Problem # 4 There is no difference in the rule whether the jewels are taken out from the sea, or big rivers like Tigris, Euphrates, or the Nile, in case it is supposed that they are fóund in them as in the sea.

Problem # 5 If something falls into the sea and its owner shuns it, then a diver takes it out, it shall belong to the diver. If it were a jewel, it shall be governed by the rules relating the things taken out by diving. In case otherwise it shall not be governed by those rules.

Problem # 6 If ambergris is taken out by diving, it shall be governed by the relevant rules. In case, however, a person obtains the ambergris on the surface of seawater or on the sea-coast, it shall be treated as the profits on business in case it has been obtained by a person engaged in that profession. In case, it is found by chance, it shall be treated as a general profit.

Problem # 7 Payment of Khums in case of diving, minerals and hidden treasure shall be made after deducting the expenses on their excavation, smelting, diving, machinery or tools, or the like. Rather, according to the stronger opinion, it is a condition that their value should reach the Nisãb after the above deductions.

Fifth - The Saving after the Yearly Expenses for himself and his Family. The saving may be from the industry, agriculture or business profits or any other earning, even if by occupation of ownerless lands, growth or produce, rise in prices, etc. which fall under the denomination of earning. Caution must not be given up by taking out the Khums on every profit, even if it does not fall under the category of earning as gifts, presents, rewards, unexpected inheritance, or anything owned by an approved Sadaqah, although the absence of application of Khums to other than profits falling under earnings is not devoid of force, as Khums does not apply to any inheritance, dower or ransom for Khul”, and so caution is better. So also Khums is not applicable to any property owned by payment of Khums or Zakãt, even if it exceeds the yearly expenses.

If, however, the property is kept with the intention of getting profit or growth on it, payment of Khums shall be obligatory on it, but not in all circumstances.

Problem # 8 If a person possesses some assets on which Khums is not applicable, or on which Khums has already been paid, and then its market price rises, payment of Khums on that excess shall not be obligatory, in case the assets are not among the commercial commodities or commercial capital, as when the purpose of purchasing and keeping them is protecting them and benefit by their profit and growth.

If the purpose is to do business with them, then apparently payment of Khums shall be obligatory on the increase in their prices after the completion a year, if it is possible to sell them and get their price. In case it is not possible to do so except in the following year, apparently the excess shall be counted under the profits of that year and not of the previous year.

Problem # 9 If some of the property with which he does business and whose price has increased exists with him after the end of the year, while part of it is lying as a debt with the people, then if he sells the property in his hand, or if it is possible to sell it or get its price, it shall be obligatory to pay Khums on its profit and increase in its price.

As regards the part of the property lying with the people if he is sure to get it whenever he wills in a way that it is as if lying with himself, he shall be bound to pay the Khums in the increase in the capital. As regards the property that he is not sure to get whenever he wills, he shall wait till he gets it. As soon as he gets it he shall consider the increase as part of the profits of the year when he got it.

Problem # 10 In this category, Khums shall be payable after deducting the relevant expenses borne on getting the growth and profit.

The year on whose excess of the yearly expenses Khums is applicable is the one whose beginning has taken place from the start of the earning in case of a person whose profession is earning and getting profit gradually, for example, day by day. In case otherwise, it shall be accounted for from the time of earning the interest and profit.

So in case of a farmer, the beginning of his year shall be counted from the time of getting the profit and its reaching in his possession, and that is at the time of clearing the grain. In case of one who has an orchard, the beginning of his year shall be counted from plucking the fruits and their assortment. If a person has a forward purchase of a crop or fruits before they are harvested or gathered, the beginning of his year shall be counted from the time he receives their price or when their price is as if it is in his possession so that he may have it when demanded.

Problem # 11 By expenses here is meant what a person spends on himself, on his family members whether their maintenance is his liability or not, as well as what he spends on pilgrimages (to holy shrines), Sadaqat (or charities), rewards, presents, feasts, large structures or establishments, his liabilities due to vows or expiations or the like, and also the quadrupeds, slaves and slave-girls, a house, carpets, or household goods (or furniture) and books required by him. As regards what he requires for the marriage of his children, their circumcision, death of a member of his family, or such other expenses that, according to the prevalent custom, are considered among his needs, they are, to be counted as part of the expenses already mentioned, provided that they are confined to what is suitable to his position except those considered foolishness and extravagance, so that if they are beyond such limits, they shall not be considered among the necessary expenses. It is more cautious to adopt the middle course as regards the suitable expenses as required by his equals, and not what is unsuitable for his position, or what is not usual among his equals. Rather, their being essential shall not be devoid of force. Of course, the customary increase in the expenses shall be counted among the (necessary) expenses. By expenses here is meant what has been currently spent and not its amount. So if a person spends on himself economically, or another person voluntarily bears his expenses, it shall not be counted as part of his (annual) expenses. Rather, even if he was required to spend on something during the year, such as Half or payment of a debt, or expiation, but he has failed to do it due to insubordination or forgetfulness, etc,, according to the stronger opinion, its amount shall not be counted under his (annual) expenses.

Problem # 12 If a person has various sources of income like trade, agriculture, handicraft, or the like, his total income from all the sources shall be taken into account, and Khums shall be charged on the total saving from his annual expenses. It is not necessary to take into account each income separately.

Problem # 13 According to the more cautious, rather stronger, opinion the capital required by a person shall not be accounted for in his annual expenses. So its Khums shall be obligatory if it were from among the profits obtained by him from business, except when he needs the whole of it to maintain his honour or cater for his livelihood suitable to his position, as, suppose, due to the payment of Khums his business may deteriorate to the extent that it would not be suitable to his position, or he would not be able to make both ends meet.

So if a person has no money, and gets some profit by leasing etc., and intends to turn it into a capital for trade and does business with it, he shall be bound to pay Khums.

Same shall be the case with the property purchased by a person with profits earned by business in order to make some income out of it.

Problem # 14 If a person has some goods of material value, for example, a garden or cattle, and no Khums has been charged on it, as when it has been transferred by inheritance, or it has been liable for payment of Khums but it has already been paid, then, he may keep it with himself, such as the trees not bearing fruits that may not be of any use for him except their wood or branches and so he retains them with him due to those two uses.

Or when a person has a male sheep that he may retain it in order to make income out of its meat when it grows up and becomes fat. Or as a second alternative, a person may retain the commodity to make income out of the growth that takes place may make money. Or as a third alternative, the person may use its growth or fruits for eating by his family members or guests. In the first alternative, Khums shall be charged on its growth taking place as a part of it, not to speak of the growth taking place separately from it, as wool, hair and fur. In the second alternative, no Khums shall be charged on its growth as part of it, though it shall be charged on the growth taking place separately from it, in the same way as in the case of the third alternative, Khums shall be charged on saving from whatever he spends on his livelihood.

Problem # 15 If a person does business of a single commodity with his capital during the year and buys and sells several times, incurring loss in some of the transactions and making profit in some other, in a way that the loss is made good by the profit, thus if the loss and profit are equal, he shall make no profit, but if he would get more profit, that would be his profit. If a person does business in different commodities in a single centre so that according to the normal practice business is not done independently by each with his capital as is customary in several towns and trades, rather if he does business in different commodities in several branches under a single centre, as, for example, there are several branches for a single trade as regards their office and income and expenditure, each branch being exclusively meant for a single type of business, all centralized in a single central branch or a single centre as regards their accounts and income and expenditure, the loss of each of them being set off against the profit of another.

Of course, if there are several centres without any connection with one another as regards their income and expenditure, offices and accounts, then apparently the loss of one would not be set off against the profit of another; rather, it may be said that their criterion is independence of trades and not merely difference of the types of trades.

Problem # 16 If, out of his profits, a person buys some goods for his annual consumption, such as wheat, barley, edible oil, charcoal, etc. and there is some surplus out of it at the end of the year, Khums shall be charged on it, regardless whether it is a small or large quantity. If he buys a carpet, a utensil, a horse or the like that is used by him in a way that the object remains intact after its use, then apparently payment of Khums shall not be obligatory on it, except when he needs it no more, in which case, according to the more cautious opinion, payment of Khums for it shall be obligatory.

Problem # 17 If, for instance, a person needs a house for residence, and it is not possible for him to purchase it except with the savings of several years, then, according the stronger opinion, it shall be considered part of his annual expenditure if he buys part of it every year, as for example, in one year he may purchase its land, in another its stones, and in the third year its timber, and so on. If, suppose, he purchases its land and pays its price in several years when this is the only possible way, but if he keeps the saving for the payment of price for several years, it shall not be considered a part of his annual expenditure, and payment of Khums for it shall be obligatory, in the same way is when he collects the wool of his sheep for several years for weaving with it a carpet needed by him or his garments, when this is the only possible way, according to the stronger opinion, it shall be considered a part of his annual expenditure (for which no Khums is charged). Likewise, if a person buys a part of the dowry for his daughter out of his savings every year, it shall be considered part of his annual expenditure (of which no Khums shall be charged), but not when he keeps the savings for several years for the payment of price of the dowry.

Problem # 18 If a person dies during the year of his income, no consideration shall be made for setting aside the expenditure for the rest of the year supposing him to be alive, and Khums shall be charged on the saving from his expenditure until the time of his death.

Problem # 19 If a person has some property on which Khums is not charged, then, according to the stronger opinion, it shall be permissible to deduct his annual expenditure exclusively from his net profit, though, according to the more cautious opinion, his annual expenditure should be apportioned (on both his annual income as well as that property). If a person out of obligation or voluntarily accepts the liability for his annual expenditure, it shall not be accounted for in the annual expenditure, and Khums shall be charged on the person’s total savings.

Problem # 20 If, at the beginning of the year, a person borrows some money to meet his expenses or buys some things needed by him on credit, or spends some of his capital for that purpose before getting profit thereon, it shall be permissible for him to deduct that amount from his income (and pay Khums on the balance)

Problem # 21 A forcible debts, like compensation paid for something destroyed, or the fine for the commission of crimes, to which are also added the vows and expiations, shall payable every year out of the expenses for that year, and shall be deducted from the profits and gains of that year like all other expenses. The same rule shall apply to the debts obtained or the things bought on credit, etc., if they fall under the expenses of the previous years, while their payment has been made in the year of saving, as, according to the stronger opinion, they shall be considered as part of the annual expenditure in case that year is the time for their payment. However, the debt obtained from the Valiyy-i amr out of the Khums property, called “Dast Gardan” (in Persian, or Revolving Fund, meant for giving Loans).lt shall not be considered part of the annual expenditure even if the person has paid it during the year of saving, or the time of its payment be in that very year and he should have made its payment; rather, it is obligatory to pay Khums from the aggregate, and then pay the debt out of that Khums, or make its payment and account it for at the time of paying Khums, and also pay its Khums.

Problem # 22 If a person becomes capable to pay Khums during a year of saving, and go for the performance of Hajj during that very year, the Hajj expenses shall be considered part of his annual expenditure (on which no Khums is charged). If he delays the performance of Hajj due to some excuse or insubordination, he shall be bound to pay Khums for his saving. If a person becomes capable to pay Khums due to the savings of several years, he shall be bound to pay the Khums even for years preceding the one in which he has become capable to pay the Khums. If he spends the amount that has made him capable to pay Khums that year in the performance of Hajj, he shall not be bound to pay Khums for it. As already mentioned, it is allowed to spend the annual saving to meet his expenditure, and he is not bound to apportion it between the saving of that year and other things not liable to payment of Khums. So also it is permissible for him to spend the whole amount of saving of that year to meet the expenses on Hajj, and keep the savings of the previous years for which Khums has already been paid for himself.

Problem # 23 Khums is charged on the property itself, and so the right of master’s option for its payment from it or another property is not free from difficulty, although it is close to the stronger opinion, except in case the lawful and unlawful things are mixed up, in which case caution must not be given up by paying the property itself. A person has no right to transfer the liability for Khums to himself and make changes in the property belonging to Khums. Of course, the legal ruler or his authorized agent is entitled to enter into a conveyance with the owner in this respect and transfer the liability for the Khums to him, in which case the owner shall be entitled to make the change or changes in it, in the same way as the ruler is entitled to enter into a conveyance in respect of a property mixed up with unlawful property.

Problem # 24 There is no condition of passage of a year for the obligation of Khums on the profits or incomes, etc., and it is permissible for the earner of the income to delay the payment of Khums on it until the end of the year, while it is permissible for him to make its payment earlier if he desires, but he shall not be entitled to demand its return from its recipient even if it has already perished without the latter’s knowledge that it has been paid before time.

Sixth If a Dhimmi purchases a land from a Muslim, he shall be bound to pay Khums for it that will be taken from him forcibly in case he is not ready to pay it willingly, irrespective of its being a farmland, a garden, a house, a public bath (or Hammãm), a shop, a guest house, etc. provided that a sale and purchase transaction has taken place for its land independently. If, however, its concern with the land is secondary, as, for instance, the object sold was a house or a Hammäm, then, according to the stronger opinion, its land shall not be charged Khums. Now, does the obligation for the payment of Khums apply exclusively in case a land is transferred through purchase, or it applies generally to other commutative contracts as well, is a question on which there is hesitation, it would be more cautious to incorporate a stipulation in the commutative contract regarding the amount of Khums of land payable on it, so that it may be enforced in case the payment of Khums (in such cases) is not established. Once the payment of Khums is established in a case, it is not lawful to incorporate a stipulation to drop it .So if a Dhimmi incorporates a stipulation in the commutative contract with a Muslim to the effect that Khums shall not payable by him or that it shall be payable by the seller, it shall be void. Of course, if the Muslim incorporates a stipulation in the agreement that he shall pay the Khums on behalf of the Dhimmi it shall be valid. If the Dhimmi sells it to another Dhimmi or a Muslim, payment of Khums shall not thereby be dropped, as also it shall not drop if the Dhimmi embraces Islam subsequent to purchasing it. According to the more valid opinion, such type of Khums shall be spent like other types of Khums. Of course, according to the more valid opinion, there is neither any Nisab for it, nor any Niyyat even for the ruler, whether at the time of its receipt or at the time of its payment.

Problem # 25 (In case of sale or purchase by a Dhimmi) Khums shall be charged on the land, and the rule with regard to the right of option for the Dhimmi is the same as has been mentioned above, If there is any plantation or construction on the land, the Khums collector shall not be entitled to remove or dismantle it. If the Dhimmi wants that they should remain intact, he shall have to pay the Khums for it. If he intends to pay the price of the land on which there is some cultivation, plantation or construction, it shall be calculated keeping into consideration the cultivation, plantation or building on it, so that Khums shall be charged in compensation thereof.

Problem # 26 If a Dhimmi purchases a land which is conquered by force, if it has been sold its sale itself being lawful, as when the ruler (Wali) of the Muslims has sold it in their interest, then there shall be no difficulty in the obligation of payment of Khums on the Dhimmi. But if it has been sold as an adjunct to other things like the plantation or construction on it, or in the same way if an agricultural land is transferred to a Dhimmi through purchase from a Muslim to whom it had been transferred by the state as a result of which he would enjoy special right through its ownership belonging to the person to whom it was transferred, then according to the stronger opinion, there shall be no payment of Khums on it, though it is more cautious to incorporate a stipulation to the effect of payment of the amount of Khums to those entitled.

Problem # 27 If a Dhimmi purchases from the Wali of Khums the Khums whose payment was obligatory on him as a result of the purchase, it shall be obligatory on him to pay the Khums of what he has purchased. Similarly, according to the more cautious opinion, the same rule shall apply in case the price of the land liable to payment of Khums is assessed, and the Dhimmi makes its payment, though, according to the stronger opinion, it is to the contrary. Of course, if the Dhimmi returns the land to the owner of the Khums or his agent, and then intends to purchase it, then apparently Khums shall be charged on it.

Seventh If a lawful thing is mixed up with unlawful, while there is no knowledge about its owner at all, even if in a limited quantity, likewise without any knowledge about its exact quantity, in that case Khums shall be charged on it. If there is knowledge about its quantity as well as its owner, it shall be returned to the owner, and the person returning it shall not be charged Khums. Rather, if a person knows that it is in a limited quantity, to be more cautious, he should get himself exonerated. If it is not possible, then according to the stronger opinion, he should cast lots. If the person does not know about its owner, or it were in an unlimited quantity, he shall give it in charity with the permission of the ruler (or judge) to any one he likes when he does not suppose it to belong to a particular person. Otherwise, he should not give up caution by giving it in charity to that particular person, provided that he must be one entitled to receive it. Of course, it is of no use to suppose that it belongs to a particular type when it is in a limited quantity. If the person knows about its owner, but is ignorant of its quantity, he should get himself exonerated by means of a conveyance with the owner. According to the more valid opinion, this type of Khums is also to be spent like other types.

Problem # 28 If it is known that the amount of unlawful quantity (mixed with the lawful) is more than that of Khums, but its quantity is not known, then it is sufficient to take out Khums in order to legalize and purify it. Otherwise, along with taking out Khums it is more cautious to have an agreement with the ruler (or judge) on the unlawful thing in a way that thereby he may be certain of being absolved of the liability and there be a ruling about the thing being one whose owner is not known. Even more cautious than that is to deliver the sure amount to the ruler (or judge) and have agreement with him on the doubtful one, and it would be cautious on the part of the ruler (or judge) to make it conform to both the types in which it is spent.

Problem # 29 If a person is indebted to another, but not in the property itself, in that case Khums shall not be applicable Rather in such case when he knows about its amount, but not about its owner, not even in a limited number, he shall give it in charity on behalf of the owner with the permission of the ruler (or judge) or may deliver it to the latter. If he knows about the owner in a limited number, then, according to the stronger opinion, he should cast lots. If, however, he is ignorant of its quantity, and there is hesitation about its being in a lesser or larger quantity, decision shall be made in favour the lesser amount, and he shall deliver it to the owner, if he is known by specification. In case he is hesitant about its being in a specified quantity, then the same rule mentioned above shall apply. If its owner is not known or is known in an unspecified number, he shall give it in charity as already mentioned. In this case, it is more cautious to have an agreement with the ruler (or judge) on an average amount between the least and the highest, and shall dealt with in the same way as it is done in case there is knowledge about its quantity..

Problem # 30 If the lawful thing mixed with unlawful belongs to Khums, Zakat or public or private endowment, then it shall be treated as a thing whose owner is known, and it would not be sufficient to take out its Khums.

Problem # 31 If the lawful thing mixed up with unlawful happens to be one on which Khums has already been charged, it is obligatory to pay another Khums for the lawful thing in it after Khums has been paid on it for its legalization The owner may suffice with payment of Khums for the amount he is sure about it being lawful it is less than the Khums of the balance left after payment of Khums for legalization. According to the stronger opinion, he may suffice with the payment of Khums of the balance if it is equal to its amount or more than that. It is more cautious to have an agreement (of Conveyance) with the ruler (or judge) in case he has hesitation about its being in a lesser or larger quantity.

Problem # 32 If the owner appears after the payment of Khums, he shall be liable for it, and he shall have to pay the compensation. If, after the payment of the Khums, it transpires that the unlawful thing was less than that, the surplus shall not be returned to him. If it transpires that it was more, then, to be more cautious to give the surplus in charity, though, according to the stronger opinion, it is not obligatory in case he was ignorant of the surplus amount.

Problem # 33.If a person makes some changes in the (lawful) thing mixed up with unlawful by destroying it before the payment of Khums, he shall be held liable in respect of the unlawful (part), and apparently Khums on it shall drop. He shall be governed by the rule relating to compensation for unjust acts, and that means the obligation for making charity. It is more cautious for him to obtain permission from the ruler (or judge), as also it is more cautious to deliver the amount of Khums to a Häshimi with the permission of the ruler (or judge) intending thereby payment of what he was liable to pay. In case he makes the change by an act like sale, he shall be treated as an unauthorized person in relation to the unlawful thing whose quantity is not known. If the ruler (or judge) endorses it, the compensation, if already delivered, shall belong to Khums as it shall be treated as a thing mixed with unlawful thing whose quantity as well as its own is not known, and the whole thing paid in compensation belongs to the buyer. In case the ruler (or judge) does not endorse it, the compensation delivered is treated as something with which unlawful thing is mixed up while its amount is unknown, though its owner is known, and so it is governed by the relevant rule. As regards the thing paid as compensation, it is to be governed by its previous rule. So payment of Khums on it shall be obligatory. The Wali of Khums may have recourse against the seller, in the same way as he may have recourse against the buyer after the delivery of the thing to him.

Chapter Two — Division of Khums and Those Entitled to Receive It

Problem # 1 Khums is divided into five shares. One share is meant for Allah, the exalted, another for the Prophet, Allah’s Blessings be on him and his Progeny, and the third for the Imam, Peace be upon him. These three shares are now meant for the Master of Authority (Sahib al-Amr, or the Master of the Era, Sãhib al-’Asr, i.e., Imam Mahdi, the twelfth Imam, who is in Occultation), May our Souls be sacrificed for him, and May Allah hasten his Appearance. The other three shares are meant for the orphans, indigent and wayfarers whose paternal lineage goes back to Abd al-Muttalib, (Grand father of the Holy Prophet). If a person’s lineage goes back to him through his/her mother, he /she shall not be entitled to receive Khums, and, according to the more valid opinion, it shall be lawful for him/her to receive Sadaqah (or charity, which is forbidden for the former class).

Problem # 2, Imãn (literally meaning Belief, but in Shi’ah terminology meaning Shi’ah faith), or what is treated as such, is a condition for all those entitled to receive Khums, but, according to the more valid opinion, ‘Adalat (moral soundness) is not a condition for them. According to the more cautious opinion, Khums should not be given to a person who shamelessly and publicly commits Major Sins. The prohibition is further invigorated if the award of Khums may serve as assistance in the commission of the sin and the aggressive attitude and inciting to commit evil, and, in case it is prohibited for him it would mean prevention of such abominable acts. It is better to observe preferential treatment among the individuals (according to their moral behaviour).

Problem # 3 According to the stronger opinion, consideration of poverty must be made in case of orphans. But in case of a traveller whose purpose of journey is not vicious, it is not a condition that he must be poor while in his town, but it is a condition that he should be needy in the town where he is paid Khums, even if he were well-to-do in his own home-town, as has already been mentioned under the Section on Zakat.

Problem# 4 According to the more cautious, if not stronger, opinion Khums must not be given by a person to another whose maintenance is his liability, particularly to his own wife when it is meant for her maintenance. But there is no objection in its payment to a person who needs it and whom he is not obliged to maintain, in the same way as there is no objection if a person pays the Khums of another to such person even if it meant for his/her maintenance, even to the wife of a husband who is in a straitened circumstances.