It is stated in ar-Riyad that the texts indicating that wastelands form part of anfal and is a property of the Imam contradict the basis of the directive in the previously mentioned texts indicating that land acquired by conquest belongs to the Muslims. The conflict is as regard to wasteland conquered by force. The texts on Imam’s ownership of taxed land imply its inclusion while those on Muslim’s public ownership of land taken by force also imply its inclusion according to the statement, ‘what is seized with sword belongs to the Muslims’. So, what is the juridical justification for the taking the texts on Imam’s ownership and the applying them to conquered land when they are wasteland, while disregarding the texts of Muslims’ public ownership?

In rebutting the above, it may be contended that the subject matter of the texts on public ownership by Muslims is the properties, which Muslims seize as spoils of war from the non-Muslims. The spoils of war seized from the properties the non-Muslims own, whereas wastelands are not properties owned by anyone among them. They only own lands that they cultivate, so the wasteland is then not the subject matter of those texts.

This reply is valid only on the basis of the first of the two hypotheses, which we have previously mentioned in the Appendix 1, in respect of the subject matter of the texts on ghanimah. But if we take the second hypothesis and say that ghanimah includes everything seized by sword, then the application of the texts on ghanimah does not depend on the seized property being assets owned by a non-Muslim. For its application, it will be sufficient that the property is under the control of non-Muslims

Therefore, every property seized in a war - from the possession and control of a non-Muslims - would constitute ghanimah, whether or not the property is owned by any of them. Now, it is obvious that a wasteland in the non-Muslim country will be regarded as being under the control and possession of the non-Muslims of that country. So, with its occupation by Muslims, it will confirm that it was taken by sword even if it was not the property of a definite enemy. So, a total conflict is demonstrated

For all that, the texts on the Imam’s ownership are submitted for the following technical reasons:

First, the texts on the Imam’s ownership can be classified under two sets. Those that occur with the wording, ‘lands that are wastelands belong to the Imam’ and those that occur with the wording ‘lands which are owner-less belong to the Imam’.

Clearly, the second set of texts on Imam’s ownership cannot conflict with the text on taxed lands - that implies public ownership by Muslims - on the same level as that of the first set such that both are eliminated, because of an inconsistency between two evidence of the same rank. And, it is because the texts on taxed lands prove the Muslims’ public ownership of the conquered land, governing. So, such term the second set since they separate the land from its being a land having no owner and makes Muslims its owner.

Therefore, it is impossible for the second set in such a case to happen to be the side of the conflict with the traditions of the ownership of Muslims because the governed will not contradict the evidence of the governing. The outcome of it will be that the conflict in the first grade centres upon between the texts of the ownership of the Muslims and the first set of the texts of the ownership of the Imam; and after the falling in succession we will get to the second set of the texts of the owner-ship of the Imam without the conflict (contradiction) only if by the addition of a declaratory istishab (the seeking of link – i.e., to something which is known and certain) which trains its subject matter – which is the non- existence of (absence) of the owner of the land.

Second, in the texts on the ownership of the Imam, there are terms that indicate exhaustive and total ownership, like the saying, ‘each land which is a wasteland belongs to the Imam’. Whereas, the texts on taxed land indicate the ownership totally and total is preferred to the absolute when the capital between the two is in respect of the direction of the totality.

Third, if we acknowledge the elimination of both sides of the conflicting textual evidences, it is then necessary to seek recourse to the total ownership of the Imam. As stated above, the whole land is the property of the Imam because this totality is apt for the authority after the gradual elimination of the conflicting texts.

Fourthly: If the two sets are eliminated and if we disregard the above-mentioned competent authority the istishab, a competent authority is made possible because the wasteland was the property of the Imam before the Islamic conquest of the country in accordance with the texts of the Imam’s ownership of wasteland, and implies Muslims public ownership is only by conquest (in case of the assumption of the guarded elimination of the application of the texts by conflict, the ownership will be sought to be linked with the Imam).

But this reason is fulfilled only in respect of the land which was conquered after the enactment of the rule on the land as the Imam’s property, such that his ownership precedes the conquest and istishab becomes applicable just as some of the previous reasons will also be fulfilled in respect of some suppositions, condition in respect of them may change with the change of historical timing (time reckoning) of the enactment of the law of the Imam’s ownership of the anfal and the enactment of the law of Muslim’s ownership of conquered land. The verification of the conquest is irrelevant leaving no room for its detailed statement.