Does the oil found in the ground fall under the hadith: "Whoever revives dead land, it is his," and is oil to be analogized to a treasure?

The questioner : ... the subject of fire, considering that firewood is a source of energy.

The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.

The questioner: Oil has now become much more important than firewood as a source of energy, so the analogy means reason and analogy.

The Shaykh: Analogy with a difference, this is if there is reason. Earlier, the answer to this was given. If you had reflected with me on what I said, it would have spared you from asking such a question. We distinguished between forests and between seas and between the flowing rivers that Allah created. Likewise, we said it is not permissible for a person to come and put his hand on it, finding it an easy meal. But we said, come to barren land and revive it, and it is yours now. And we said, revive it and it is yours because you revived it with your effort and your toil. Now you come to oil, which requires—and how quickly you forget—companies to extract the oil from the depths of the earth. So you made this oil like the trees in the forests or the water in the seas and rivers. What is this analogy? This analogy, as Ibn Hazm (may Allah have mercy on him) says—and we all know that he denies analogy in principle and in detail—but when he discusses his opponents and discusses their proof of some rulings by analogy, he has a phrase that we can consider a sealed cliché. He says, "All analogy is invalid, and if there were any truth in it, this would be the very essence of falsehood." So your analogy is the very essence of falsehood because you are analogizing what is the work of man and his creation. I think there is no objection to this expression?

The questioner: Yes, there is no objection.

The Shaykh: Well done. You are analogizing what is the work of man and what is of his creation to what is of the creation and management of Allah. So if there were any truth in analogy, this would be the very essence of falsehood.

The questioner: I mean, Professor, you distinguished on the basis that that is easy and accessible to obtain, like for example the trees of the forest, and this which requires effort and money.

The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.

The questioner: May Allah reward you... how do they classify oil, considering that the brother is saying that it is the property of the Muslims.

Another questioner : I did not say that.

The questioner: No problem, but you are saying it is considered common property for the Muslims, the property of all Muslims.

Another questioner: Some people say it, we said.

The questioner: No problem, but it seems like you are asking about this matter considering...

Another questioner: I just wanted to be enlightened.

The questioner: Of course, we are all enlightened, but...

The Shaykh: What is the difference between you and him?

The questioner: The difference is, I understood from you that he...

The Shaykh: He did not understand from you, but he understood from me.

The questioner: He understood from you, but I understood from you that the difference in the effort and money paid to obtain the thing, whereas the money and the companies that work in oil are all, without doubt, coming from the government, meaning they are not companies from their own capital...

The Shaykh: O our brothers, I remind you, and the reminder benefits the believers. The reason for the objections that arise in the present age regarding some of the Shari'ah rulings is the distance of the Islamic ruling from our reality. It is because the Shaykhs are living under non-Islamic rulings.

Another questioner: They say this is considered common property for the Muslims. We have heard this many times from the Shaykhs.

The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.

Another questioner: It is not new, meaning.

The Shaykh: But I think, and Allah knows best, and I think that my assumption is the assumption of a believer, that you never said to these Shaykhs .

Another questioner: By Allah, I asked one of those who said this on the pulpit. No problem, do I mention his name?

The Shaykh : Yes?

Another questioner: No problem, I mention his name. A pious, well-known man.

The Shaykh: If you consider mentioning him backbiting, then stay away from backbiting. And if you consider mentioning him...

Another questioner: They love him and come to listen to his sermons.

The Shaykh: And if you consider mentioning him by name to fall under... I have not finished my speech, may Allah guide you. But the patience that you described yourself with earlier, it seems you will now pour it out all at once. I am saying, if you consider it backbiting, then beware of it. But if you consider mentioning him by name to fall under what the scholar-poet said:
"Criticism is not backbiting in six cases: *** The complainant, the one who identifies, and the one who warns,
And the one who openly commits open sin, and the one who seeks a ruling, *** And the one who seeks assistance in removing a wrong." So you must name him.

Another questioner: In the category of the one who identifies.

The Shaykh : Yes?

Another questioner: In the category of the one who identifies.

The Shaykh: What is the benefit of identifying?

Another questioner: Let's not mention his name. He mentioned in one of his sermons that these moneys in which the people of oil dispose are the right of all Muslims. So when he went out and finished the sermon, I asked him. I said to him, if you cut out a piece of land and found a treasure in this piece of land, must this treasure be distributed to the Muslims considering that this is the property of all Muslims? He said, no, this is of course my right. I said to him, why is this your right and that is the right of all Muslims? What is the difference? He said that these things are not like a treasure. And he started, of course, to say words that did not convince me. I mean, what I know from the Shari'ah is that if a person finds a treasure in his land, it is his. But the issue of oil, since it is a new issue and the Shaykhs have...

The Shaykh: May Allah bring you back, O long patience, because you spoke a lot and did not answer the question, and I think you forgot the question.

Another questioner: The question is .

The Shaykh: Did you do it? You did not answer me.

Another questioner: I told him I...

The Shaykh: No, I did not tell him. I told him, if you had land, this is proof from you or from him. If you had land and found a treasure in it, and so on.

Another questioner: I told him, why did you distinguish between oil and a treasure? What is the point of distinction in this?

The Shaykh: My brother, may Allah guide you, did I tell him, "What is your proof from the Book of Allah and from the hadith of the Messenger of Allah?"
Another questioner: No, I did not say that to him.

The Shaykh: That is what you assumed about me, so praise be to Allah, my assumption is the assumption of a believer.

Another questioner: I know that the evidence for oil will not be with him regarding the distribution of oil, because it is a modern problem.

The Shaykh: No, may Allah guide you, it is possible that he has an opinion and he has evidence that did not pass you by. Because as the Exalted said , the person means he must not rely on himself and not imagine that he is lacking in knowledge. No. Some scholars say, "A person remains a scholar as long as he does not say 'I know.' If he says 'I know,' he has become ignorant." This is a fact.