Is it permissible for the youngest son to keep a treasure discovered on his deceased father’s land without dividing it with his siblings, especially after his mother bequeathed her share to him before her death? And is there a sin incurred by the youngest son’s son if he does not interfere with his father’s wish not to divide the treasure? And how is the treasure divided if the father agrees to it?

Rikaz (buried treasure) is a pre-Islamic burial that bears no sign of belonging to Muslims. If a person finds it on his land or on land that is not owned by anyone, it belongs to him, and he must pay one-fifth of it as zakat. However, if it is found on land owned by others or on jointly-owned land, jurists have differed:

- The majority (Hanafis, Malikis, Shafi'is, and Ahmad in one narration) hold that it belongs to the landowner.

- The Hanbalis (and Abu Thawr and Abu Yusuf) hold that it belongs to the finder, unless he was hired to extract it, in which case it belongs to the hirer.

According to this difference of opinion, the treasure, according to the majority, belongs to all heirs according to their share of the land, while according to the Hanbalis, it belongs only to the finder. The more cautious approach is to adopt the view of the majority. One-fifth of the treasure must be paid as zakat, to be spent on the categories of fay' (booty), such as the poor, the needy, and the general welfare of Muslims.