The term rikaz is etymologically derived from rakaza, the perfect tense of the verb
yarkuzu (the imperfect root). It means 'to be hidden.' Allah, the Exalted One, says:
"Or hear from them the slightest sound" [Maryam 98]--that is, rikz means a slight
sound.
In the present context, this refers to what was buried at the time of jahiliyyah
(the pre-Islamic period). Malik and many other scholars are of the opinion that
rikaz means objects buried before the Arabs embraced Islam and which were dug up
without any expensive effort or money. If these conditions cannot be met, then it
is not considered rikaz. Abu Hanifah holds that it is a name of an entity hidden
either by the Creator or by the created one (man).
The term ma'din (minerals) is derived from the verb 'adana (to reside), as in the
phrase "'adana fi almakan," which means 'someone resided in some place.' Allah,
the Exalted One, says: "Allah has promised to the believing men and believing women
gardens of Eden" [at-Taubah 72] since it is an abode for eternity.
Scholars differ about minerals (ma'din) which are subject to zakah. Ahmad holds
that everything dug from the ground, whether created in it or buried by man, and
which has a value (such as gold, silver, iron, copper, lead, sapphires, chrysolite,
emeralds, turquoise, crystal, agate, kohl (antimony sulfide), arsenic, tar, petroleum,
sulphur, zaj) are subject to zakah. He, however, made it a condition that the extracted
mineral should attain a nisab either by itself or by its value. Abu Hanifah is of
the opinion that zakah is payable on any mineral that can receive an imprint or
melt by fire, such as gold, silver, iron, or copper. As for liquids such as tar,
or a solid mineral which cannot be melted by fire such as rubies, there is no zakah
on them. In the former case, the admissibility of nisab is not a prior condition.
Whether large or small in amount, a fifth will be taken as zakah.
Malik and ash-Shaf'i hold that both gold and silver qualify for zakah. Like Ahmad,
they insist that the gold should weigh at least twenty mithqal (a weight equal to
4.68 g.) and the silver at least 200 dirhams. They agree (with the Hanafiyyah) that
these metals do not require completion of a year to be subjected to zakah, which
becomes due anytime it is available. According to the preceding scholars, the amount
should be one-fortieth, and its distribution should be like that of the regular
zakah. For Abu Hanifah, its distribution is similar to booty (fay').
That zakah of rikaz and ma'din is obligatory is shown by a statement attributed
to Abu Hurairah: "The Prophet, upon whom be peace, said: 'There is no compensation
for one killed or wounded by an animal, falling in a well, or because of working
in mines; but, one-fifth (khums) is compulsory on rikaz.' " Ibn al-Munzhir confesses
that he does not know anyone who contradicted this hadith except al-Hasan, who differentiates
between what exists in the land of war and the Islamic land. The latter holds that
if rikaz is found in the land of war, one-fifth (khums) is due, but if it is found
in the Islamic land, it will be subject to the regular zakah.
Explaining it, Ibn al-Qayyim says that there are two interpretations of this statement:
The first interpretation is that whenever someone hires someone else to dig a mine
for him and then he falls into it and is killed, there is no compensation for him.
This view is supported by the Prophet's saying: "There is no compensation for one
who falls into a well or who is killed by an animal--(al-bi'r jubar, wa al-'ajma'
jubar)."
The second interpretation is that there is no zakah on minerals. This view is supported
by the Prophet's saying: "... but one-fifth is compuslory on treasure--(wa fi az-zakah
al-khums)." Thus, he differentiated between mineral (ma'din) and treasure (rikaz).
He made zakah on rikaz compulsory because it is a wealth obtained without any cost
or effort. He exempted minerals (ma'din) from zakah because they require both cost
and effort for their mining.
The rikaz are all those substances upon which one-fifth (khums) is payable, such
as gold, silver, iron, lead, brass, and the like. This is the opinion of the Hanafiyyah,
the Hanbaliyyah, Ishaq, and Ibn al-Munzhir. A report from Malik and one of the two
opinions of ash-Shaf'i also corroborate it. Ash-Shaf'i also holds that only gold
and silver are subject to khums.
Rikaz might be found in the following places:
1. In a barren land, a land of unknown ownership, or in an intractible road, or
ruined village. In that case, khums has to be paid, and the one who found it may
keep the other four-fifths for himself. This is based on a report from an-Nasa'i
on the authority of 'Amr ibn Shu'aib from his father and from his grandfather, who
said that when the Messenger of Allah, upon whom be peace, was asked about a lucky
find (al-luqatah), he responded: "For anything along a tractable road or in an inhabited
village, its ownership is determined by established custom. If the owner claims
it, it is his. However, when an item is found in an intractable road or in an uninhabited
village, then on it and the rest of the find, one-fifth (khums) is payable."
2. If the rikaz is found by someone in a land transferred to him, then it is his,
as it is lodged in the land. Nevertheless, his ownership does not come from his
possession of the land--it comes from the fact that it became known to him. Analogically,
this kind of find falls into the category of grass, firewood, and game which are
found on land which is not his. He can claim it if the one who transferred the land
does not ask for it. In that case, it will be his because the land originally belonged
to him. This is the view of Abu Yusuf, and the Hanbaliyyah uphold it as sound. Ash-Shaf'i
says it belongs to the owner who transferred the land (if he claims it) before him,
and so on until it is claimed by the first original owner.
Whenever land is transferred through inheritance, it is considered an inheritance
by itself. If, however, the inhabitants agree that it did not belong to the one
from whom they inherited it, then it belongs to the original owner. If he is unknown,
then it is considered the lost property of an unknown owner. Abu Hanifah and Muhammad
say that it belongs to the original owner of the land or to his inheritors if they
are known; if they are not, it is to be placed in the public treasury.
3. If it is found in the land of a Muslim or a free non-Muslim subject (zhimmi),
then it belongs to the owner of the land, according to Abu Hanifah, Muhammad, and
Ahmad. It is also reported from Ahmad that it belongs to the one who found it (rikaz).
Al-Hasan ibn Salih, Abu Thaur, and Abu Yusuf also preferred this opinion. This view
is based on the belief that rikaz is not necessarily owned by the owner of the land,
except when it is claimed by the owner. In such a case, his word will be the final
one because he has the right over the land. If he does not claim it, it belongs
to the one who finds it. AshShaf'i holds that it belongs to the one who claims it.
Otherwise, it belongs to the original owner.
The amount payable on rikdz is one-fifth, regardless of a nisab, according to Abu
Hanifah, Ahmad, and one of the two correct reports of Malik and ash-Shaf'i. As for
the completion of a year (haws), all scholars agree that it has not been stipulated
as a conditon.
Most scholars are of the opinion that khums is due on anyone who finds a treasure,
whether he happens to be a Muslim, a free non-Muslim subject (zhimmi), old, young,
sane, or insane. However, the guardians of the young and insane must pay it on their
behalf. Ibn al-Munzhir comments that all learned persons agree that a zhimmi who
finds rikaz has to pay its khums. This is also the opinion of Malik, the scholars
of Madinah, ath-Thauri, al-Auza'i, the scholars of Iraq, those who use analogy (ashab
ar-ra'y), and others. Ash-Shaf'i stated that khums is only due upon those who must
pay zakah.
According to ash-Shaf'i, the distribution of khums is similar to the distribution
of zakah. Ahmad and al-Baihaqi narrate from Bishr al-Khath'ami that a man from his
tribe said: "While I was in Kufah, I received a jar from an old monastery at the
zakah district (jibayah) of Bishr. There were 4,000 dirhams in it. I took it to
'Ali, who told me to divide it into five parts, which I did. Then, 'Ali took one-fifth
and gave me four-fifths. When I departed, he called me and asked if there were some
needy people living near me. I replied that there were, and he asked me to divide
the one-fifth among them." Abu Hanifah, Malik, and Ahmad are of the opinion that
its distribution is similar to the distribution of booty (fay').
Ash-Shu'bi narrates that a man, while he was out of Madinah, found 1,000 dinars
in the ground. He brought them to 'Umar ibn alKhattab, who took the khums of 200
dinars and gave the man the rest. 'Umar started to distribute the 200 dinars among
the Muslims who were present. Since a little bit was left over, he then asked: "Where
is the owner of the dinars?" When the man responded, 'Umar said to him: "Take these
dinars, for they are yours." In alMughni, it says that if it were like zakah, he
would have alloted it to those who deserved it and would not have returned it to
its finder. Furthermore, rikaz can be given to the zhimmi, whereas zakah is not.
ICTruth.info