of fire?" narrated by Abu Dawud. Also, because it is of the same genus as monetary values, it resembles uncoined gold and silver (tibr). Malik said: It is subject to Zakat for one year. Al-Hasan, Abdullah ibn Utba, and Qatadah said: Its Zakat is by lending it out. Ahmad said: Five of the companions of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, say: There is no Zakat on jewelry, and they say: Its Zakat is by lending it out. The evidence for the first [position] is what Afiyah ibn Ayyub narrated from al-Layth ibn Sa'd, from Abu al-Zubayr, from Jabir, from the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, that he said: "There is no Zakat on jewelry." Furthermore, it is intended for permissible use, so Zakat is not mandatory upon it, just like work animals and garments for personal use. As for the authentic hadiths they used as evidence, they do not address the point of contention, for riqah refers to minted dirhams. Abu Ubayd said: We do not know this term in the intelligible speech of the Arabs to refer to anything other than stamped dirhams that have a currency circulating among the people. Likewise, the term awaq refers to nothing other than dirhams, where every uqiyah is forty dirhams. As for the hadith of the two bracelets, Abu Ubayd said: We only know it from a source that people have discussed, both in ancient and modern times. Al-Tirmidhi said: Nothing in this chapter is authentic. It is possible that by 'Zakat' he meant lending it out, as some scholars have interpreted it, and a group of the Companions and others have adopted this view; moreover, uncoined gold and silver (tibr) is not prepared for use, unlike jewelry. Al-Khiraqi's statement: "if it is of the type she wears or lends out," means that Zakat falls away from it only if it is as such, or prepared for that. As for that which is prepared for leasing or for expenditure when needed, Zakat is due upon it, because Zakat is only waived for what is prepared for [permissible] use due to its removal from the category of growth; thus, in everything else, it remains according to the original ruling. Likewise, what is taken as jewelry to evade Zakat does not have the obligation waived. There is no difference between permissible jewelry being owned by a woman who wears it or lends it out, or a man who adorns his family with it, or lends it out, or prepares it for that, because it is diverted from the category of growth to a permissible use, resembling a woman's jewelry.