By this we mean that in this respect the mine is like the land itself, because the proof of the established right or control over a mine is by perception (non-verbal – labbi) and cannot be held by its application.

It is possible that istishab (assumption of accompanying circumstance) may prevent its enforcement for more than one reason. If the reports of tradition regarding (the imposition of) khums on mines are accepted, the instruction to the landowner to pay khums on what he extracts from the mine implies that he is the owner of the other part (the remaining balance, or the four-fifths) of the mine. Accordingly the proof of the individual’s control over the mine would be verbal not by perception (non- verbal).

We hold that these reports of the tradition are not at a level of adequate clarity as to the rule about mines, and the right of the landowners over the mines. It is therefore not necessary to adhere to them for the establishment of that right because of doubts over their authenticity. We view these reports as merely a statement of the certainty of khums on the extracts from the mine, which gives ownership to an individual by virtue of his extraction. So, it is not possible to prove – by these reports – the ownership of the remaining material in the mine as to whether they belong to the land owner, or otherwise.

But the subject of our discussion is the material obtained from the mine and not what still remain inside.