Is zakat obligatory on savings deducted monthly from salary, if a full year passes without withdrawal?

Zakat becomes obligatory on saved wealth if it reaches the nisab (minimum threshold), a full hawl (lunar year) passes over it, and it is possible to seize and dispose of it. However, if its owner is unable to seize it, it is like "usurped, stolen, withheld, or lost wealth," and Zakat is not obligatory on this type of wealth before it is seized.

After this wealth is seized, there is a difference of opinion regarding its Zakat: One opinion: Zakat is not immediately obligatory on it; rather, a new hawl begins for it. Another opinion: Its Zakat is obligatory for all past years, and this is what Ibn Qudamah preferred. Malik's opinion: One pays Zakat for one year upon seizing it.

Ibn Qudamah summarized the opinions of the jurists regarding the ruling on wealth that is difficult to seize, such as usurped or stolen wealth: First opinion: There is no Zakat on it because it is out of his possession and control, and when it returns, it becomes like newly acquired wealth, and a hawl starts for it. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifa and the old opinion of Al-Shafi'i. Second opinion: Zakat is obligatory on it because his ownership of it is complete. This is one of the two narrations from Ahmad.

Both opinions agree that it is not obligatory to pay its Zakat before seizing it.

The Shafi'is hold that there are two opinions on the matter: First: There is no Zakat on it due to the stagnation of its growth and its being out of one's possession (Abu Hanifa's opinion). Second (the more correct): Zakat is obligatory due to the ownership of the nisab and the passing of the hawl (the new opinion among the Shafi'is).

Ahmad has two narrations, similar to the two schools of thought, and Malik obligates Zakat for the first hawl only.