and one-fifth is due on it, to be distributed in the same manner as zakat. Bakr ibn Muhammad transmitted from Ahmad that it should be distributed in the manner of fayʾ revenues. The one-fifth due on rikaz applies to every form of property it may consist of, such as gold, silver, and commercial merchandise. If rikaz is found buried on privately owned land, there are two reports. According to one, it belongs to the owner of the land, and the finder has no claim to it; the owner must pay one-fifth on it.

He expressly stated that it belongs to the owner of the land rather than its finder in the report of Abu al-Harith. Concerning a man who hired a digger to dig a well for him in his house, and the digger found a treasure in the well, he said: “If it is ordinary rikaz, it belongs to the owner of the house. If it consists of Islamic coinage, he must publicly announce it.” Thus, he expressly held that it belongs to the owner of the land.

As for requiring the one-fifth, he expressly stated that the due levy on a mineral is owed by whoever finds it on his land, in the reports of Abu al-Harith and Salih; rikaz is analogous to it.

According to another report, it belongs to the finder rather than the owner of the land, and one-fifth is due on it. He stated this in the report of Ibn Mansur concerning a man who bought a house and found dirhams in it: “They are lost property unless they bear Sasanian coinage; then they belong to whoever found them.” Thus, he expressly held that they belong to the finder, namely, the purchaser. He did not inquire about the person from whom the house had been transferred; had they belonged to the owner of the house, it would have been necessary to inquire about him.

The basis of the first report—that it belongs to the owner of the land—is that rikaz is a deposit in the ground, and ownership is not acquired merely by discovering it. Its proof is the case in which buried property dating from the Islamic period is found there. The mineral is not analogous to it, because it is not a deposited object but part of the earth’s soil. The evidence that the one-fifth is due is that the obligation does not differ according to whether it is extracted from open land or from one’s house, as with a mineral. It is established according to our legal principle that a due levy is owed on what a person finds in his house; the same applies to rikaz.

The rationale of the second report—that it belongs to the finder—is that it is property subject to the one-fifth levy; therefore, ownership should vest in the person who discovers it, just as when someone enters enemy territory without the imam’s permission and takes property: he pays one-fifth on it, and the remainder belongs to him. Here, too, acquisition takes place through the finder.

Any property bearing Islamic coinage that is found buried or unburied is lost property. It must be publicly announced for one year. If its owner appears, it is returned to him; otherwise, the finder may claim ownership of it, while remaining liable for it to its owner should he later appear. If he finds a mineral—gold or silver—in his house, zakat is due on it, because it has been extracted from a mineral and the due levy thereby attaches to it. The proof is the case where a mineral lies in uncultivated land and is extracted; moreover, it is not impossible for it to be his property and for the due levy to attach to it, just as the tithe attaches to vegetables.