But if the gold is neither worn nor offered for sale—kept solely for safekeeping—then the zakat is calculated on its weight. Once it reaches twenty mithqāls (approximately eleven and a half Saudi gold sovereigns), zakat becomes obligatory at the rate of one quarter of one tenth, that is, 2.5 percent of its weight. The owner may pay that amount by removing it from the gold itself, or he may discharge it in equivalent cash—paper money or silver.

Jewelry that is actually worn, however, is the subject of scholarly disagreement: is zakat due on it or not? The view that appears strongest to me is that no zakat is required, because such jewelry is analogous to clothing, to beasts of burden and working animals that are kept for labor or rental, and to mounts used for riding. None of these items—although they are forms of wealth subject to zakat in other contexts—incur zakat when they are held for personal use rather than for growth.

If an asset is intended for growth and profit, it is liable for zakat; but if it is kept solely for use, it is not. Livestock used for work, clothing, and other possessions held for personal benefit—including jewelry—are therefore exempt according to this line of reasoning.

Some scholars maintain that zakat is obligatory on jewelry even when it is kept for wearing or for occasional lending, relying on the general texts that impose zakat on gold and silver. In my judgment, however, that opinion is less persuasive.