= In Lisan al-Arab, 5/365: “It is said rakazahu yarkuzuhu rakzan, meaning ‘he buried it.’ The hadith reflects the usage current among the people of the Hijaz: it refers to pre-Islamic buried treasure. A one-fifth levy was imposed on it because of the great benefit it yields and the ease with which it is taken. Al-Azhari transmitted from al-Shafi‘i that he said: ‘What I do not doubt is that *rikaz* is the treasure buried in the pre-Islamic era; what remains unclear to me is whether the ore still in the mine and the native gold created in the earth are also *rikaz*.’ Ibn al-Athir says in al-Nihaya, 2/258: “Among the people of the Hijaz *rikaz* means the buried hoards of the pre-Islamic period; among the people of Iraq it means mineral deposits. Linguistically, both views are possible, for each is *markuz*—that is, embedded—in the earth. It is said rakazahu yarkuzuhu rakzan, ‘he buried it,’ and ar-kaz al-rajul, ‘a man has found *rikaz*.’ The hadith, however, concerns only the first interpretation …” Al-Baji writes in al-Muntaqa, 2/102: “Ore extracted from a mine is not called *rikaz*; this is also the position of al-Shafi‘i. Abu Hanifa, however, maintains that ore is indeed *rikaz*.” Ibn Qudama states in al-Mughni, 2/327: “*Rikaz* on which the payment of one-fifth is due is whatever was buried during the pre-Islamic era. This is the opinion of al-Hasan, al-Sha‘bi, Malik, al-Shafi‘i, and Abu Thawr. It is identified by the presence of their distinctive marks, such as the names of their kings, their images and crosses, statues of their idols, and the like.” I say: What Abu Hafs al-Nasafi has stated carries weight in supporting the Iraqi view of the meaning of *rikaz*, yet in deducing a legal ruling it is the established shar‘i usage that prevails over mere linguistic possibility. There is no doubt that the Hijazi usage, corroborated by the majority of jurists, indicates that the *rikaz* mentioned in the hadith is the pre-Islamic buried treasure—this is also the view preferred by the author in al-Iqna‘, 1/178. See also: al-Mughrib by al-Turtushi, p. 196; al-Misbah al-Munir, p. 237; Sharh Hudud Ibn ‘Arafa, p. 76; al-Mutali‘, 1/133; al-Fa’iq, 1/16; and Anis al-Fuqaha’, 1/132. (1) Ibn Qudama says in al-Mughni, 2/327: “The primary evidence concerning the levy on *rikaz* is the report transmitted by Abu Hurayra that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: ‘Liability for an animal that harms is waived, and for *rikaz* one-fifth is due.’ Agreed upon. Consensus has also been reached on this point. Ibn al-Munzir said: ‘We know of no one who opposed this hadith except al-Hasan, who distinguished between what is found in enemy territory and what is found in Arab lands, saying that the former incurs a one-fifth levy while the latter is subject to zakat …’” Ibn Hazm remarks in al-Maratib, p. 69: “They have not agreed on any point concerning *rikaz* that can be coherently summarized.”