Islamic Fiqh > Endowments (waqf) and property > Reviving dead land (ihya') > Dead lands: categories and permission
Contents
Updated on 25 September 2026 at 6:57 PM
These sheets from the Encyclopedia of Fiqh (al-Mawsu'a al-fiqhiyya) deal with dead lands that are not free of prior rights: lands already owned through revival and then abandoned until they fell back into ruin, lands bearing traces of an ancient ownership such as the remains of the Romans (ar-Rum) and the dwellings of Thamud, and land close to settled areas. The schools differ over one central question: does abandonment erase the right of the one who revived first? They also determine in which cases the permission of the imam becomes a condition for reviving the land.
Ad-Dasuqi, may Allah have mercy on him, said: if the land falls back into ruin while it rests on a title of ownership, such as inheritance, a gift or a purchase, the owner's exclusive right remains even if the period of abandonment grows long, by unanimous agreement (Hashiyat ad-Dasuqi 'ala Sharh al-Kabir, 5/349; see the previous sources).
Al-'Imrani, may Allah have mercy on him, said: the second category is a dead land upon which ownership had already passed in favor of a Muslim; then the owner died, or went away, the land fell into ruin and became as if dead. If its owner is known, its revival is not permitted, without any disagreement (al-Bayan, 7/477).
The second category is thus what was owned through revival and which has two states. The first state is land owned through revival, then effaced, whose owner remains known. The jurists differed over land owned through revival and then left until it decayed and returned to dead land: does it remain the property of its owner, its revival being forbidden, or does it pass into the status of dead land, its revival being permitted?
The Malikis, in the most widespread position, the Hanafis, in one of the two views, and one position of the Shafi'is hold that whoever revives a land and then leaves it until it decays, returns to its former state and the period of abandonment grows long, then another revives it, it belongs to the latter: the ownership of the first has ceased over it. This follows from the generality of the Prophet's words (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him):
Whoever revives dead land, it is hisNarrated by Abu Dawud (3073), At-Tirmidhi (1378) and An-Nasa'i in al-Kubra (5761); authentic hadith
The Prophet generalized. And because the land itself is, in origin, free of all rights: if it is left until it becomes dead land again, it returns to its original state, which is free disposal. It then resembles one who takes water from the river and returns it to it, and game that escapes its hunter and rejoins the wild beasts: it belongs to whoever hunts it afterwards.
Al-Mawwaq, may Allah have mercy on him, said, quoting al-Mudawwana: whoever revives dead land and then leaves it until it decays, its time grows long, its trees die and its wells collapse, so that it becomes as it was at first, then another revives it, it belongs to the latter reviver. Ibn Yunus said: by analogy with game that escapes, rejoins the wild beasts and whose time grows long, the land belongs to the second (at-Taj wal-Iklil, 4/547; al-Ishraf, 3/240, no. 1086; al-Istidhkar, 7/185; al-Muntaqa, 6/30-31; Sharh al-Kabir with Hashiyat ad-Dasuqi, 5/439-440; Tathbir al-Mukhtasar, 4/625; al-Bayan, 7/478).
The majority of jurists, namely the Hanafis in the authentic position held among them, Sahnun among the Malikis, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis, hold that what was owned through revival and then left until it decayed, returned to dead land and whose owner is identified remains the property of that owner, and that its revival is not permitted. This land has a known owner: it was therefore not acquired through revival, like land acquired by purchase or gift. The report is indeed restricted to what had not been owned, by the Prophet's words in the other version:
Whoever revives dead land that belongs to no one, he has more right to itNarrated by An-Nasa'i in al-Kubra (5759)
The Prophet thus made the cessation of ownership over the dead land a condition for the lawfulness of acquiring it through revival. This shows that what ownership has already passed upon cannot be acquired through revival, and this hadith restricts the Prophet's saying: "Whoever revives dead land, it is his."
Al-Bukhari narrated from 'Urwa, from 'A'isha, may Allah be pleased with her, that the Prophet said:
Whoever develops land that belongs to no one, he has more right to it. 'Urwa said: "Umar judged by this during his caliphate, and Ali held the same view concerning the ruined lands of Kufa, dead lands."Narrated by Al-Bukhari (2210)
In a version from 'Urwa, the Prophet said:
Whoever revives dead land that belongs to no one, it is his, and no right belongs to the unjust claimant. 'Urwa said: "The unjust claimant is the man who develops a devastated land belonging to people who proved unable to work it and left it until it fell into ruin."Narrated by An-Nasa'i in al-Kubra (5760)
Moreover, this is a land upon which the ownership of a Muslim has been established: it cannot therefore be acquired through revival. Other properties, furthermore, do not lose their ownership through abandonment, as shown by properties left until they scatter. What the holders of the first view advanced is further refuted by dead land that a person revives and then sells, the buyer leaving it until it becomes dead land again, and by the lost property (luqata) that one acquires and then loses from one's hands. Their analogy finally contradicts the water of the river: it is, indeed, consumed.
As for the first group's argument from the Prophet's saying: "Whoever revives dead land, it is his", it is an argument in favor of their opponents: the first revived the land, so he must have a greater right to it than the people, for two reasons: the first is that he preceded the others; the second is that his ownership was established by unanimous agreement (al-Hawi al-Kabir, 7/477-478; al-Bayan, 7/477-478; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 3/428; Hashiyat 'Umayra, 3/215; al-Mughni, 5/238; Kashshaf al-Qina', 4/225-226; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat, 4/259; Matalib Uli an-Nuha, 4/179; al-Hidaya, 4/99; al-'Inaya, 14/309; al-Lubab, 1/681-682; Hashiyat ad-Dasuqi with Sharh al-Kabir, 5/439-440).
Al-Marghinani, may Allah have mercy on him, said: if he revives it and then leaves it, and another cultivates it, it has been said that the second has more right to it, because the first acquired only ownership of the usufruct (istighlal), not of the corpus (raqaba): once the land is left, the second has more right to it. The sounder view is that the first takes it back from the second, because he acquired it through revival, according to the explicit wording of the hadith: attribution in it is made by the lam of transferring ownership, and his ownership does not cease through abandonment (al-Hidaya, 4/99).
It is said in al-'Inaya: his words "the sounder view is that the first takes it back from the second" are explained thus: the shaykhs, may Allah have mercy on them, differed over whether reviving dead land establishes ownership of the usufruct or ownership of the corpus. Some of them, among them the jurist Abu al-Qasim Ahmad al-Balkhi, may Allah have mercy on him, held the first view, by analogy with one who settles in a place free of rights: he is entitled to benefit from it, and if he rises and turns away, his right falls void. The majority of them held the second view, citing the hadith: the Prophet used the lam of transferring ownership in his words "it is his", and ownership does not cease through abandonment (al-'Inaya, 14/309).
The jurists differed over what was owned through revival and then left until it decayed and returned to dead land, without its owner being identified: is its revival permitted or not? And does the land go to the owner's heirs or to the bayt al-mal?
The majority of jurists, namely the Hanafis in the position given for fatwa among them, the Malikis and the Hanbalis in the madhhab, hold that what was owned through revival and then effaced without its owner being identified remains the property of an unspecified Muslim, and that its revival is permitted. Three arguments lead to this: the generality of the reports; the fact that this dead land bears no right for specific persons in their own names, like land upon which no ownership has passed; and the fact that, if it lies in the abode of Islam, it is like the lost property (luqata) of the abode of Islam, and that, if it lies in the abode of disbelief, it is like buried treasure (rikaz) (al-Hidaya, 4/99; al-'Inaya, 14/309; al-Jawhara an-Nayyira, 4/220-221; al-Lubab, 1/680; al-Ishraf, 3/240, no. 1086; al-Istidhkar, 7/185; al-Muntaqa, 6/30-31; at-Taj wal-Iklil, 4/547; Sharh al-Kabir with Hashiyat ad-Dasuqi, 5/439-440; Tathbir al-Mukhtasar, 4/625; al-Mughni, 5/238; Kashshaf al-Qina', 4/225-226; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat, 4/259; Matalib Uli an-Nuha, 4/179).
The Shafi'is, in a position narrated from Muhammad ibn al-Hasan ash-Shaybani, and the Hanbalis, in a narration that constitutes the apparent meaning of al-Khiraqi's words, hold that this land is not acquired through revival, based on the elevated report:
Whoever revives dead land that is not in the right of a Muslim, it is his, and the unjust claimant has no rightNarrated by Al-Bayhaqi in as-Sunan al-Kubra (12120)
The Prophet restricted revival to the case where the land is not in the right of a Muslim, whereas this one lies precisely in the right of a Muslim. This land has an owner: its revival is therefore not permitted, just as if that owner were identified. If the owner leaves heirs, it is theirs; if he leaves none, the Muslims inherit it (al-Mughni, 5/238; al-Kafi, 2/435; al-Jawhara an-Nayyira, 4/220-221; al-Lubab, 1/680).
The Shafi'is specify that the matter, when the owner is not known, is delegated to the imam's judgment: if he deems that he should preserve it until its owner or heirs come forward, he does so; if he deems that he should sell it and preserve its price for the owner, he does what seems best to him, and he may lend that price on behalf of the bayt al-mal, according to the sounder position of the madhhab. May the imam entrust this land to someone who would develop it? Two positions answer this: in the first, it is not permitted, because ownership has been established over it; in the second, it is permitted if he sees benefit in it, because he assumes oversight of the general interest (al-Hawi al-Kabir, 7/478; Nihayat al-Matlab, 8/282; Rawdat at-Talibin, 4/98; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 3/428).
The second type is land on which the traces of an ancient ownership remain, such as the remains of the Romans (ar-Rum) and the dwellings of Thamud. The jurists differed: if the land bears the traces of a settlement from the pre-Islamic era, such as the remains of the Romans and the like, may it be acquired through revival or not?
The Shafi'is, in the more apparent view, and the Hanbalis, in the madhhab (which is the view of the Hanafis and Malikis, as stated previously), hold that this land is acquired through revival, like buried treasure (rikaz), because ancient ownership carries no inviolability. Ibn Abi Shayba narrated in his Musannaf a stopped report (mawquf) on the authority of Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them both:
The ancient remains of the land belong to Allah, to His Messenger, and then to you thereafter. Whoever revives any part of the dead land, he has more right to itNarrated by Ibn Abi Shayba in al-Musannaf (4/487, no. 22385) and Al-Bayhaqi in as-Sunan al-Kubra (6/143, no. 11565)
It has also been narrated, from Tawus, that the Prophet said:
The ancient remains of the land belong to Allah and to His Messenger, then they are yours thereafterNarrated by Abu 'Ubayd in al-Amwal (674) and Al-Bayhaqi in as-Sunan al-Kubra (11564); weak hadith
Abu 'Ubayd said: the ancient remains of the land refer to what was inhabited, through the ages, by peoples now vanished, of whom no one remains. If these remains are attributed to 'Ad, it is because that people, despite their antiquity, were strong, mighty and left many traces: every ancient remnant was therefore attributed to them.
Another argument: if a buried treasure dating from the polytheists were found in the lands of polytheism, one would own it by its mere discovery, even though the ownership of a polytheist had passed upon it; likewise, whoever revives dead land has the ownership of an unknown owner among the polytheists pass upon it.
The Shafi'is, in a second view, and the Hanbalis, in one possibility, hold that everything bearing the trace of an ownership whose cessation before Islam is unknown cannot be acquired. Two reasons for this: it is not a dead land; and it is possible that the Muslims took it inhabited, thus earned it, and that it became an endowment (waqf) instituted in its favor, in which case it is not acquired, just as if its owner were known (Nihayat al-Matlab, 8/282; al-Bayan, 7/478-479; Rawdat at-Talibin, 4/98; an-Najm al-Wahhaj, 5/410; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 3/429; al-Mughni, 5/328-329; Sharh al-Kabir, 6/148-149; Sharh az-Zarkashi, 2/192; Matalib Uli an-Nuha, 4/179; Manar as-Sabil, 2/285).
The jurists differed over land close to settled areas without being part of their dependencies: is its revival permitted without the permission of the imam, or is the imam's permission a condition for it?
The Shafi'is, the Hanbalis and the majority of the Malikis hold that no permission of the imam is required to revive what adjoins settled lands, provided it is not part of the settlement's dependencies or its protected zone (harim), based on the generality of the Prophet's words (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him):
Whoever revives dead land, it is his, and no right belongs to the unjust claimantNarrated by Abu Dawud (3073), At-Tirmidhi (1378) and An-Nasa'i in al-Kubra (5761); authentic hadith
The Prophet made no distinction between what lies near settled lands and what lies far from them (Tathbir al-Mukhtasar, 4/628).
Imam ash-Shafi'i, may Allah have mercy on him, said: Ibn 'Uyayna informed us, from 'Amr ibn Dinar, from Yahya ibn Ja'da, who said: "When the Messenger of Allah arrived in Medina, he granted the people their houses. Men of the clan of Banu Zuhra, who were called the sons of Abd ibn Zuhra, said: the son of Abd's mother has slipped away from us", that is, he excluded Ibn Mas'ud from their group. The Messenger of Allah replied:
Why then did Allah send me? Allah does not sanctify a people from whom the right of the weak among them is not takenNarrated by Ash-Shafi'i in al-Umm (4/50) and Al-Bayhaqi in as-Sunan al-Kubra (11581)
Al-Bayhaqi narrated it through this chain. Ibn al-Munir said in al-Badr al-Munir that this hadith is mursal, that is, suspended: Ibn Ma'in and Abu Hatim said that Yahya ibn Ja'da did not meet Ibn Mas'ud and only reports from him without having heard him. At-Tabarani nonetheless connected it in his greater Musnad, from Yahya ibn Ja'da, from Ibn Hubayra, from Ibn Mas'ud, and Hubayra's standing is sound, as the author established at the beginning of his book, in the chapter on impurities and defiled water, contrary to what the one who weakened it claimed. Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar said in Talkhis al-Habir (3/63): its chain of transmission is strong.
Ash-Shafi'i said: this hadith contains proofs. The first: it is a duty upon the governor to grant land (iqt'a) to whoever asks him for it among the Muslims; for the Messenger of Allah's saying: "Allah does not sanctify a people from whom the right of the weak among them is not taken" indicates that whoever asks for a grant must be guaranteed the right of the weak among them and of others. The second: the Prophet granted lands to the people in Medina itself, in the very midst of the Ansar's settlement of houses and palm trees. The settled inhabitants therefore had no right to prevent the granting of lands that were not theirs; otherwise, the people would not have received these grants. This proves that what adjoins settled lands and lies within their surroundings and what does not adjoin them among dead lands are equal in that they have no owner: it therefore falls to the sultan to grant them to whoever asks him among the Muslims.
Ash-Shafi'i said: Ibn 'Uyayna informed us, from Hisham, from 'Urwa, from his father, that the Messenger of Allah granted az-Zubayr a land, and that Umar ibn al-Khattab granted all of al-Aqiq, then said: "Where are those who received grants?" Ash-Shafi'i said: al-Aqiq is near Medina, and whoever grants what no one owns necessarily grants a dead land. The Messenger of Allah's saying: "Whoever revives dead land, it is his" proves that whoever revives dead land becomes its owner, as if he had received it as a grant; this follows the Prophet's command to grant dead lands to whoever revives them, with no difference between the two. Moreover, the one who revives the land is not entitled to grant it, for he does not own it. Since the Messenger of Allah said "Whoever revives dead land, it is his", his gift is general for whoever revives dead land. Whoever revives it does so by virtue of the Messenger of Allah's gift, and this gift, by its generality, establishes the right more firmly than the gift of anyone after him, in the text as in the wording. A similar meaning, which does not contradict it, was narrated from Umar (al-Umm, 4/50; al-Bayan, 479, 481; Rawdat at-Talibin, 4/104; Kanz ar-Raghibin, 3/217; an-Najm al-Wahhaj, 5/411, 413; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 3/429).
Al-Bahuti, may Allah have mercy on him, said: what adjoins settled lands without being connected to their interests becomes property through revival, like what lies far from them, based on the generality of what preceded and the absence of the impediment, namely connection to the interests of the inhabitants. The imam likewise has the right to grant what adjoins settled lands without being connected to their interests, because the Prophet granted Bilal ibn al-Harith all of al-Aqiq, despite its proximity to the settled lands of Medina (Kashshaf al-Qina', 4/228; al-Mughni, 5/330).
The Hanafis and the Malikis hold, with a distinction between them over what proximity means, that what adjoins settled lands may not be revived without the permission of the imam. Proof: the Prophet's saying: "no right belongs to the unjust claimant"; whoever revives because of the proximity of settlement may thereby commit an injustice, and people will be harmed by the narrowing of their paths, their dwellings, the places of their livestock and the pastures of their sheep. The imam's oversight and effort of judgment thus become necessary in this matter.
Another argument: what adjoins the town falls under the status of its dependencies: the benefit drawn from it is shared among the people of the town, whether gathering firewood, hunting, grazing or any other form of common usage right. If each individual could appropriate a share of it, this would harm the people of the town: the imam's oversight was therefore necessary, so that his permission would carry the weight of a ruling. Finally, proximity to settlement breeds disputes and litigation: the one who owns a neighboring property will say: I have more right to this, for it lies near my property and I need it for its improvement. The imam's permission therefore became necessary to cut off disputes (Bada'i' as-Sana'i', 6/195; al-Mabsut, 23/167; al-Hidaya, 4/98-99; al-Jawhara an-Nayyira, 4/221; al-Ikhtiyar, 3/83; Tabyin al-Haqa'iq, 6/35; al-'Inaya, 14/306-307; al-Bahr ar-Ra'iq, 8/239; al-Lubab, 1/680-681; al-Ishraf 'ala Nakt Masail al-Khilaf, 3/235, 240, no. 1085; al-Ma'una, 2/175; al-Muntaqa, 6/29; adh-Dhakhira, 6/158; al-Bayan wat-Tahsil, 10/303; Sharh al-Kabir with Hashiyat ad-Dasuqi, 5/444; Tathbir al-Mukhtasar, 4/628-629; Hashiyat as-Sawi, 9/125).
The Malikis add: if he oversteps and revives the land without the imam's permission, the imam is free either to confirm the revival in his favor or to withdraw it from him. For the imam, who holds the power to forbid because of the harm this causes the Muslims, should only ratify this revival if he permits it himself, the land being in origin free and causing no harm to others. The same applies if the man oversteps and revives without the imam's permission: oversight of the land remains within the imam's competence, and the reviver's presumption and his rushing ahead do not exempt him from the imam's oversight and judgment, under two conditions:
This applies to the Muslim: it is not permitted indeed to authorize a dhimmi (non-Muslim under protection) to revive what adjoins settled lands. He is on the contrary expelled and given the value of what he developed, for what adjoins settlement is likened to fay' (property acquired without fighting), and the dhimmi has no right in the fay'. The imam may remove him from it, take the land for the community of the Muslims and pay him the value of his work, drawn from the bayt al-mal, or hand the land back to him after ordering him to uproot it; no recourse is open against him for what he cultivated in the past, for he is one of the Muslims who have a right in it (al-Ishraf 'ala Nakt Masail al-Khilaf, 3/235, 240, no. 1085; al-Ma'una, 2/175; al-Muntaqa, 6/29; adh-Dhakhira, 6/158; al-Bayan wat-Tahsil, 10/303; Sharh al-Kabir with Hashiyat ad-Dasuqi, 5/444; Tathbir al-Mukhtasar, 4/628-629; Hashiyat as-Sawi, 9/125).
Ibn Hubayra, may Allah have mercy on him, said: the scholars agreed on the lawfulness of reviving dead land held on loan ('ariyya), then differed over whether the permission of the imam is a condition for it. Abu Hanifa said: his permission is needed. Malik said: what lies in the desert, where people do not contend for access, does not require the imam's permission; what lies near settlement, where people contend for access, requires the imam's permission. Ash-Shafi'i and Ahmad said: the imam's permission is not required (al-Ifsah, 2/41-42).