah, assuming they were authentic. The Prophet (p)

may have had a special and stricter approach in dealing with his own family, taking them further away from the desire for luxury and ornaments, since they are supposed to set an example for all other women, as indicated by the verse, "O consorts of the Prophet, if any of you were guilty of evident unseemly conduct, the punishment would be double for you."143 So it may be a special ruling restricted to the wives of the Prophet, not given as a religious opinion applicable to other Muslim women. On these ground 'A'ishah's not paying zakah on the jewelry of her nieces be may understood.

(e) Some other scholars have yet a third interpretation of these sayings, again just assuming they are authentic; that is, the Prophet (p) noticed extravagance and excess above that which is customary144 in those specific cases mentioned in the sayings, so he obligated zakah on those grounds. This interpretation is supported by the word in one of the sayings, describing the bracelets as big or huge or describing the rings as big. Those sayings may be used to mean that zakah is obligated if the amount of jewelry is more than what is usual and customary.145

(f) Some Companions who obligate zakah on jewelry consider jewelry zakatable only once in the lifetime rather than repeatedly every year. This is reported from Anas bin Malik.146

(g) Some other Companions and Followers have another interpretation of zakah on jewelry. It is that zakah fulfilled by lending the jewelry free of charge to other women to use on festive occassions. This is reported by Al Baihaqi from Ibn 'Umar and Ibn al Musayyib,147 and it is also reported by Abu 'Ubaid and Ibn Abi Shaibah from Ibn al Musayyib, al Hasan al Basri Qatadah, and al Sha'bi.148

All these different interpretations make it impossible to use these sayings as evidence supporting zakatability of jewelry, in accordance with the well-known rule of jurisprudence: If the evidence has different possible interpretations, it cannot be used to support one of them against the others. This is certainly on the assumption that the sayings are acceptable from the point of view of their authenticity, though in fact, each of them is also disputable on that ground.

Surprisingly enough, the jurists who belong to the school of rationalization use sayings and reports as evidence in this debate, while jurists belonging to the school of sayings use rationalization as their evidence.148 As for the reports from some Companions like Ibn Mas'ud, (authentically reported) and Ibn "Amr (disputed in its authenticity), it should be noted that they do not give their opinions as applicable to all people. All that is indicated by these reports is that these Companions used to pay zakah on the jewelry of their own wives and daughters, which may be an indication of their piety and preference for removing all doubt on their part in a matter on which they do not have a ruling from the Messenger. The only report that falls beyond this interpretation is the one attributed to 'Umar when he wrote to Abu Musa to order Muslim women to pay zakah on their jewelry. This report is not proven correct, and al Hasan denies that any of the Successors obligated zakah on jewelry.

Jewelry used as hoarded treasure is zakatable The opinion expressed earlier that jewelry is not zakatable applies only to jewelry that is used as women's ornaments. As for women's gold and silver jewelry that is used as a storage of value for the purpose of hoarding, and is looked upon as an accumulation of wealth, this is zakatable, just like money. It is reported from Sa'id bin al Musayyib that "If jewelry is worn and used, it is not zakatable, but if it is not worn or used, it is zakatable."150 Malik says, "Those who own gold and jewelry made of gold or silver which is not used for ornamental wearing, must pay zakah on it every year. Jewelry should be weighed and zakah paid at the rate of one-fourth of one-tenth, unless the total weight is less than the equivalent of 40 dinars or 200 dirhams. Then they are not zakatable. As for jewelry that is broken and in need of repair in order to be worn, it is still considered used jewelry, and is not zakatable."151

Al Nawawi says, "Our colleagues say that if jewelry is not held for the purpose of customary use (lawful, desired, or prohibited) but rather for the purpose of hoarding and accumulation, then it is zakatable, as correctly confirmed by the majority."152 Similarly, al Laith bin Sa'd says, "Jewelry used for wearing and lending to others is not zakatable, but that used as hoarded treasure is zakatable."153 This means that when Jewelry is not intended for customary use, it is treated like an attempt to escape zakah, Ibn Hazm argues with al Laith, "If this is so, then a person who buys house or orchard in order to avoid zakah should also be zakatable."154 I believe that the spirit of Shari'ah tries to annul all mischief and to treat cheaters in such a way that gives them the opposite of their intent. Hanbalites have established the opinion that any person who holds jewelry as a means to avoid zakah is zakatable.155 We will discuss further the mischief in zakah in the chapter dealing with zakah payment, God willing. Jewelry owned by men and used as ornamentation by their female family members or other females is treated like jewelry owned and used by women, i.e., it is not zakatable, since it is designated for lawful customary use and not for growth.155

If the quantity of jewelry exceeds the customary amount and reaches extravagance, the extra is zakatable. This is on the grounds that zakah is waived from jewelry because it is used by women just like clothes and household goods. What is above the customary and moderate use is either prohibited or at least discouraged; it is in all cases not approved by Shari'ah. Al Nawawi says "our Shafi'ite colleagues argue that jewelry is made lawful only within the limits of non-apparent extravagance, but once it reaches the extravagant limit, then it becomes prohibited according to most jurists from Iraq."156 Ibn Hamid, a Hunbalite, says that "if jewelry is below one thousand mithqal it is lawful.

Once it reaches that such, it becomes unlawful and consequently zakatable, in accordance with what is reported by Abu 'Ubaid and al Athram from ''Amr bin Dinar:

Jabir was asked if jewelry was zakatable and he answered that it was not. Then he was told, 'Even if it amounts to one thousand dinars?' He answered, 'That is indeed too much.'"157 Jewelry exceeding customary limits is surely extravagance and no longer needed as normal ornamentation for women.158

On the other hand, the author of al Mughni argues that Shari'ah makes the use of jewelry lawful without limit, thus it is not acceptable to limit that use by personal opinions.159 It seems that he forgets that the use of lawful things in Shari'ah is restricted by two principles: avoidance of extravagance and avoidance of prideful showing off.

The Prophet (p) is reported to have said, "Eat and drink and dress without extravagance or pride."160 The saying about the Yemeni woman who entered the presence of the Messenger with her daughter, who had two huge golden bracelets on the (daughter's)

arm and was told by the Prophet (p) about their zakatability, may be considered a case for this argument. That is, the Prophet (p) found that the amount of jewelry was way beyond the limit of customary and usual use and was extravagant for that young woman.

Some scholars take this saying to mean exactly that. That is, that zakah is obligated on what exceeds the customary amounts.161 This may be the reason why 'Abd Allah bin 'Amr used to pay zakah on the jewelry of his daughters. He was reported to have bought his three daughters jewelry worth 6000dinars. This is definitely above the customary amount.

Does zakah then become obligatory on all the jewelry owned by the person or on that part which is above the customary limit? It seems from the above-cited sayings that all the jewelry becomes zakatable as a means of cleansing the whole amount, because of its exaggeration in exceeding the lawful limit. The opinion that claims that all jewelry in any amount is not zakatable ends up putting a large portion of the wealth of the Muslim community in the idleness of extravagant amounts of jewelry and ornaments that are only rarely used by women and that are usually stored in private boxes in banks.

What is the limit of extravagance? It seems to be difficult to put an objective definition of extravagance, since its boundaries differ from one community to another and from one neighborhood to another. An amount that is extravagant is a poor country for a poor family may be very customary or less than normal for a rich family in a rich country. The real determinant of the limit of extravagance are the customs of the area.163

I should mention that pearls, diamonds, and other precious stones must be treated the same way as gold and silver jewelry. It they are within the limit of customary use they are not zakatable, but if they exceed that limit and become a means of prohibited extravagance, they must not be exempt from zakah. If they are held as a store of treasure and an accumulation of wealth or in order to escape zakah payment, they must be zakatable.

The preceding rulings and opinions can be summarized in the following points:

A. Jewelry made of gold and silver that is held as a treasure and an accumulation of wealth is zakatable, the same as if it were being held as bullion or coins.

B. If the jewelry is obtained for personal use as ornament, then we should distinguish between lawful and unlawful use. Jewelry and ornaments designated for house decoration, utensils, or use by men are prohibite. This jewelry and ornamentation is zakatable.

C. Jewelry that is extravagant even though it is used by women is zakatable.

Extravagance is the excess above customary use by women within their community.

D. Jewelry held for lawful use as women's ornamentation without extravagance, or for lawful use by men, such a silver rings, is not zakatable, because it is not designated for profit and is in fact part of the materials used personally, like clothes and furniture, designated for lawful use.

E. There is no difference in these rulings whether the legal ownership of the jewelry is in the hands of men or women.

F. Once zakah becomes obligatory, then the rate is that of money, two-and-a-half percent every year.

G. Definitely the minimum exempt, al nisab, should be observed at 85 grams for gold. It should be noted, however, that the value of the jewelry and ornaments is the criteria and not their weight only, because the craftsmanship adds value to jewelry.