If some of them denied that it belonged to their decedent, and the others did not deny it, the ruling for the one who denied it regarding his share is the ruling of the owner who does not acknowledge it, and the ruling of those who acknowledge it is the ruling of the acknowledging owner.

The third category: If he finds it in the property of a protected Muslim or a Dhimmi (protected non-Muslim), there is that which indicates from Ahmad that it belongs to the owner of the house. For he said, regarding one who hired a digger to dig in his house and he hit an ancient treasure (15) in the house: It belongs to the owner of the house. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifah and Muhammad ibn al-Hasan. It has been narrated from Ahmad that which indicates that it belongs to the finder, for he said in the issue of one who hired an employee to dig for him in his house and he hit a treasure in the house: It belongs to the employee. This was narrated from him by Muhammad ibn Yahya al-Kahhal. The Qadi said: It is the correct view, and this indicates that the rikaz belongs to its finder. This is the opinion of al-Hasan ibn Salih and Abu Thawr, and Abu Yusuf favored it. This is because a treasure is not acquired through the ownership of the house, according to what we mentioned in the preceding category, so it belongs to whoever finds it. However, if the owner claims it, his word is taken because his possession is over it due to it being over its location. If he does not claim it, it belongs to the finder. Al-Shafi'i said: It belongs to the owner of the house if he acknowledges it, and if he does not acknowledge it, it belongs to the first owner because it is in his possession. We may derive a similar ruling for ourselves, based on what we mentioned of the narration in the preceding category.

If one hires a digger to dig for him in search of a treasure he might find, and he finds it, then the employee has nothing, and the finder is the employer; because he hired him for that purpose, so it is similar to if he hired him to gather grass (16) or hunt for him, for what results from that belongs to the employer, not the employee. If he hired him for a matter other than seeking rikaz, then the finder is the employee. Similarly, al-Awza'i said: If I hire an employee to dig for me in my house and he finds a treasure, it is his. But if I say: I have hired you to dig for me here in the hope that I find a treasure, and I have specified it for him, then he receives his wage, and I receive what is found.

Section: If one rents a house and finds in it rikaz, it belongs to the finder, according to one of two viewpoints, and the other is that it belongs to the owner, based on the two narrations regarding one who finds rikaz in property transferred to him. If they disagree, and each one of them says: This was mine, then there are also two viewpoints: one of them is that the statement of the owner is taken because the buried object is a dependent of the land. The second is that the statement of the renter is taken because this is deposited in the land, not from it, so the statement is that of the one who has possession of it, like personal belongings.