Islamic Fiqh > Zakat > Wealth subject to zakat: types, nisabs and rates > Honey, minerals and buried treasure
Contents
Updated on 24 September 2026 at 4:12 PM
This third part deals with zakat on honey, on minerals extracted from the earth, and on buried treasures (rikaz) inherited from the pre-Islamic era. The jurists debate whether zakat is due on honey, the rulings and ownership of minerals, the role of the lunar year, the applicable nissab thresholds and the destination of the fifth (khums). The positions of the four schools, the hadiths with their sources and the classical references are quoted in detail.
The jurists disagreed about honey: is zakat due on it as on what Allah brings out of the earth, or not? The Hanafis, the Hanbalis and al-Shafi'i in his earlier view hold that zakat is taken from honey. Al-Athram reported that Abu Abdillah, that is Ahmad ibn Hanbal, was asked: "Do you hold that there is zakat on honey?" He said: "Yes, I hold that honey is subject to the zakat of the tenth, for Omar took it from them." I said: "Is that because they gave it voluntarily?" He said: "No, he took it from them." (al-Mughni 3/498)
They relied on the following. First, the hadith of Amr ibn Shu'ayb from his father from his grandfather that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) "took the tenth from honey", an authentic hadith reported by Ibn Majah (1824). Abu Dawud (1600) then reported, as a hasan hadith, from Amr ibn Shu'ayb that Hilal, a man of Banu Mut'an, came to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) with the tithes of his bees, having asked him to protect a valley called Salaba, and the Messenger of Allah had that valley protected for him. When Omar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) came to power, Sufyan ibn Wahb wrote to him asking about that, and Omar (may Allah be pleased with him) wrote:
If he pays you what he used to pay to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) from the tithes of his bees, then protect Salaba for him; otherwise they are only the flies of a rainfall, which whoever wishes may eat.Hasan hadith, reported by Abu Dawud (1600)
Then comes the report of Sulayman ibn Musa from Abu Sayyara al-Muta'i: "O Messenger of Allah, I have bees." He said: "Pay the tenth." I said: "O Messenger of Allah, protect them for me," and he had them protected for him, a hasan hadith reported by Ibn Abi Shayba in al-Musannaf (2/373) and Ibn Majah (1823). The report of Sa'd ibn Abi Dhubab states that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) appointed him over his people and that he said to them: "Pay the tenth on honey." Omar then received it, collected it, sold it and placed it in the charities of the Muslims. According to another version, he came to his people and said: "There is zakat on honey, for there is no good in wealth on which zakat is not paid." They said: how much do you see? He said: the tenth. So he took the tenth from them, brought it to Omar and informed him of its contents, and Omar took it and placed it in the charities of the Muslims. This report is cited by Abu Ubayd in al-Amwal (1487), Ibn Abi Shayba in al-Musannaf (2/373), al-Tabarani in al-Kabir (5458; 6/43) and al-Bayhaqi in al-Kubra (4/327); al-Haythami said in al-Majma' (3/77) that Munir ibn Abdillah in its chain is weak, and al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar said in al-Talkhis (2/118): its chain contains Munir ibn Abdillah, weakened by al-Bukhari and al-Azdi.
Finally, Ibn Omar reported that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said:
On honey, for every ten skins one skin is due.Authentic hadith, reported by al-Tirmidhi (629) and al-Bayhaqi in al-Kubra (4/126)
They added, by way of consideration and analogy, that honey is generated from the sheen of trees and blossoms, that it is measured and stored, so zakat is due on it like grain and dates; and because the cost it involves is less than the cost of crops and fruits (Zad al-Ma'ad 2/15).
The Hanafis then required two conditions. The first: that the bees not be on kharaj land (land subject to the land tax), since kharaj is taken from it and 'ushr and kharaj do not combine in their view: kharaj became due upon its owner for its growth and cultivation, so no other due is imposed for it, whereas no due was imposed for 'ushr land; that is why the due is imposed on what it produces. The second: if the bees are in a wilderness or on an unowned mountain, there is no zakat on them unless the Imam protects them from thieves and highwaymen. Abu Yusuf said: there is no zakat unless the land is owned (Fath al-Qadir 2/6; Bada'i' al-Sana'i' 2/538; Ahkam al-Qur'an by al-Jassas 4/364; Ibn Abidin 2/49; al-Majmu' 7/6; al-Mughni 3/498; al-Ifsah 1/324; Manar al-Sabil 1/188; al-Tahqiq by Ibn al-Jawzi 2/39).
The Malikis and the Shafi'is in the school hold that there is no zakat on honey, relying on two arguments. The first: what Ibn al-Mundhir (may Allah have mercy on him) said: no established report nor consensus proves the obligation of charity on it, so there is no zakat on it. The second: honey is a liquid emerging from an animal and thus resembles milk, and there is consensus that no zakat is due on milk (Tafsir al-Qurtubi 10/140; al-Majmu' 3/17; al-Mughni 3/498; al-Ifsah 1/324).
Those who oblige zakat on honey agree that the tenth is due on it, on the strength of the reports mentioned and by analogy with crops and fruits. They then disagreed: is a nissab taken into account? Abu Hanifa held that it is due on both little and much, on the basis of the original rule for grains and fruits. Abu Yusuf held that its nissab is reaching the value of five wasq of the cheapest of measured goods, such as barley: if it reaches that, the tenth is due on it, otherwise not, on the basis of considering the value of the wasq among measured goods. From Muhammad several narrations are transmitted, ranging from five farq to five amnan to five qirab (on the basis of considering five multiples of the largest measure); the farq was estimated at thirty-six ratl, the mann at two ratl and the qirba at one hundred ratl (al-Hidaya Sharh al-Bidaya 1/110; Bada'i' al-Sana'i' 2/535-536; al-Mabsut 3/16; al-Ikhtiyar 1/122).
Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) held that its nissab is ten farq. His companions then differed about the farq in three opinions: the first: sixty ratl; the second: thirty-six ratl; the third: sixteen ratl, which is the apparent meaning of Ahmad's words; the nissab then comes to one hundred and sixty ratl by the Baghdadi measure and one hundred and forty-four by the Egyptian measure (al-Mughni 3/500; al-Ifsah 1/324; Zad al-Ma'ad 2/16; al-Mubdi' 2/356; al-Insaf 3/117).
As for other goods, the Hanafis, the Hanbalis and the Shafi'is expressly stated that there is no zakat on silk nor on silkworms. The Shafi'is and the Hanbalis said: because no text mentions it and it does not fall under the meaning of a text. The author of Matalib Uli al-Nuha added wool, hair and milk, and al-Shafi'i counted among what carries no zakat musk and similar perfumes (Matalib Uli al-Nuha 2/57, 74; Kashshaf al-Qina' 2/205; al-Umm 2/3; al-Hidaya and Fath al-Qadir 2/6).
Minerals fall into categories: liquid minerals such as bitumen (qir) and petroleum (naft); and what is neither solidifiable nor liquid, such as whitewash (nura), gypsum, jewels, ruby, pearl, turquoise and kohl, a category that accepts neither minting nor smelting, because it is solid (al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya 1/184-185; Ibn Abidin 2/44; Fath al-Qadir 1/179; al-Insaf 3/119-120).
The Shafi'is and the Hanbalis divide minerals, from the standpoint of their extraction, into two categories: the apparent mineral, which comes out without any treatment, treatment serving only to obtain it, such as naft and sulfur; and the hidden mineral, which comes out only with treatment, such as gold, silver, iron and copper (Hashiyat al-Sharqawi ala al-Tahrir 1/181-182; al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyya by Abu Ya'la 235-236).
On the ownership of minerals, the jurists disagreed. The Hanafis hold that if a mineral of gold, silver, iron, brass, lead or copper is found in kharaj land or 'ushr land, the fifth is taken from it and the rest belongs to the finder; the same applies if it is found in a desert that is neither 'ushr land nor kharaj land. As for liquid minerals such as naft and tar, what is neither solidifiable nor liquid such as whitewash and gypsum, and jewels such as ruby and crystal: nothing is due on them and they all belong to the finder. The reason is that gypsum and whitewash are parts of the earth and are thus like soil; ruby and gems belong to the genus of stones, except that they are shining stones, and there is no fifth on stone; bitumen and naft are water and belong to what is not sought for seizure.
If a mineral is found in one's house, nothing is due on it according to Abu Hanifa, while Abu Yusuf and Muhammad said: the fifth is due on it and the rest is for the finder. If the mineral is found in one's land, two narrations are transmitted from Abu Hanifa: the narration of al-Asl: nothing is due; and the narration of al-Jami' al-Saghir: it is due. If a Muslim finds a mineral in the land of war on land owned by no one, it belongs to the finder with no fifth. If he finds it in the property of some of the enemy and entered under a safe conduct (aman), he must return it; if he does not return it and takes it to the land of Islam, it becomes his property, but it is not lawful for him to enjoy it, and his course is to give it as charity. If he entered without safe conduct, the mineral is his with no fifth (Bada'i' al-Sana'i' 2/550, 554; Umdat al-Qari 9/101, 103; Fath al-Qadir 2/180; Tabyin al-Haqa'iq 1/288; al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya 1/185).
It is also said that the Imam may not grant the apparent minerals that the Muslims do not need, that is, those whose substance deposited by Allah in the heart of the earth is exposed, such as the minerals of salt, kohl, tar and naft: such a grant would have no effect, the grantee and all others being equal. If the granter prevented people from them he would be a transgressor, and whatever he took would be his, because he transgresses by preventing, not by taking; so he is restrained from preventing and diverted from continuing the work, so that his grant neither competes with a valid one nor becomes like an established property (al-Durr al-Mukhtar 5/278-279).
The Malikis, in one view, hold that minerals are for the Imam to dispose of as he sees as being in the public interest; they do not follow the land in which they are found, whether owned or not. The Imam may grant them to one who works them by his own effort for the lifetime of the granter or for a period of time, without the grantee owning the substance, taking the zakat in all cases, in line with what is reported from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him):
He granted Bilal ibn al-Harith al-Muzani the mines of Qibliyya, on the side of al-Far'. From those mines nothing is taken to this day except the zakat.Weak hadith, reported by Abu Dawud (3061) and Malik in al-Muwatta (584)
Except if the minerals are in the land of a people who made a treaty: they are then more entitled to them and may exploit them as they wish; if they embrace Islam, the matter returns to the Imam. This is the view of Ibn al-Qasim and his narration from Malik. The rationale is that the minerals in the heart of the earth predate the owner's ownership of the land, so owning the land did not make them his property, in line with the apparent meaning of the word of Allah:
"The earth belongs to Allah: He causes it to be inherited by whom He wills among His servants."
Surah al-A'raf, 128
On this apparent basis, what lies in the heart of the earth of minerals is a fay' for all the Muslims, like what has not been reached by horses or riders (al-Taj wal-Iklil 2/334; al-Muqaddimat by Ibn Rushd 1/224, 226; Hashiyat al-Dasuqi 1/487; Mukhtasar Khalil 1/63; al-Sharh al-Saghir 1/421).
The Malikis, in another view, hold that minerals follow the land in which they are found. If they are in free land, in land under tribute ('anwa) or in unclaimed wastes, their matter belongs to the Imam, who grants them to those who work them, or contracts with people to work them for the community of the Muslims within what is permitted to him, taking the zakat in all cases. If they are in owned land, they are the property of the owner of the land, who disposes of them as any owner does with his property. If they are in treaty land (sulh), the people of the treaty are more entitled, unless they embrace Islam. This is what Sahnun said, and likewise Malik in the book of Ibn al-Mawwaz: since gold and silver are established in the land, they belong to the owner of the land like what grows in it of grass and trees (al-Muqaddimat by Ibn Rushd 1/225; Balghat al-Salik 1/421).
The Shafi'is said: the mineral is of two kinds, apparent and hidden. The apparent is what has come out, that is, whose substance appeared without treatment, that is, without work; work and effort serve only to obtain it, easily or not: naft, sulfur, tar, biram (a stone used to make cooking pots), millstones, whitewash stones (nura), madar, gypsum and water-salt; likewise mountain salt so long as it does not require digging and toil. It is not owned by reviving dead land, and no exclusive right is established by enclosure or by a grant from the authority, because these things are shared among people, Muslims and disbelievers alike, like water and pasture.
Al-Abyad ibn Hammal asked the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) to grant him the salt of Ma'rib, and he intended to grant it, or he (the narrator) said: he granted it to him. A man said to him: it is like sweet water (al-'add). He said: then, no.Hasan hadith, reported by al-Shafi'i in al-Umm (4/24), Abu Dawud (3064), al-Tirmidhi (1380), Ibn Majah (2475), al-Nasa'i in al-Kubra (3/405) and al-Bayhaqi in al-Kubra (6/149), among others
No distinction is made between a grant conferring ownership and a grant of shared use, contrary to al-Zarkashi who restricted the prohibition to the first. The hidden mineral is what does not come out, that is, whose substance does not appear, except with treatment: gold, silver, iron, lead, copper, turquoise, ruby, carnelian and the other jewels scattered in the layers of the earth. It is not owned by digging and working in dead land with the intention of taking possession, according to the apparent view, unlike the apparent mineral; the second, however, is owned by such work if possession is intended, like dead land.
Whoever revives dead land and a mineral such as gold appears in it owns it definitively: by reviving it he owns the land with all its parts, and the mineral is one of its parts. If he knows that there is a mineral in the revived spot and takes it as a dwelling, two ways are mentioned: the preferred is that he does not own it, the intention being corrupted, and this is the relied-upon view; the second is to assert that he owns it. If the mineral found in what he revived is apparent, he does not own it by reviving it if he knew of it, since it requires no treatment; if he did not know, he owns it, and this is the relied-upon view (Mughni al-Muhtaj 2/372-373; Asna al-Matalib 2/453).
The Hanbalis said: solid minerals such as gold, silver, lead, kohl and the other jewels such as ruby and emerald are owned with ownership of the land in which they are found, because they are parts of the earth, like soil and fixed stones. It is reported that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) granted Bilal ibn al-Harith al-Muzani such and such land in such and such place, along with whatever mountain or mineral it contained. Banu Bilal sold land to Omar ibn Abd al-Aziz, and two minerals came out of it; they said: we only sold you ploughing land, we did not sell you the mineral, and they produced the deed of grant that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) had written for their father in a document. Omar wiped it over his eyes and said to his steward: see what was extracted from it and what was spent on it, settle with them for the expense and return the surplus (reported by Abu Ubayd in al-Amwal, 867). On this basis, whatever one finds in a property or in dead land, he is more entitled to it. If two people race to a mineral in dead land, the first is more entitled as long as he keeps working; if he abandons it, others may work it. Whatever is found in owned land whose owner is known belongs to the owner of the place.
As for flowing minerals such as tar, naft and sulfur, they are permissible in all cases, and the first comer is more entitled to them, according to the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him):
Whoever precedes others to something that no Muslim has preceded him to, it is his.Weak hadith, reported by Abu Dawud (3071) and al-Bayhaqi (6/142)
If one who precedes others to something permissible whose land he does not own is entitled to it, he is even more entitled here; however, it is disliked for him to enter another's property without permission. Does he own it? Two narrations: the more authentic is that he does not own it, according to the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him):
People are partners in three: water, pasture and fire.Authentic hadith, reported by Abu Dawud (3477)
And because such minerals are not parts of the land, they are not owned with the ownership of the land, like buried treasure. According to the second narration, he owns them, because they come out of his land, resembling solid minerals and crops (al-Mughni 3/550-551; al-Mubdi' 5/253; Kashshaf al-Qina' 4/189; Matalib Uli al-Nuha 4/184).
On the passing of the lunar year (hawlan al-hawl), the Hanafis, the Malikis, the Hanbalis and al-Shafi'i in his most apparent statements hold that the year is not taken into account in the zakat of minerals: it is wealth derived from the earth, and the year is not considered in the obligation of its due, as with crops and fruits. The year is only considered in other cases to complete growth, whereas the mineral's growth is completed all at once; its zakat is therefore due at the moment it is extracted (Fath al-Qadir 2/234; al-Inaya 2/233; al-Ishraf 1/184; al-Dhakhira 3/59-60; al-Majmu' 7/165; al-Mughni 3/549; al-Ifsah 1/335).
Imam Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the mineral is like crops: the like of what is taken from crops is taken from it as soon as it leaves the mine, without waiting for the year, just as the tenth is taken from crops at harvest without waiting for the year to pass (al-Muwatta 1/248; Sharh al-Zurqani 2/137). Imam al-Shafi'i said, as transmitted by al-Buwayti: it is not due until a year has passed, because it is the zakat of wealth in which zakat recurs, so the year is taken into account as with the other zakats (al-Majmu' 7/165; al-Ifsah 1/335).
As for what is due and what it applies to, the Hanafis hold that the fifth is due on the mineral, attaching to everything solidifiable: gold, silver, iron, lead, brass and copper, whether extracted by a free man, a slave, a dhimmi, a child or a woman, the rest belonging to the extractor, and whether the mineral is found in 'ushr land or kharaj land. As for liquid minerals such as bitumen and naft, and what is neither solidifiable nor liquid such as whitewash, gypsum, jewels and rubies: nothing is due on them, because gypsum and whitewash are parts of the earth and are thus like soil, and ruby and gems belong to the genus of stones, except that they are shining stones, and there is no fifth on stone (Bada'i' al-Sana'i' 2/552; Tabyin al-Haqa'iq 1/289; al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya 1/184-185).
The Malikis said: zakat attaches only to the mineral of gold or silver, to the exclusion of the rest, because minerals other than gold and silver are not among the kinds of wealth subject to zakat; the principle is non-obligation, while obligation is established for gold and silver by consensus, so nothing is due on the rest without an explicit proof. As for the amount due, two narrations are transmitted from Malik. The first: a quarter of the tenth is due, because of the saying of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) reported earlier about Bilal ibn al-Harith al-Muzani and the mines of Qibliyya, from which nothing is taken except the zakat, and because the mineral is derived from the earth at cost and effort, so zakat is due on it, not the fifth, like crops. The second narration, which is the school position: if it is obtained all at once, without toil or processing, the fifth is due; if it is obtained scattered, with toil and cost, a quarter of the tenth is due, because it is a due attaching to what is derived from the earth and its amount varies with the expense, like the zakat of crops (al-Muwatta 1/248; al-Istidhkar 3/144; al-Tamhid 3/239; al-Kharshi 2/208-209; al-Dasuqi 1/406; al-Sharh al-Saghir 1/423; al-Muntaqa by al-Baji 2/103-104; al-Ishraf 1/183; Sharh al-Zurqani 2/138; al-Ifsah 1/335-336).
The Shafi'is, like the Malikis, hold that zakat is due only on gold and silver, to the exclusion of everything else. They differ on the amount due on the mineral in three opinions. The correct one: a quarter of the tenth is due; al-Mawardi said it is al-Shafi'i's text in al-Umm, al-Imla' and al-Qadim, and al-Shirazi explained: we have shown that it is zakat, and the zakat of gold and silver is a quarter of the tenth. It is also said: the fifth is due on it, because it is wealth whose zakat is due by mere existence, so its zakat is set at the fifth, like rikan. The third opinion: if the mineral is obtained without toil, the fifth is due; with toil, a quarter of the tenth, because it is a due attaching to what is derived from the earth, varying with the expense, like the zakat of crops (al-Majmu' 7/165-166).
The Hanbalis said: zakat is due on the mineral that comes out of the earth, whether solidifiable, such as gold, silver and iron, or not, such as pearl, turquoise, ruby, bitumen and whitewash, because of the generality of the word of Allah:
"O you who believe, spend from the good things you have earned and from what We have brought out of the earth for you."
Surah al-Baqara, 267
And because it is a mineral whose zakat attaches to what comes out of it, like articles of trade; and because it is wealth which, if acquired as spoils, its fifth would be due: when it is extracted from a mine, zakat is due on it, like gold. The due on the mineral in their view is a quarter of the tenth, qualified as zakat on the strength of the hadith of Bilal ibn al-Harith al-Muzani mentioned earlier, and because it is a due forbidden to the rich and to near relatives, and is therefore a zakat (al-Mughni 2/331, Dar al-Fikr edition, Beirut).
The majority of jurists, the Malikis, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis, take the nissab into account for minerals: what reaches twenty mithqal of gold or two hundred dirhams of silver, or the equivalent value of any other mineral. Proofs include the generality of the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him):
No charity is due on less than five awaq.Reported by al-Bukhari (1390) and Muslim (979)
then his saying:
Nothing is due on ninety or on a hundred (dirhams).Reported by al-Daraqutni in his Sunan (2/92) and al-Hakim in al-Mustadrak (1/557), authenticated by al-Albani in Sahih al-Jami' (4375)
and his saying:
Nothing is due on you in gold until it reaches twenty mithqal.Reported by Abu Dawud (1573), authenticated by al-Albani in Sahih Abi Dawud (1391)
And because the mineral is not rikan: rikan is the wealth of a disbeliever seized at the advent of Islam, resembling spoils, whereas the due on the mineral is imposed only as a relief and a gratitude for the blessing of wealth; the nissab is therefore taken into account as with the other zakats, while the year is not, the mineral being obtained all at once, which brings it closer to crops and fruits (al-Ishraf 1/184; al-Majmu' 7/160; al-Mughni 3/548; al-Insaf 3/120; al-Ifsah 1/336).
Imam Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) said: I hold, and Allah knows best, that nothing is taken from the minerals extracted from the earth until what comes out reaches the value of twenty dinars in cash or two hundred dirhams; when that is reached, zakat is due on it where it is, and whatever exceeds that amount is taken. As for the destination of this due, the two Imams Malik and Ahmad hold that it is that of zakat. The school of al-Shafi'i differs on this: it is said that its destination is that of the zakats without restriction, and this is the correct view of the school; and it is said that if the fifth is imposed, its destination is that of the fay', and if the tenth is imposed, that of zakat (al-Majmu' 7/159, 168; Mughni al-Muhtaj 1/395; Mukhtasar al-Khilafiyyat by al-Bayhaqi 2/485; al-Hidaya 2/243; al-Mughni 3/545; al-Insaf 3/120; al-Ifsah 1/337; al-Sharh al-Saghir 1/423).
The jurists disagreed about what is extracted from the sea: precious jewels such as pearl and coral, and perfumes such as ambergris. The majority of jurists, Abu Hanifa, Muhammad, the Malikis, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis in the school, hold that nothing is due on sea minerals, based on what is reported from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both): "There is no zakat on ambergris; it is only a thing the sea buried," that is, spat out and cast upon the shore. This statement was reported by al-Bukhari in suspended form (4/424), connected by al-Shafi'i in his Musnad (1/140), Abd al-Razzaq in al-Musannaf (4/65), Ibn Abi Shayba (2/374) and Abu Ubayd in al-Amwal (885), and its chain was authenticated by al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar in Talkhis al-Habir (2/177). Likewise it is reported from Jabir ibn Abdillah (may Allah be pleased with them both): "Ambergris is not booty; it belongs to whoever finds it (or takes it)" (al-Amwal by Abu Ubayd, 884).
The holders of this view conclude: this is explicit that nothing is due on ambergris, and ambergris is extracted from the sea, so likewise nothing is due on the other sea minerals, since there is no difference between one sea mineral and another. Moreover, ambergris was extracted in the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and his caliphs, and no authentic sunna about it came from him or from them. And because the principle is non-obligation unless a text has come, and because ambergris falls under effortless gain ('afw), by analogy with the exemption of horses from charity.
Imam Ahmad, in one narration, and Abu Yusuf among the Hanafis, hold that the fifth is due on pearl, ambergris and every ornament that comes out of the sea. It is reported from Ya'la ibn Umayya that he wrote to Omar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) asking about ambergris found on the shore, and that Omar wrote in reply: "It is the wealth of Allah which He gives to whom He wills, and the fifth is due on it." The argument: it is growth completed at once, hence the fifth, like rikan; and derived wealth is of two kinds, from land and from sea: since the zakat of what is derived from land is due, the zakat of what is derived from sea is due as well (al-Ifsah 1/340).
As for fish, Ibn Qudama (may Allah have mercy on him) said: nothing is due on it at all in the view of the people of knowledge without exception, except something reported from Omar ibn Abd al-Aziz and transmitted by Abu Ubayd, who said about it: the people are not upon this and we know of no one who acts upon it; it is also reported from Ahmad. The correct view is that nothing is due on it, because fish is game and no zakat is due on game, like game in general.
The jurists then discussed buried treasure from the Jahiliyya era other than the two currencies, gold and silver: is the fifth due on it or not? The majority of jurists, the Hanafis, the Malikis in the well-known view, the Hanbalis, and al-Shafi'i in his earlier view, hold that rikan encompasses every kind of buried wealth whatever its type: iron, copper, lead, brass, marble, columns, vessels, goods, musk and the rest. Proof: the generality of the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "and on rikan, the fifth": the hadith does not specify buried gold to the exclusion of the rest, but is general for everything the people of the Jahiliyya buried (Fath al-Qadir 2/238-239; Ibn Abidin 2/44; al-Mudawwana 1/292; al-Sharh al-Saghir 1/486; al-Dasuqi 1/489; al-Ishraf 1/185; al-Bayan 3/345; al-Majmu' 7/178; al-Mughni 3/544; al-Ifsah 1/338).
The Shafi'is in the school, and Malik in one narration, hold that the fifth is due only on the two currencies, gold and silver, to the exclusion of other wealth and minerals, because rikan is wealth derived from the earth and is therefore restricted to what zakat is due upon, in amount and in kind (al-Bayan 3/345; al-Majmu' 7/178; al-Ishraf 1/185; al-Ifsah 1/338).
As for the nissab in rikan, the jurists differed: must rikan reach a nissab for the fifth to be due, or is no nissab required and the fifth due on little and much alike? The majority of jurists, the Hanafis, the Malikis, the Hanbalis and al-Shafi'i in his earlier view, hold that no nissab is required in rikan and the fifth is due on little and much alike, because of the generality of "and on rikan, the fifth": since no nissab is specified in it, it must be due on little and much; and because it is wealth carrying a fifth in which no nissab is considered, resembling spoils (Ibn Abidin 2/44; Fath al-Qadir 2/235-236; al-Sharh al-Saghir 1/215; al-Kharshi 2/210; al-Majmu' 7/181; al-Sharh al-Kabir by al-Rafi'i 6/110; Mughni al-Muhtaj 1/394-395; al-Mughni 3/544; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat 1/400; al-Ifsah 1/338).
The Shafi'is in the school require the nissab in rikan, on the basis that the fifth taken from rikan is a zakat, according to the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "Nothing is due on less than two hundred dirhams, and nothing on less than twenty mithqal of gold," with no distinction made between rikan and other wealth; and because it is a due spent on the categories entitled to charity, the nissab is taken into account as with the other zakats. Answer: the first report is general, while this one is specific, and the specific is given precedence over the general. Accordingly, if treasure is found below the nissab of gold or silver and no wealth of its kind accompanies it, nothing is due (al-Bayan 3/346; al-Majmu' 7/181; al-Sharh al-Kabir by al-Rafi'i 6/110; Mughni al-Muhtaj 1/394-395).
First case: finding rikan in the land of Islam. If the treasure is found in dead land or in land with no known owner, whether Muslim or protected person, such as land bearing traces of ownership, old buildings, mounds, walls of the Jahiliyya or their graves, the fifth is due on it with no disagreement among the scholars. Ibn Qudama added that the ruling is the same if it is found on the surface of such land, on an untrodden path or in a ruined village, according to the hadith of Amr ibn Shu'ayb from his father from his grandfather: the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was asked about lost property and said:
What is on a frequented road or in an inhabited village: announce it for a year; if its owner comes, it is his, otherwise it is yours. What is neither on a frequented road nor in an inhabited village: the fifth is due on it, as on rikan.Hasan hadith, reported by al-Nasa'i (2493) and Abu Dawud (1710) in similar wording
A frequented road is an old, travelled road, so named because people come to it. Second case: the treasure found on a thoroughfare, a travelled road or in an inhabited village: the jurists differ on its qualification, lost property or rikan. The Shafi'is and the Hanbalis: it is lost property, according to the hadith reported earlier; the Malikis, and al-Shafi'i in one aspect: it is rikan (al-Hawi al-Kabir 8/4; al-Bayan 7/518; al-Majmu' 7/171; al-Fawakih al-Dawani 1/349; Ibn Abidin 2/44; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat 1/400; al-Mughni 3/540).
Third case: the treasure found in one's own property, which may have been revived by him or transferred to him. If the owner is the one who revived the land and finds treasure in it, it belongs to him and he pays the fifth on it, with no disagreement among the jurists. If the property was transferred to him, two situations arise. Through inheritance, there is no disagreement: the treasure is inherited. Ibn Qudama said: if the house passes by inheritance, it is ruled as inheritance; if the heirs agree that it did not belong to the deceased, it belongs to the first owner; if the first owner is unknown, it is like lost wealth with no known owner, and this is the more correct view, because rikan is not owned with ownership of the house: it is not one of its parts but is deposited in it, like the things of common use such as grass, wood and game. Whoever finds treasure in another's land takes it and is more entitled to it; if the owner from whom the property was transferred claims it, his word is taken, because his hand is upon its place; if he does not claim it, it belongs to the finder (al-Mughni 3/542).
Al-Mawardi (may Allah have mercy on him) added: whoever owns a house and finds treasure in it, it is his if he claims it, because his hand is upon it; if he does not claim it, it belongs to whoever owned the house before him. If that person had acquired it by inheritance, the treasure belongs to all the heirs according to the shares prescribed by Allah, if they claim it; if they deny it, it belongs to whoever remains of his heirs if they claim it, and if they deny it, to whoever owned the house before them, and so on. If he had bought it, the treasure belongs to the seller if he claims it; if he denies it, to the one from whom the seller bought the house, if he claims it, and so on indefinitely (al-Hawi al-Kabir 3/342).
Second situation: the property transferred by sale or gift. The majority of jurists, Abu Hanifa, Muhammad, the Malikis, the Shafi'is, and Ahmad in one narration, hold that the treasure belongs to the first owner or to his heir if he is alive: his hand was upon the house and thus upon what it contains; the seller's ignorance of it does not remove his ownership, the buyer entering the purchase only upon what is customary. The ignorance of the first owner and that of the buyer differ: the first owner's ignorance does not remove his ownership and gives him the right to what the house contains even if he did not intend it, while the buyer's ignorance does not give him ownership of what he did not intend, nor does it remove the ownership of the first, who did not intend its sale (Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 2/322; Umdat al-Qari 16/58; al-Tabsira 3/964; al-Kharshi 2/211; Hashiyat al-Sawi ala al-Sharh al-Saghir 1/487; al-Majmu' 7/173; al-Mughni 3/542; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat 1/400). Ibn Abidin reported from al-Bahr: the treasure is deposited in the earth; when the first owner took possession of it, he took possession of what it contains, and what it contains does not leave his ownership by its sale, like the pearl inside the fish.
Imam Ahmad in one narration, Abu Yusuf among the Hanafis and Ibn al-Qasim among the Malikis hold that what remains after the fifth belongs to the last owner who found it, that is, the buyer: what is inside is like what is outside; it is the wealth of a disbeliever overtaken by Islam, and thus belongs to whoever overtakes it, like spoils; and rikan is not owned with ownership of the land, since it is deposited in it: it is only owned by being overtaken, and this man has overtaken it, so he should own it. Ibn Qudama (may Allah have mercy on him) authenticated this narration and said: this is the more correct view, Allah willing, because rikan is not owned with ownership of the house: it is not one of its parts but is deposited in it, like the things of common use such as grass, wood and game; whoever finds it in another's land takes it and is more entitled to it (al-Mughni 3/542; al-Tabsira 3/964; al-Kharshi 2/211).
Fourth case: the treasure found in the property of another. Abu Hanifa, Muhammad, Malik and Ahmad in one narration hold that rikan found in an owned house or land belongs to the owner of the house or land: the tenant of a plot or a house who finds treasure there must hand it to the owner (al-Mabsut by al-Shaybani 2/132; al-Mabsut by al-Sarakhsi 2/2124; Bada'i' al-Sana'i' 2/550; Fath al-Qadir 2/183; al-Mughni 3/543). Imam Ahmad in another narration, Abu Yusuf among the Hanafis, Mutarrif, Ibn al-Majishun, Ibn Nafi', Asbagh among the Malikis, al-Hasan ibn Salih and Abu Thawr hold that it belongs to the finder: Ahmad said, regarding one who hires a worker to dig in his house and who finds a treasure in the house, that it belongs to the worker; the qadi judged this view correct, and Ibn Qudama saw in it a proof that rikan belongs to the finder, the view of al-Hasan ibn Salih and Abu Thawr, approved by Abu Yusuf: the treasure is not owned with ownership of the house, so it belongs to whoever finds it; if the owner claims it, his word is taken, because his hand is upon its place; if he does not claim it, it belongs to the finder.
If one hires a digger to search for a treasure whose existence he knows of, and the digger finds it, nothing belongs to the worker: the legal finder is the hirer, who hired him for that purpose, like one who hires him to dig or to hunt: the yield belongs to the hirer, not the worker. If he was hired for something else, the finder is the worker. Al-Awza'i said likewise: if I hire a worker to dig in my house and he finds a treasure, it is his; and if I say: I hired you to dig here hoping to find a treasure, and I made that known to him, his wage is his and whatever is found is mine.
Finally, if one has rented a house and finds treasure in it, it belongs to the finder according to one of the two views and to the lessor according to the other, in line with the two narrations about whoever finds rikan in property transferred to him. If the two dispute and each says: it is mine, two aspects are mentioned: the first gives the word to the lessor, the burial following the land; the second to the lessee, the treasure being deposited in the earth without being part of it, so the word belongs to the one whose hand is upon it, like the cloth (al-Mughni 3/543; al-Tabsira 3/962). The Shafi'is give the word to the lessee, his hand being upon the house and its contents. Imam al-Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him) said: if a man finds the rikan in the house of another in which dwells someone other than its owner, and the owner claims it, the rikan belongs to the dweller, as the belongings of the house belong to the dweller, whether attached to the building or not (al-Umm 2/44). Al-Amrani reported that when one who had rented a house found treasure in it and both claimed it, al-Shafi'i said: the word is that of the lessee. Al-Muzani transmitted the view that the word is that of the lessor, and this is an error: it is the lessee whose hand is upon the house and its contents, and the word is therefore his regarding what is in his hand.
Rikan can only be qualified as such if it comes from wealth of the Jahiliyya era, known to have had no like minted in Islam: it bears the name of one of the kings of polytheism or the image of the cross, the apparent being that it belongs to a polytheist. If it bears a verse of the Book of Allah, the name of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) or that of one of the caliphs of the Muslims, it is not rikan but lost property that must be announced (al-Bayan 3/344; al-Hawi al-Kabir 3/342; al-Majmu' 7/171, 183).
The jurists differed about one who enters the land of war and finds rikan there: is the fifth due on it, or does it all belong to the finder? The Hanafis: if he finds it in land owned by no one, it all belongs to the finder with no fifth: it is wealth not taken by conquest, since Islam has no dominion over that place; it is therefore not spoils and nothing is due on it, and it all belongs to him because it is a permissible thing he seized himself, like wood and grass, whether he entered under safe conduct or not, since safe conduct bears upon owned property, not upon permissible things.
If he finds it in land owned by some of the enemy and entered under safe conduct, he returns it to the owner of the land: under safe conduct it is not lawful for him to take anything of their wealth without their consent, because of the treachery and breach of trust involved. If he does not return it, the treasure becomes his property but is not lawful for him to enjoy, since the taint of treachery has entered into it; his course is to give it as charity. If he sells it, the sale is valid because ownership is established, but it is not lawful for the buyer, unlike one who buys in an invalid sale. If he entered without safe conduct, the treasure is lawful for him with no fifth: he may take whatever he gets of their wealth without their consent, and the fifth is not due because it was not taken by conquest; even if a group enters the land of war and gets hold of part of their treasures, the fifth is due on it, because it is spoils, the seizure having taken place by conquest (Bada'i' al-Sana'i' 2/550; Sharh al-Siyar al-Kabir 5/2178; Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 2/324; Durrar al-Hukam 2/376).
The Malikis and the Shafi'is: whoever finds rikan in the lands of war owes its fifth, the rest belonging to the finder, with no difference between the land of Islam and the land of war, because of the generality of the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "and on rikan, the fifth," with no distinction between the land of Islam and the land other than Islam (al-Bayan 3/343).
As for the Hanbalis, Ibn Qudama (may Allah have mercy on him) said: fourth category: finding it, that is rikan, in the land of war. If he cannot get it except with a group of Muslims, it is spoils for him; if he can get it by himself, it belongs to the finder, with the same ruling as what is found in dead land in the land of the Muslims. Abu Hanifa and al-Shafi'i said: if he knows the owner of the land and he is a belligerent, it is spoils as well, because the treasure is in the stronghold of a specific owner, like what is taken from a house or a treasury. Our answer: that place has no owner whose rights are respected, as if its owner were unknown; their view is refuted on the basis of our position that rikan, in the land of Islam, belongs to the owner of the land (al-Mughni 3/543-544).
The jurists differed: is the fifth of rikan spent like the fay' or like zakat? The majority of jurists, the Hanafis, the Malikis, the Hanbalis in the school, as well as al-Muzani and Ibn al-Wakil among the Shafi'is, hold that the fifth of rikan is spent like the fay', the spoils, and not as zakat. It is therefore lawful for the rich, not restricted to the poor, devoted to the general interests of the Muslims and not to the eight categories. They relied on what Abu Ubayd reported from al-Sha'bi: a man found a thousand dinars buried outside Medina, brought them to Omar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him), who took the fifth, two hundred dinars, and gave the man the rest. Omar divided the two hundred among the Muslims present. A surplus remained, and he said: where is the owner of the dinars? The man came forward and Omar said to him: "Take these dinars, they are yours" (reported by Abu Ubayd in al-Amwal, 874, with a weak chain).
Had the amount taken been zakat, Omar would have restricted it to its beneficiaries and would not have returned it to the finder; and because rikan is wealth carrying a fifth from which the hand of the disbeliever has departed, like the fifth of spoils (Ibn Abidin 2/43, 48; al-Mabsut 2/212; al-Mudawwana 1/292; al-Kharshi with the gloss of al-Adawi 2/209; Balghat al-Salik 1/485; al-Umm 2/44; al-Mughni 3/544; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat 1/400; Matalib Uli al-Nuha 2/81; al-Ifsah 1/339).
The Shafi'is in the school and Imam Ahmad in one narration hold that the fifth of rikan must be spent like zakat, based on what is reported from Abdallah ibn Bishr al-Kath'ami from a man of his people called Ibn Humama: "A jar fell upon me from an old monastery in Kufa, near the cemetery of Bashr, containing four thousand dirhams. I took them to Ali, who said: divide them into five fifths. When I had finished, he called me and said: are there poor and needy among your neighbours? I said: yes. He said: take them and divide them among them." This statement was reported by Abd al-Razzaq in al-Musannaf (7179), al-Tahawi in Sharh Ma'ani al-Athar (3/304) and al-Bayhaqi in al-Kubra (4/156), with a weak chain. And because rikan is wealth derived from the earth, resembling the mineral and crops (al-Umm 2/44; al-Mughni 3/544; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat 1/400; al-Ifsah 1/339).