On this basis, control or dominance does not result any private right of ownership of a territory (lit. land) for an individual. This is applicable to all types of land including forests, etc. conquered by force. It is similar to the rule that reclamation before conquest does not result in a private right of ownership for any person in relation to cultivated taxed land.

It is sometimes said that naturally cultivable land can be owned on the basis of acquiring control or possession, since in relation to such land control over it is similar to rehabilitation works on wasteland. This view attempts to establish ownership on the basis of possession or control relying on the traditions indicating that “he who possesses (an object) owns (it)”. However it may be argued that this view is incorrect.

First, some of these traditions are weak in terms of their authenticity and carry no weight as evidence. Among them there is one that is cited in the context of clarifying the indication of actual possession. It made possession literally an indication, instead of the basis for ownership. Among them there is also a tradition that was cited in respect of specific situation or context, like the saying “to the hand belongs what it takes and to the eye belongs what it sees”, a tradition cited in respect of hunting.

Second, if the traditions on possession and control were admitted to be pertinent to the primarily main mubah objects that would not legally be owned by an agency or an individual, then they will not imply the position in view of the fact that forest land is supposed to be the property of the ummah (community) or of the Imam.