The following is a series of questions regarding zakah on jewelry as well as in relation to the prohibition of ‘extravagance’ with Shaykh Taha and another graduate ‘Alim.
Question:
What quantity do you regard as extravagant in regards to gold ornaments by which zakaat can be made compulsory on it ? Yes, it will vary according to the ‘urf of each place but what do you consider for cape town and is there any methodology to specify ones urf in regards to this matter ?
Answer:
Wa alaykumu s-salam wa rahmatuLlahi wa barakatuh
The extravagance spoken of by our fuqaha pertains, not to the entire collection of gold that a woman might own, but rather to a specific piece of gold jewellery. If a woman owns 20 sets of earrings, for example, each of which is of regular size, with the intention of wearing them all one after the other, this would not constitute extravagance. The same applies to a man who owns a number of regular-sized silver rings, all of which he intends to wear, not all at the same time, but one after the other. Imam Nawawi states in Sharh al-Muhadhdhab 5/523:
لو اتخذ الرجل خواتيم كثيرة أو المرأة خلاخل كثيرة ليلبس الواحد بعد الواحد فطريقان حكاهما الرافعي وغيره، المذهب: القطع بالجواز
The idea of extravagance arises where she owns a single piece of jewellery which is abnormally large. Our fuqaha have generally illustrated such extravagance with an anklet (khalkhal) weighing 200 mithqals (which, at 968grams, falls just slightly short of 1kg). This particular weight, however, is not the standard whereby extravagance should be determined.
The real determining factor, as indicated by Ramli in Nihayah, Ibn Hajar in Tuhfah and Khatib in Mughni, is whether the abnormally large piece of jewellery is perceived to still be comely and attractive, or whether it appears grotesque and unappealing. Where it still displays zinah it would not be considered extravagance; whereas it would be extravagant–and therefore impermissible and zakatable–where it is perceived as grotesque.
قال ابن حجر في التحفة بعد كلام له 3/280: وذلك لانتفاء الزينة عنه المجوزة لهن التحلي، بل ينفر الطبع منه. كذا قالوه، وبه يعلم ضابط السرف
وفي النهاية على ما نقله الكردي عنه في الحواشي المدنية 2/117: ويؤخذ من هذا التعليل إباحة ما تتخذه النساء في زمننا من عصابات الذهب والتراكيب وإن كثر ذهبها، إذ النفس لا تنفر منها، بل هي في غاية الزينة
وفي المغني 1/581: (كخلخال) للمرأة (وزنه مائتا دينار) لأن المباح ما يتزين به، ولا زينة في مثل ذلك، بل تنفر منه النفس لاستبشاعه. ويؤخذ من هذا التعليل إباحة ما تتخذه النساء في هذا الزمان من العصائب الذهب وإن كثر ذهبها لأن النفس لا تنفر منه ولا تستبشع، بل هو في غاية الزينة
In light of the above, the method of determining whether a particular piece of gold jewellery crosses the line of extravagance is to examine the impression it leaves one with: does it come across as beautiful and appealing, or does it seem grotesque and unappealing?
It is thus not a particular quantity or weight that has to be looked at, but rather the sense of being either appealing or unappealing to the eye of the balanced onlooker. This is where `urf would play its role. `Urf by its very nature, however, does not allow itself to be reduced into form or quantity.
As for what I would consider extravagant in Cape Town, for that I would have to actually see the piece of jewellery in question.
Was-salam
[Answered by shaykh] Taha
Follow-up question from ‘Alim to Shaykh Taha:
jaza ku mallah I must say that i must have read the lines pertaining to this issue more than 25 times but I just couldn’t reach to a conclusion . Your explanation has opened the whole issue ,once again jaza ka Allah. May Allah bless you and increase you in your knowledge! But then if the particular ornament constitutes extravagance then zakat being compulsory on this entire ornament, will it also be compulsory on the other permissible ornaments too ?
Answer:
When one particular piece of jewelry is adjudged to be extravagant, zakah will only be payable on that one piece, since only that particular piece becomes regarded as haram (or alteratively makruh). This mas’alah (legal issue) may be understood in light of the fiqhi maxim (qa’idah) which states:
الحرام لا يحرم الحلال
This maxim, mentioned by Suyuti in al-Ashbah wa l-Naza’ir (p. 115), also forms the matn of an authentic hadith documented by Ibn Majah (no. 2015) and Daraqutni (no. 3679).
[Answered by Shaykh] Taha