Are the minerals buried in the earth the exclusive property of the state, or does the people have a right to them?

The Shaykh : As for what was mentioned in my brother's previous statement that some rulers exploit the abundant oil or petroleum in certain countries, if this exploitation is in the manner previously described—and I do not believe it is—meaning common land where they do not have common land, but rather land owned by the state, then if there is common, uncultivated land that no one owns, neither an individual nor the state, then in that case, any individual from the people, whether he is called a ruler or an official, if he takes a portion of this land which is not owned but falls under the general scope of the previous hadith , then there is no difference at that point between one who is called a ruler and one who is called an official. But what you pointed out is not the case; they use people in the process of extracting oil or petroleum, and then they control its disposal according to their desires, and I do not say their lusts. This is not of the category of . Therefore, we must distinguish between the legal ruling and the derived ruling that contradicts the Shari'ah on one hand, and the exploitation of some legal rulings for personal interests on the other hand. And now, as we say, a lesson and a lesson do not come together... This statement has ended, and I do not contradict you in this, just as you did not contradict me and will not contradict me in my statement that we say we see the sun rise and we see the sun set, and we build legal rulings upon its rising and setting, but we do not build legal rulings upon our scientific statement that the sun does not rise and does not set, correct?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : So it is not befitting us in our legal rulings to delve deep and bring theoretical, intellectual science into the development of some of the legal rulings we have. And perhaps I understand from your previous answer and your correction of my words that the sun does not rise and does not set, that you will also agree with me in what I am about to say: that when we see the sun above the peak of the mountain, and the peak of the mountain is, in scientific reality, still behind the mountain, it is only the visible rays that have raised it and shown it to us above the mountain. Do you correct this, or has this not passed you by?

The questioner : This has not passed me by.

The Shaykh : It is wondrous, by Allah, how this passes by this Shaykh and does not pass by the young man. I read this in some magazines, and with this theory I understood something we also see with our own eyes: when we are at a calm lake and throw a straight stick into it, we see it bent, correct?

The questioner : Correct.

The Shaykh : You say this is correct as well, so what is the explanation for this? It is the rays striking... yes, exactly. This is how they explained to us the issue of the sun when it is on the top of the mountain; it is not on the top of the mountain, but the rays are what raise it. This is with respect to pure observation. The important thing is: do we bring this scientific theory into it when we see the sun on the peak of the mountain and say, naturally, the sun has risen, and naturally, by legal ruling, the time of Fajr has entered, correct? But science says the sun has not yet risen. We let science go its way, and our Shari'ah, just as it does not stand in its way, science is not permissible to stand in the way of our Shari'ah. And with this, we reconcile the conflicting opinions on this occasion, which Shaykh Muhammad 'Abduh in Egypt tried to reconcile between truth and the Shari'ah. I do not mean the Sufi truth, but I mean the scientific truth. But Muhammad 'Abduh met the Sufis in expression; he tried to reconcile the legal truth with the scientific truth, saying: "Science and the Shari'ah do not differ, do not contradict, and do not oppose each other." And this is true, but it is not true when he said that if a legal truth conflicts with a scientific truth, it is obligatory to interpret the legal text according to the scientific truth. Here we say: No. We let the Shari'ah go its way and we let science go its way, and we have no need to interpret science for the sake of the Shari'ah, nor the Shari'ah for the sake of science. The examples were mentioned earlier. So the hadith : these three things are not owned. The secret in this hadith is that these three things are not owned, but they are common. So it is not permissible for a person to put his hand on a sea and say that he has owned it, or on a river and say I have owned it, or on a forest and say I have owned it. No. These people all have a common share in them. And as I told you earlier, there is no difference between the state and an individual from the individuals of this state; the state is exactly the same as the individuals. But go to dead land and revive it; if you revive it, you are its owner. As for the land that Allah has revived with crops or water, this is common, and it is not permissible for anyone to put his hand on it. So I think this is the answer to what you asked, and perhaps I have finished. Yes.

The questioner : May Allah reward you with good.

The Shaykh : And you as well. It is Professor 'Ali's turn.