That, then, is what the Prophet — peace and blessings be upon him — meant in the ḥadith of Abū Hurayrah cited in the book: “…and on rikāz there is one-fifth.” Al-Albānī traced the report in Irwāʾ al-Ghalīl, 812, through several chains.

Under the heading “The type of rikāz on which zakāt is due” he writes: “Al-Shāfiʿī has another view: that the one-fifth is not obligatory on bullion, i.e., gold and silver.”

I say: This is the opinion preferred by al-Ṣanʿānī, for he said, “In the stronger view, rikāz is gold and silver.”

This, however, is a mistake that conflicts with the Arabic language, for rikāz in Arabic means “wealth buried in the earth,” as noted earlier, and “wealth” in the language is “whatever one possesses of anything.” From these two premises it follows that rikāz covers every kind of buried property and is not confined to the two precious metals. This is the position of the majority, adopted by Ibn Ḥazm and favored by Ibn Daqīq al-ʿĪd. Mālik at first hesitated, but in the end his view settled on this preferred opinion, as recorded in al-Mudawwanah; I have quoted his exact words in the treatise already mentioned.

Under the heading “What is due on rikāz” he writes: “According to al-Shāfiʿī’s later opinion, a niṣāb is required for rikāz.”

I reply: The unrestricted wording of the ḥadith — “On rikāz there is one-fifth” — clearly indicates that no niṣāb condition exists. This is the view of the majority and was upheld by Ibn al-Munḏir, al-Ṣanʿānī, al-Shawkānī, and others. Al-Shāfiʿī, in his later position, cited a transmitted proof that is weak; I reproduced it in the aforementioned treatise and demonstrated its infirmity.

Regarding his statement “The disbursement of the khums,” I say: he mentions two well-known opinions: