Nasai

(1) In this narration, there is no mention of a mine (ma‘dan). Perhaps Imam al-Nasa’i rahimahullah has given the ruling of luqata (lost property) to a mine, because mines too are generally located in uninhabited places and at locations far from the road. In this case, one-fifth of the minerals extracted from the mine will go to the public treasury (bayt al-mal), and the remainder will belong to the discoverer of the mine. This is also the position of the Hanafis, but there is no explicit evidence for it except analogy (qiyas): whether it is to be analogized to luqata, or to buried treasure (rikaz), or to war booty (ghanima). The majority of scholars, such as Malik, Shafi‘i, Ahmad, and Imam Bukhari rahimahumullah, have considered it as trade goods (mal tijara) and imposed the zakat of one-fortieth (2.5%) upon it. This is also more appropriate, because without an explicit ruling, a strict zakat—namely, one-fifth—is not suitable, as is the opinion of the Hanafis.

(2) In the case of luqata (a lost item that someone finds) on a road with traffic or in an inhabited settlement, the possibility of finding the owner is greater, in fact, almost certain. Therefore, the command was given to announce it, and that too for a year, because generally, travel is repeated within a year. For something found on an uninhabited road or far from a settlement, the possibility of finding the owner is less, so the need for an announcement was not felt. However, in this case, a fifth was set aside for the government, because this wealth was obtained without effort. The Imam (Abu Hanifa) also made an analogy with a mineral mine, that it too is obtained without effort, whereas in reality, a great deal of effort and even expenses are required to discover a mine, and then even more effort and expenses are needed to extract minerals from it. Therefore, this analogy is not appropriate. And Allah knows best.

(3) “Otherwise, it is permissible for you.” The Hanafis have restricted this to the poor (faqir), whereas if this were the case, the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam would certainly have stated it, because his statement is a permanent proof. It is not sufficient to merely assume that the questioner was poor. In some narrations, the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam gave this same permission to Ubayy ibn Ka‘b radi Allahu anhu, even though he was famously wealthy.

Lexical Explanation:
« فِي خَرِبَةِ» "Kha" has a fatha and "ra" has a kasrah beneath it. It refers to a broken, deserted place where no one resides.

«فِي قَرْيَةٍ مَسْكُوْنَةٍ» Where people are settled, meaning this desolate and uninhabited place is within an inhabited area.

«فَعَرَّفْهُ» The word is in the imperative form from "ta'reef" (taf'il), so announce it among the people and describe its condition until its owner comes, or until a full year passes over it. In such a case, it is permissible and correct for you to consume it. In any case, the nature of this treasure will be like that of a lost property.

«وَاِنْ وَجَدْتَهُ فِي قَرْيَةٍ غَيْرَ مَسْكُونَةٍ» That is, if you find it in an uninhabited place, then its ruling will be like that of rikaz (buried treasure). Or you could say that the nature of the ruling for both is like the ruling for spoils of war (amwal ghanimah).

«وَفِي الرِّكَازِ» The "waw" of conjunction present in it necessitates that when the treasure is not extracted from the belly of the earth, it is not called rikaz.