The state seized the lands of a certain tribe and then distributed them among its citizens. Is it permissible for one who knows that the land was seized to accept it?

The questioner : These states that rule over Muslims by force, for example, a tribe owns a piece of land, meaning the land is common property of the tribe’s members, not specified to any one individual. When the government takes hold of this land like any other land, for instance, I requested agricultural or residential land and they gave it to me in a place that is the right of this family or tribe, is it permissible for me to benefit from this land while I know that it was seized from the people? Not from specific individuals, but from them as a collective, in terms of ownership.

The Shaykh : What I understood from your question is that this land belongs to one of the tribes and is not, meaning, dead land, is that correct? Such that the statement of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) applies to this land: .

The questioner : If so, this is clear.

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : But this dead land is for whoever will cultivate it, or for whoever wants to reside in it, for example, as we are in Oman, this mountain, this side belongs to such-and-such a tribe. Is it permissible for me to take land that the government gave me after it seized it from the tribe?

The Shaykh : I want to know.

The questioner : It is not dead land, meaning.

The Shaykh : Ah, that is the answer. May Allah guide you.

The questioner : I understand dead land to mean that one revives it, for example, by cultivating it.

The Shaykh : We are not yet talking about reviving it; it is dead. We are not talking about reviving it, because land is either owned or it has no owner. If it is of the first type, the seizure is known, as the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: . It is owned land, and seizing it is not permissible, and it is severely forbidden, as in the hadith mentioned earlier: . However, if it is common property, excuse me, if it is dead land that is not owned, then the jurists have two schools of thought. The first school, which is the correct school, as stated in the hadith I mentioned before, is the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): . This is the first school. The other school, which is the weaker position, and the stronger position is the first school, is that land that has no owner cannot be owned by a Muslim through revival except with the permission of the ruler. This is the Hanafi school, and accordingly, lands were treated during the time of the Turkish Ottoman government. That is why you hear that these are "state lands." This designation has no basis in the Shari'ah, because the Shari'ah says, in addition to the previous hadith: . So, from the legacy that today’s Muslim rulers inherited from the Hanafi Ottoman rule is that properties are either private or public. This public category is state property, so it is not permissible for any individual Muslim to take hold of a piece of these lands except with the state’s approval. This is the weaker school. So I do not know if your question aligns with this school that the current rulers inherited from the previous Ottoman rule. Therefore, I wanted to know if that land which a tribe has benefited from and settled on has become their property by them building on it, by them cultivating it, by them extracting water from it, and so on, or if it is state property. If it is of the first category, then the answer in that case is: if the state confiscated this land and then gave a portion of it to someone, this would be seizure, and it is not permissible to accept this gift at that time. However, if it is of the type of land, meaning dead land, then in that case, it means it has no owner, so if the state gave it, he may accept it. Is the answer clear?

The questioner : The answer is clear, but to clarify further, for example, the custom there is that, let us speak of a realistic scenario now, in Yemen, for example, this tribe has such-and-such a boundary of land. They control it and allow whoever resides in it. They use it only for grazing, not for residence, meaning, my brother is a Bedouin who moves from land to another. This is their land. If the rainy season comes, no one resides in it or grazes their livestock there except with their permission. Here, the state came and took hold of all the lands, of course, including this land which is a pasture for their animals, meaning, they own the permission and prohibition there. The state gave land to someone who wants to reside in it, or to someone who wants to revive it, for example, by cultivation. Is this permissible for him, or is it required, for example, to seek permission or request permission from the sheikh of the tribe or the tribe as a whole? This is the realistic scenario, for example.

The Shaykh : By Allah, this, Professor, we must know, meaning, how did this tribe deal with this land before the state? Was it only agricultural land?

The questioner : It is suitable.

The Shaykh : No, no, I do not want to know if it is suitable; I want the reality.

The questioner : The reality is that it was not cultivated; land like this is called dead land.

The Shaykh : Dead land.

The questioner : But it belongs to a known tribe, common to the tribe’s members.

The Shaykh : What does the tribe do with this dead land?

The questioner : Nothing, except that in the past, if other tribes prevented them from residing in their lands, they would return to this land which is theirs and reside in it. And if, for example, rain came, they would prevent people from cultivating in this land.

The Shaykh : Do they reside in it in tents or in buildings?

The questioner : In tents.

The Shaykh : In tents. Okay, if they did not reside in it, where did they reside before?

The questioner : They reside either in other lands that belong to them, or in the place of other tribes who own lands like theirs, because there is, meaning, an agreement among the sheikhs of these tribes that, meaning, whoever sits on land, it is his. For example, they agreed on a certain pattern and conditions: whoever resides on land, how does he own it, and so on. So each tribe came to have a specific area.

The Shaykh : And this is a prevailing, established custom, otherwise, would there be conflicts between them?

The questioner : This custom is established among them that this land belongs to so-and-so.

The Shaykh : Meaning, there is no dispute that this is our land, no...

The questioner : Perhaps some areas are small or defined, but generally, each has their land.

The Shaykh : By Allah, if I must say, based on what I heard, with the saying that "he who sees is like he who hears," according to what I heard, it appears that this land is owned by this tribe, meaning, as if a man took hold of a piece of land that had no owner before. This tribe took hold of this land. Of course, whether it is large or small is a separate issue. It appears that it is owned by this tribe, at least for grazing their livestock and animals, and then, as I mentioned earlier, they may resort to it with their tents on some occasions. It appears to me, and Allah knows best, based on what I heard, that it is land revived by the tribe. Consequently, if the state gave a portion of this land to a person, this is like what happened to us in Syria, and perhaps in other countries, in what they also called by a name other than its true name, "agricultural reform." The truth was that it was corruption beyond corruption. And so, the Syrian lands, which used to export wheat and barley to other countries, began to import them because of this so-called reform. They took control of the lands of some rich people, whom they called landowners, and distributed them to some farmers who might be poor but did not have the ability to truly develop them. So there were farms that were cited as examples and gardens with every kind of fruit in pairs, which became desolate ruins. If this land belongs to the tribe in this sense that it is revived by them, then it is not permissible at that time if the state takes hold of it, unless it settles the matter with them, meaning, exchanging land for land, or giving them the price of this land, which they divide among themselves for a benefit they wish to achieve. That is a different matter. But this confiscation, what happened in Syria was more severe than that.

The questioner : Okay, Shaykh, if one wants to develop this land, is it required for him, if he wants to seek permission from the owning tribe, from its sheikhs and every individual of the tribe, meaning, he knows that it is confiscated and seized?

The Shaykh : This also needs clarification. Do you mean, I imagine that this sheikh of the tribe is like a head of state, and he is the prince of the tribe? So I do not think that every individual acts in this land, which is not owned by a specific person, according to his own whim, but rather according to the opinion of the prince. If the matter is like this, then it is referred back to the prince.
Please go ahead.