What is the ruling regarding treasure found on land whose ownership has transferred to the finder?
Chapter on Zakat on Gold and Silver
Al-Mughni
Book of Zakat
Primary text
If treasure is found on land whose ownership has transferred to the finder, one established view holds that it belongs to the finder. This is because the treasure is the property of a disbeliever over which Islam has gained dominance, thus making it like spoils of war (Ghanimah) to the victor. Furthermore, Rikaz does not become owned by possessing the land, as it is merely deposited therein; ownership is established only upon discovering it, which has occurred. The second established view is that the treasure belongs to the previous owner, provided he acknowledges it; otherwise, it passes to the owner preceding him, tracing back to the original owner. This latter view is the position of Al-Shafi'i, based on his possession of the dwelling implying possession of what is within it.
Supporting text
If the ownership transferred through inheritance, it is treated as inheritance. If all heirs agree that the treasure did not belong to the deceased, it goes to the original owner. If the original owner is unknown, it is treated as lost property with no known owner. The first opinion is considered sounder because Rikaz is not owned by the possession of the dwelling as it is not an integral part thereof, but rather a deposit within it, equating it to ownerless resources like straw, firewood, or game found on another's land, which the finder may claim. However, if the preceding owner claims ownership, his statement is accepted due to his prior possession over the site. If he does not claim it, it belongs to the finder. If the heirs disagree, those who deny ownership are treated as the non-acknowledging previous owner, and those who acknowledge ownership are treated as the acknowledging previous owner.