Critical Reciting of the theory of khums monopoly in war spoils (Qanaem of war) and precious treasures (Rekaz)

There is disagreement among Muslim jurists about the obligation of khums on non-spoils of war, especially the gains of gains. Imamiyyah jurists agree on its necessity and Sunni jurists have issued fatwas on its non-necessity except in Rekaz, ie precious treasures. The origin of this disagreement, is related to the different interpretations of the sects of the word "spoils" in the forty-first verse of Surah Anfal, and in non-Qur'anic reasons for the necessity of khums on "ArbahMakaseb" (business profits). Other jurisprudential sects in Khums have referred to the prophetic hadith "and in Al-Rukaz Al-Khums", but the Imamiyyah have also relied on the hadiths of the Ahl al-Bayt (AS). According to the author, the difference between Sunni jurisprudence and Imamiyyah jurisprudence firstly, is due to the doubt and preference of evidence that such a procedure is not specific to the documents of Imamiyyah jurists, but it is common among all Islamic religions and is considered the accepted principle. secondly, its roots should be found in the jurisprudential interpretation that the jurists of each religion have presented from the reasons for the necessity of khums, which, of course, is not limited to the Imamiyyah religion.The present article intends to provide a critical studing of the theory of monopoly of khums on spoils of war and various theories about Rekaz based on the analysis of inferential arguments for the necessity of khums on gains by Imamiyyah jurists and its comparison with Khums of Rekaz by Sunnis.