Bukhari

Hadith Commentary:
(1)
Imam Bukhari rahimahullah has established from this hadith that one-fifth (khums) of the pre-Islamic buried treasure (rikaz) belongs to the public treasury (bayt al-mal), because it has been considered the wealth of a disbeliever which a mujahid acquires. Therefore, four parts of the spoils of war are distributed among the fighters, and one part is kept by the state. Similarly, four parts of the pre-Islamic buried treasure go to the finder, and one-fifth must be deposited in the public treasury (bayt al-mal).

There are further details regarding rikaz, for example:
What is its nisab (minimum amount liable)? Is there any difference between a small or large amount? Is the passing of a year a condition for it or not? Does it include wealth other than gold and silver or not? What is its identification? Is it necessary for its coins to bear the name of a king or any other identifying mark or not? What is its identification? Is it necessary for its coins to bear the name of a king or any other identifying mark or not? All these details can be found in other books of jurisprudence.

(2)
When an animal becomes unruly and kills or harms someone, there is no liability (compensation) upon its owner.
If someone digs a well and a person falls into it and dies, the one who dug it is not liable.
If a laborer dies in a mine, the owner of the mine or the one who employed him is absolved of responsibility.

(3)
Imam Bukhari, in several places in his Sahih, has discussed under the heading "ba‘d al-nas" (some people), and in most places, his intention is to criticize those individuals who openly oppose the Prophetic hadith. The number of such instances is twenty-five, which we are listing below:
Serial No. Book Name Chapter No. Hadith No.
1 Zakat Chapter: 66
2 Gifts Chapter: 36
3 = Chapter: 37
4 Testimonies Chapter: 8
5 Bequests Chapter: 8
6 Divorce Chapter: 25
7 Oaths and Vows Chapter: 21
8 Coercion Chapter: 4
9 = Chapter: 7
10 Legal Devices Chapter: 3 6956
11 = = 6958
12 = = 6959
13 = Chapter: 4 6960
14 = = 6961
15 = Chapter: 9
16 = Chapter: 11 6968
17 = = 6970
18 = = 6971
19 = Chapter: 14
20 = = 6976
21 = = 6977
22 = = 6978
23 = Chapter: 15 6980
24 Judgments =
25 = Chapter: 40 7195

This is the first instance where Imam Bukhari has taken notice of those individuals who stubbornly oppose the hadith. We will explain this in detail.
And Allah is the One whose help is sought.

(4)
According to Imam Bukhari rahimahullah, rikaz refers to those buried treasures from the pre-Islamic era which the people of old had hidden in the earth, and the meaning of rikaz does not include mines (ma‘din), because in this hadith the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam has mentioned ma‘din and rikaz separately, joined by the conjunction "wa" (and).

If both referred to the same thing, the wording of the hadith would have been:
"al-ma‘din jubar wa fihi al-khums" — "Blood money is waived for one who dies in a mine, and one-fifth is due from it." But this is not the case; rather, rikaz is mentioned in conjunction with ma‘din, which necessitates distinction.

Allamah ‘Ayni rahimahullah, defending the Hanafi position, has written that "wa fihi al-khums" was not said because there could be confusion as to whether the pronoun refers to the well (bi’r) or the mine (ma‘din).

Allamah ‘Ayni’s answer is even weaker than a spider’s web, because the word "bi’r" (well) is distant, and "ma‘din" (mine) is closer; how can the pronoun refer to the more distant antecedent, leaving the nearer one? Furthermore, the word "bi’r" is grammatically feminine, so how can a masculine pronoun refer back to a feminine antecedent? (Raf‘ al-iltibas ‘an ba‘d al-nas, p. 17)

The Hanafis, relying on linguistic grounds, have assumed that ma‘din and rikaz are the same and that both are subject to khums, whereas according to the people of Hijaz, rikaz refers to buried treasure from the pre-Islamic era, as Ibn Athir writes:
In the language of the people of Hijaz, rikaz is that treasure which has been buried in the earth since the time of Jahiliyyah, whereas in the language of the people of Iraq, the term is also applied to mines, but the hadith supports the usage of the people of Hijaz.
(al-Nihayah: 2/100)

The practice of the Ummah also supports this view, as Imam Bukhari rahimahullah has mentioned regarding ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz rahimahullah.
The linguistic objection raised by Imam Bukhari against those individuals is irrefutable in its own right. In this regard, Imam Bukhari has raised a second objection: that Imam Abu Hanifah, on one hand, considers it obligatory to pay khums on mines, and on the other hand, permits concealing the khums of mines, which negates the obligation.
This is a clear contradiction.

Allamah ‘Ayni has defended this by saying that if the one who finds a mine is needy and poor, and it is most likely that he will not receive his share from the public treasury, then he may conceal the khums from the public treasury and spend it on himself, as Imam Tahawi has transmitted.
(‘Umdat al-Qari: 6/563)

How ridiculous is this answer, that the poverty of the person will not be alleviated by the four parts of the mine, but only by the fifth part which is the right of the public treasury! Furthermore, Imam Tahawi rahimahullah has also transmitted the narration that if someone finds a mine in his house, then it is not necessary to pay khums, etc.

Hafiz Ibn Hajar rahimahullah, after quoting this narration of Imam Tahawi, writes that Imam Bukhari’s objection remains valid, that there is contradiction in the Hanafi position.
(Fath al-Bari: 3/460)

Rabi‘ah ibn ‘Abd al-Rahman narrates from several people that the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam allotted the mines of Qabaliyah to Bilal ibn Harith radi Allahu anhu, and from those mines, nothing other than zakat has been collected to this day.
(Sunan Abi Dawud, al-Kharaj, Hadith: 3061)

This narration also shows that there is no khums on the output of mines, but rather zakat.
Although there is a break in the chain of this narration, such a narration can be presented for corroboration.

In summary, rikaz refers to the buried treasure from the time of Jahiliyyah which is obtained without any effort or labor, and one-fifth of it is collected for the public treasury (bayt al-mal), whereas zakat is due on minerals, and there is a clear distinction between the two, as the aforementioned hadith is a clear proof of this.
And Allah knows best.

Hadith Commentary:
(1)
If a person digs a well in his land so that he himself and others may benefit from it, and if someone’s goat falls into it and dies, then the owner of the well will not be held liable, provided that there was no element of his scheming involved.
If it is proven that he deliberately committed negligence, then action can be taken against him.
Similarly, if a human or livestock dies in a mine, there is also no compensation or retaliation required. Likewise, if an animal gores someone with its horn, there will be no compensation for that loss.

(2)
When the owner is not responsible for the blood of the one who falls into the well, because no one had the right to interfere in it, then the same rule applies regarding the water: no one has the right to interfere in it either.
When the water is fulfilling his own needs, he cannot be compelled to use it for the needs of others. However, if someone is compelled and helpless, then it is necessary to spend on him.

Hadith Commentary:
(1)
The compensation for damage caused by animals will be according to the following method:
➊ If someone’s animal suddenly gets loose and grazes in someone’s field, the compensation for the damage will not be taken from the owner of the animal.
➋ If he deliberately let it loose, or he became aware that it had gotten loose but did not try to tie it up, or if a shepherd was present but despite that the animal grazed in the field, then the owner will be liable to pay compensation.
➌ If a person is taking his animal along a public path, and during this time the animals trample someone’s field or by sitting in it destroy many plants, then the owner will have to pay compensation for the damage.
➍ If damage occurs due to kicking, shaking off its feet, or wagging its tail, then in this case compensation will not be taken, because this is the nature of the animal and it cannot be prevented from this.
➎ If an animal gores people, or someone keeps a dog that bites people, and he is warned to control his animal or dog but he acts negligently, then in this case he will have to pay compensation for the damage caused by the animal’s attack or the dog’s bite.
➏ If there are two shepherds for the goats, one in front and the other behind, then in this case, whatever damage occurs will be taken from both of them.
(2)
The ruling for inanimate means of conveyance, such as:
bicycle, motorcycle, bus, van, train, and airplane, will also be according to the above-mentioned cases.

Hadith Commentary:
(1)
If someone falls into an abandoned well and dies, there will be no blood money (diyah) for it. Similarly, if someone dug a well on his own property or in an uninhabited place, and a person or an animal falls into it and dies, then the owner of the well will not be liable for any compensation.
If someone hired a laborer to dig a well, and the walls collapsed on him and he perished, then there will also be no liability for compensation.
However, if someone deceitfully caused another to fall into a well, or dug a well in a public pathway, or constructed a well on someone else’s land, and someone falls into it and dies, then the owner of the well will be liable for compensation.

(2)
The same ruling applies to mineral mines: if someone is buried and dies in them, or if a laborer perishes in them, the owner will not be liable for compensation. In fact, this is the case for every inanimate object. For example:
If a person slips and strikes a wall and dies, the owner of the wall is free of liability.
If someone climbs a date palm and falls and dies, the owner will not be fined.
(Fath al-Bari: 12/318, 319)

Hadith Commentary:
Vocabulary of the Hadith:
(1)
al-‘ajma’:
Feminine of a‘jam,
a quadruped,
an animal.
(2)
jarāh:
To inflict a wound.
(3)
jarh, jurh:
A wound,
the intended meaning is harm caused by an animal, whether in the form of a wound or in some other way.
(4)
jubār:
Null and void,
there is no compensation or indemnity for it.
al-rikāz:
A treasure buried from the time of ignorance (Jahiliyyah).

Benefits and Issues:
(1)
Damage caused by an animal is null and void;
if an animal causes harm to someone,
either by injuring a person or causing financial loss,
there are two scenarios: (1)
The animal has run away from the house or its owner,
and there is no one with it.
In this case, if it causes any kind of damage, according to the Hanafis, there is no indemnity of any kind,
whether it is day or night. However, according to the jurists of Hijaz—Imam Malik,
Imam Shafi‘i, and Imam Ahmad—if it damages someone’s crops, then if it is at night, the owner will be liable for compensation;
if it is during the day, then there is no indemnity. According to Imam Layth, the owner is liable in every situation.
(al-Mughni,
vol. 12,
p. 541).
The correct view is that if there is negligence on the part of the owner, then there is indemnity;
otherwise, in no situation is there indemnity.

(2)
If the owner is with the animal, or someone is with it, then if it tramples something—whether it is property, a person, or crops—the rider is responsible.
This is the view of Imam Abu Hanifah,
Imam Shafi‘i, and Imam Ahmad.
However, according to Imam Malik, there is no indemnity in this case.
If the animal is walking on a public road and a person is present with it, and the animal causes harm with any of its limbs, such as its leg,
hand,
head,
or mouth, then according to Imam Abu Hanifah, he is liable.
If the animal kicks (with its leg) or strikes with its tail, then he is not liable.
But according to Imam Shafi‘i, in every situation,
the person with the animal is liable,
regardless of which limb the animal uses to cause harm.
As for modern vehicles, the driver is liable in every situation
if he acts negligently or carelessly.
However, if there is no negligence or carelessness on his part, and suddenly a person or animal comes in front,
and despite his efforts,
an accident occurs, then he is not responsible.

al-bi’r jubār:
Damage caused by a well is null and void.
If the owner of the well is not at fault, such as he dug the well on his own land or in an uninhabited place, and a person or animal falls into it, then the owner is not responsible.
But if he digs a well on a public road or on someone else’s property,
meaning there is transgression on his part, then he is responsible.
This is the view of the majority,
and also the view of the Hanafis.
Similarly, if someone hires a contractor or laborer to dig a well and the digger is harmed, the owner is not responsible.

al-ma‘din jubār:
If a person digs a mine on his own land or in an uninhabited place, and someone falls in and dies or is injured, the owner is not responsible.
Or if the owner hires laborers to dig the mine and provides them with all necessary equipment, or it is the laborer’s own responsibility, and then the laborer is harmed or something falls on him, there is no indemnity on the owner.
However, as a charitable act, he should arrange for the laborer’s treatment.

fī al-rikāz al-khums:
If a treasure from the time of ignorance (Jahiliyyah) is found, one-fifth of it will be given to the public treasury (bayt al-mal).
As for what is obtained from a mine (ma‘din),
since the owner has to exert effort and pay wages,
it does not fall under the ruling of rikāz.
This is the view of the Imams of Hijaz—Malik,
Shafi‘i, and Ahmad.
However, according to the Hanafis, the term rikāz also applies to a mine (ma‘din),
so its ruling is the same as that of a treasure from the time of ignorance.
This is also the view of Imam Thawri,
Awza‘i, and Abu ‘Ubayd ibn Sallam, and linguistically, there is room for this,
but in the Shari‘ah, it is not considered rikāz;
the legal (Shar‘i) meaning takes precedence over the linguistic meaning.

However, the objection of Imam Bukhari is valid: on one hand, the mine is included in rikāz contrary to the general view of the Imams, and on the other hand, tricks are devised to avoid paying the khums (one-fifth), and the opportunity is given to take possession of the entire wealth.

Explanation: ➊
That is, blood money (diyah) will not be taken from their owners.

English Commentary:
1:
That is, if an animal injures someone, the owner of the animal will not be liable to pay blood money (diyah) for that injury.

2:
That is, if someone falls into an ear (of a well) or a well and dies, the owners of these will not be liable to pay blood money (diyah) for that.

3:
This hadith is evidence that there is no zakat on rikaz (buried treasure), rather, there is a khums (one-fifth) due on it.
Its status is like that of war booty (mal ghaneemah).
Khums is obligatory on it, which will be deposited in the public treasury (bayt al-mal), and the remainder will belong to the one who found the buried treasure.
As for ma‘din (mineral mine), it is not rikaz, so khums is not due on it; rather, if it reaches the nisab (minimum threshold), then zakat is obligatory on it.
This is the opinion of the majority (jumhur).
The Hanafis say that rikaz is general for both ma‘din (mine) and kanz (treasure), so they also hold that khums is due on ma‘din.

Benefits and Issues:
If someone lit a fire in his land or house, etc., and then it spread, or a spark flew and caused damage to another, the one who lit the fire will not be held responsible for it, unless there is a clear fault, for example, he finished his work and left it as it was without extinguishing or suppressing it.

Benefits and Issues:
➊ Animals are senseless and unintelligent creatures; if they bite or kick someone, the owner is not at fault, except when the animal is near him and he is able to restrain it, or if it is certain that it can harm people and yet he still leaves it loose.
This is the meaning of the statement of Imam Abu Dawud rahimahullah.

➋ When a laborer knows that he has to work in a mineral mine,
...
...
...
...
or similarly, if he has to climb rocks in some other place, and he works willingly, then in case of an accidental incident, the owner will not be held at fault.

➌ If someone digs a well in his own land and someone falls into it, the owner will not be considered at fault, except if he digs it on a public thoroughfare or does not put a fence or the like around it.

(1) The meaning of ‘ajma’ is: mute. Since animals are, from our perspective, without speech, they are called ‘ajma’ or mute. If an animal runs away from its owner or, while grazing, causes some damage—for example, gores someone with its horn, kicks someone, or someone falls because of it and gets injured—then no compensation will be imposed upon the owner of the animal, because animals are without understanding in these matters and the owner is not present, or even if he is, it is not his fault. However, if the owner is involved in causing the damage—for example, he himself set the animal after someone, or did not even try to restrain it, or deliberately let loose an animal known to cause harm (for example, keeping a biting dog or a wild beast and letting it loose)—then compensation for the damage can be imposed upon him. Similarly, if the animal is left loose at night and it grazes someone’s crop, or during the day, in the owner’s presence, the animal grazes someone’s crop, then that damage will also be the responsibility of the animal’s owner.

(2) If, while digging a mine or a well, or while working in it, someone is injured or dies due to the collapse of the mine or well, then no compensation will be imposed upon the owner. Similarly, if someone falls into a mine or well and is injured or dies, then no compensation can be taken from the owner, unless some fault of his is proven.

(3) Some say that if a buried treasure is found on government land, then one-fifth (khums) should be given to the public treasury (bayt al-mal), and the rest belongs to the finder. If it is found on one’s own private land, then the government has no share in it. However, the preferred opinion is that, regardless of the land, upon finding a buried treasure, one-fifth (khums) must be given. The hadith does not specify any particular type of land. And Allah knows best.

Benefits and Issues:

➊
The meaning of "hadr" is to become void, useless, futile, and purposeless; similarly, it also means to render something void, useless, and purposeless. That is, it is used in both intransitive and transitive senses.
The meaning of livestock being "hadr" is that if someone's animal escapes and runs away, and in the meantime injures or kills someone, then the owner of the animal will not be held responsible for it.
No retribution (qisas) or blood money (diyah) will be demanded from him for this.

➋
For extracting minerals, a mine is dug; sometimes it happens that a laborer is working in the mine and a stone falls from above, or a stone falls from behind and blocks the way, due to which the laborer dies. In this situation, the owner of the work will not be considered a killer.
Even the blood money (diyah) for accidental killing will not be obligatory upon him.

➌
The meaning of a well being "hadr" is that if someone, while trying to draw water from the well, falls into the well, or some other such accident occurs, then the owner of the well will not be held responsible.

➍
The case of fire being "hadr" is that a person lights a fire for some need, and sparks from it, carried by the wind, fall on someone’s property, which the person who lit the fire was not able to prevent.
In this situation, the person who lit the fire will not be responsible for the damage caused by the fire, and no compensation will be taken from him.

Hadith Authentication (Takhrij al-Hadith):
[الموطأ رواية يحييٰ بن يحييٰ868/2، 869، ح 1687، ك 43 ب 18 ح 12، التمهيد 19/7، الاستذكار : 1616 ● و أخرجه البخاري 1499، ومسلم1710، من حديث مالك به]

Jurisprudential Understanding (Tafaqquh):
➊ If a quadruped animal causes harm to a person, no retribution will be taken from its owner, provided that the owner has no negligence or malice in the matter of that harm. It is authentically narrated from Ibn Muhayyisa al-Ansari rahimahullah (a trustworthy Tabi‘i) that the she-camel of Sayyiduna Bara’ bin ‘Azib radi Allahu anhu caused damage to someone’s orchard, so the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam ruled that during the day, protection is the responsibility of the owners of wealth (and land), and at night, protection is the responsibility of the owners of the animals. [سنن ابن ماجه : 2332]
● If Haram bin Sa‘d bin Muhayyisa heard this narration from Bara’ bin ‘Azib radi Allahu anhu, then the chain is authentic; otherwise, it is mursal (weak). For this reason, it is not correct to use this narration as evidence.

➋ If a person falls into someone’s well, there is no penalty or compensation upon the owner of the well, provided that the owner had no hand in the person falling or causing him to fall.

➌ If someone finds an ancient buried treasure, he will take out one-fifth (khumus) of it, instead of zakat, and spend it in the way of Allah (in the caliph’s treasury or among the eight categories of zakat recipients).

Lexical Explanation:
«وَفِي الرِّكَازِ» In this, the "waw" is for conjunction with the previous sentence, and that sentence is: «اَلْعَجُمَاءُ جُبَارٌ وَالْبِئْرُ جُبَارٌ وَالْمَعُدِنٌ جُبَارٌ» The author, for the sake of brevity, has omitted that portion. And under the "ra" of «اَلرِّكَاز» there is a kasrah. By this is meant the treasure buried in the earth from the time of ignorance (Jahiliyyah), which is obtained without any significant effort or toil.
« اَلْخُمُسُ» Both the "kha" and the "meem" have a dammah. When something is divided into five equal parts, one of those five parts is called a "khums" (one-fifth). And this is a delayed subject (mubtada mu’akhkhar), and its predicate is the first sentence «فَي الرِّكَازِ». This hadith is evidence that there is no zakat on the wealth of rikaz (buried treasure), rather its status is like that of war booty (anfal), and in it, «خُمُس» is obligatory, which will be deposited in the public treasury (bayt al-mal), and the owner of the rest of the wealth will be the person who found this treasure.

Benefit:
If a buried treasure is found by a person, then at the time it is found, one-fifth (khums) of the total wealth should be distributed in the way of Allah (fi sabilillah). There is no zakat on it; rather, the amount to be given in charity is many times more than zakat, i.e., twenty percent of the total wealth must be distributed in the way of Allah. In the case of finding rikaz, the reason for the greater amount of charity to be given is that this wealth is obtained without any effort. «والله اعلم»