Zakat, for it is only waived for what has been prepared for [permissible] use, due to its removal from the category of growth; thus, regarding 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.

Section: A small or large amount of jewelry is the same regarding permissibility and Zakat. Ibn Hamid said: It is permissible as long as it does not reach one thousand mithqals, but if it reaches that, it becomes prohibited, and Zakat is due upon it; this is because of what Abu Ubayd and al-Athram narrated from Amr ibn Dinar, who said: Jabir was asked about jewelry, whether there is Zakat in it? He said: No. He was then asked: Even if it is a thousand dinars? He replied: That is indeed a large amount. Furthermore, it reaches the level of extravagance and vanity, and is not needed for use. The first position is more correct, because the Lawgiver has permitted adornment absolutely without any restriction, so it is not permissible to restrict it by mere opinion and arbitrary judgment. The hadith of Jabir is not explicit in denying the obligation; rather, it indicates withholding [from a definitive judgment], and then the contrary has been narrated from him. Al-Jawzaqani narrated with his chain of transmission from Abu al-Zubayr, who said: I asked Jabir ibn Abdullah: Is there Zakat on jewelry? He said: No. I said: Jewelry might contain a thousand dinars. He said: Even if it does, it is lent out and worn. Moreover, the statement of Jabir is the statement of a Companion who has been contradicted by others who [permitted adornment] absolutely without restriction, so his statement does not remain an argument, and restriction by absolute opinion and arbitrary judgment is not permissible.