Rikaz
Rikaz is treasure or wealth found buried in the earth. A fifth of it - twenty per cent - is given away, far more than the fortieth due on ordinary savings. It falls due the moment the find is made, with no waiting year and no threshold.
Wealth given under this heading goes to the same people as Zakat.
What the Words Mean
The root behind rikaz means to fix something firmly in place, to drive it in so it stays.
The same root gives markaz, a centre - the fixed point around which other things arrange themselves. Rikaz is what has been planted in the ground and left there.
In law it means wealth buried in the earth from before Islam: hoards, coins, worked metal, the contents of a grave or a ruin. What somebody put there long ago and never came back for.
The Rule, and Where It Comes From
One short sentence settles it. The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ said that no compensation is owed for harm caused by an animal, or by a well, or in a mine - and that on rikaz, a fifth is due (Sahih al-Bukhari 1499; Sahih Muslim 1710).
Three conditions that govern ordinary Zakat are simply absent.
No threshold. Abu Hanifa, Ahmad, and one of the reports from both Malik and al-Shafi'i hold that the fifth is due on any quantity at all, large or small.
No waiting year. Scholars agree the hawl is not a condition here. The obligation arrives with the find.
No requirement to be an adult. Most scholars hold the fifth is owed by whoever makes the find, including a child - which is not the case for Zakat under the Hanafi school.
Why a Fifth and Not a Fortieth
This is the interesting part, and it explains something about the whole system.
Look at the rates together.
Ordinary savings: a fortieth, 2.5%, on wealth you earned, held and watched for a year.
Crops: a tenth where rain or a spring did the watering, and half that where you had to dig a well and pump - set out on the Ushr page. The rate falls as the farmer's effort and cost rise.
Buried treasure: a fifth. The highest rate of the three, on the only one that cost the finder nothing at all.
Classical jurists said so directly. The fifth is due on rikaz because it is wealth obtained without cost or effort.
So the rate is not arbitrary. It moves in inverse proportion to what you put in. The more something cost you, the less is taken; the more it simply arrived, the more is owed. Once you see that, the three figures stop looking like a list and start looking like a principle.
What Counts as Rikaz
Here the schools divide, and the hadith itself is the reason.
Hanafi scholars treat rikaz as covering both buried treasure and minerals extracted from the ground - gold, silver, iron, lead, copper. A fifth is due on all of it.
It lapses in practice, not in principle. There is nothing to spend it on, so the share goes to the other categories. The rule remains on the books in case circumstances ever change.
The other schools point out that the same sentence mentions mines separately from rikaz, and conclude the two must be different things. On their reading, rikaz means pre-Islamic buried treasure only, and minerals are governed by other rules. Al-Shafi'i further restricts it to gold and silver.
One distinction matters more than the school split. A find bearing Islamic marks is not rikaz at all. Coins with Islamic inscriptions, or anything that plainly belonged to a Muslim owner, is treated as lost property - it has an owner or heirs, and the finder's duty is to seek them out rather than to keep four-fifths of it.
Where the Fifth Goes, and Who Keeps the Rest
The fifth is distributed to the same categories that receive Zakat, though Hanafi scholars classify it alongside public wealth rather than as Zakat proper.
The remaining four-fifths belong to the finder. The classical rules turn on where the find was made - barren land, a ruin, or a road belonging to nobody leaves the finder with the balance; land owned by someone else raises a question about whose it is.
Finding Treasure in Britain
The classical rules assume you keep most of what you find. British law does not.
Under the Treasure Act, certain finds - broadly, older objects of gold or silver, and hoards of coins - must be reported to the coroner. If a find is declared treasure it belongs to the Crown, and museums may acquire it. The finder is not simply out of pocket: a reward at market value is normally paid, usually shared with the landowner.
Mineral rights work similarly. Gold and silver under British soil belong to the Crown, as do oil, gas and coal, whoever owns the field above them.
So a British Muslim who finds a hoard is not, in law, going to end up owning it. What they may end up with is a reward. Whether that reward is rikaz, or simply new money subject to ordinary Zakat rules when their date comes round, is a question nobody appears to have answered, and it is worth putting to a scholar rather than assuming.
What is clear is the practical order of things: report the find first. The legal duty arrives before the religious one, and failing to report is a criminal matter.
Frequently Asked Questions
In Britain, your first step is legal rather than religious: certain finds must be reported to the coroner. If the find is declared treasure it goes to the Crown and you may receive a reward. Whether that reward counts as rikaz has not, as far as can be found, been settled. Ask a scholar once you know what you have actually received.
Then it is not rikaz. Something bearing Islamic marks is understood to have had a Muslim owner, which makes it lost property rather than abandoned treasure. The duty is to look for whoever has a claim to it, not to divide it.
No. Rikaz means something recovered from the ground. Money that arrives unexpectedly from any other source is ordinary wealth: it joins everything else you hold and is assessed at 2.5% when your Zakat date comes round. The fifth applies only to what was buried.
Hanafi scholars treat minerals as rikaz and apply the fifth; the other schools treat them separately. In Britain the question rarely arises, since gold, silver, oil, gas and coal belong to the Crown rather than to whoever owns the surface.
Under the classical rules, yes - four-fifths stays with the finder, subject to where the find was made and whether anyone else has a claim on the land. British law changes that picture considerably, as above.
What Counts as Rikaz
Here the schools divide, and the hadith itself is the reason.
Hanafi scholars treat rikaz as covering both buried treasure and minerals extracted from the ground - gold, silver, iron, lead, copper. A fifth is due on all of it.
It lapses in practice, not in principle. There is nothing to spend it on, so the share goes to the other categories. The rule remains on the books in case circumstances ever change.
The other schools point out that the same sentence mentions mines separately from rikaz, and conclude the two must be different things. On their reading, rikaz means pre-Islamic buried treasure only, and minerals are governed by other rules. Al-Shafi'i further restricts it to gold and silver.
One distinction matters more than the school split. A find bearing Islamic marks is not rikaz at all. Coins with Islamic inscriptions, or anything that plainly belonged to a Muslim owner, is treated as lost property - it has an owner or heirs, and the finder's duty is to seek them out rather than to keep four-fifths of it.
The fifth is distributed to the same categories that receive Zakat, though Hanafi scholars classify it alongside public wealth rather than as Zakat proper.
The remaining four-fifths belong to the finder. The classical rules turn on where the find was made - barren land, a ruin, or a road belonging to nobody leaves the finder with the balance; land owned by someone else raises a question about whose it is.
The classical rules assume you keep most of what you find. British law does not.
Under the Treasure Act, certain finds - broadly, older objects of gold or silver, and hoards of coins - must be reported to the coroner. If a find is declared treasure it belongs to the Crown, and museums may acquire it. The finder is not simply out of pocket: a reward at market value is normally paid, usually shared with the landowner.
Mineral rights work similarly. Gold and silver under British soil belong to the Crown, as do oil, gas and coal, whoever owns the field above them.
So a British Muslim who finds a hoard is not, in law, going to end up owning it. What they may end up with is a reward. Whether that reward is rikaz, or simply new money subject to ordinary Zakat rules when their date comes round, is a question nobody appears to have answered, and it is worth putting to a scholar rather than assuming.
What is clear is the practical order of things: report the find first. The legal duty arrives before the religious one, and failing to report is a criminal matter.
Frequently Asked Questions
In Britain, your first step is legal rather than religious: certain finds must be reported to the coroner. If the find is declared treasure it goes to the Crown and you may receive a reward. Whether that reward counts as rikaz has not, as far as can be found, been settled. Ask a scholar once you know what you have actually received.
Then it is not rikaz. Something bearing Islamic marks is understood to have had a Muslim owner, which makes it lost property rather than abandoned treasure. The duty is to look for whoever has a claim to it, not to divide it.
No. Rikaz means something recovered from the ground. Money that arrives unexpectedly from any other source is ordinary wealth: it joins everything else you hold and is assessed at 2.5% when your Zakat date comes round. The fifth applies only to what was buried.
Hanafi scholars treat minerals as rikaz and apply the fifth; the other schools treat them separately. In Britain the question rarely arises, since gold, silver, oil, gas and coal belong to the Crown rather than to whoever owns the surface.
Under the classical rules, yes - four-fifths stays with the finder, subject to where the find was made and whether anyone else has a claim on the land. British law changes that picture considerably, as above.