because they are not owned by revival. The correct [view] is that this is permissible, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) granted the minerals of al-Qabaliyyah—both its highland (jalsiha) and lowland (ghawriha) portions—to Bilal ibn al-Harith (16). [Narrated by Abu Dawud and others] (17).
Section: Whoever revives a piece of land and thereby owns it, and a mineral deposit appears in it, he owns it, whether it is apparent or internal, provided it is one of the solid minerals; this is because he owns the land with all its parts and strata, and this is part of it. It differs from treasure, for that is deposited in it and is not part of its components. It also differs from the case where it was apparent before the revival of the land, because in that case, he would have cut off from the Muslims a benefit that was reaching them and prevented them from a utility that was theirs, whereas here, he has not cut anything off from them, because it only appeared through his exposing it. If he encloses the land or it is granted to him, and the mineral appears in it before its revival, he would then have the right to revive it and own it with whatever is in it; because he has become more entitled to it through his enclosure and the grant, so he is not prevented from completing his right. As for fluid minerals, such as tar, petroleum, and water, does the person in whose property they appear own them? There are two reports [riwayatan] regarding this. The most apparent of them is that he does not own them, due to the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "People are partners in three things: water, pasture, and fire" (18). [Narrated by al-Khallal]. Furthermore, they are not parts of the land, so he does not own them by virtue of owning the land, similar to treasure. The second [view] is that he does own them, because they are emerging from his land which is owned by him, so they resemble crops and solid minerals.
Section: If a person begins to dig for a mineral and does not reach the yield, he becomes more entitled to it, like one who encloses land and begins to revive it. Once he reaches the yield, he becomes more entitled to extract from it, as long as he remains engaged in extracting from it. As for whether he owns it by doing so, the matter is as we have mentioned before. If another person digs from another side, he has no right to prevent him. And when he reaches that vein, he has no right to prevent him, regardless
(16) Al-Jalsi: That which is from the land of Najd. And al-Ghawri: That which is from the lands of Tihamah. (17) Omitted from B, M. Its verification has already been provided in: 4/240, 241. (18) Its verification has already been provided in: 6/146.
لأنَّها لا تُمْلَكُ بالإِحْياءِ. والصَّحِيحُ جَوَازُ ذلك؛ لأنَّ النبيَّ -صلى اللَّه عليه وسلم- أقْطعَ لِبلَالِ بن الحارِثِ مَعَادِنَ الْقَبَلِيَّةِ، جَلْسِيَّهَا وغوْرِيَّهَا (١٦). [رواه أبو داوُدَ، وغيرُه] (١٧).
فصل: ومن أحْيَا أرْضًا، فمَلَكَها بذلك، فظَهَرَ فيها مَعْدِنٌ، مَلَكَهُ ظاهِرًا كان أو باطِنا، إذا كان من المَعَادِنِ الجامِدَةِ؛ لأنَّه مَلَكَ الأرْضَ بجَمِيعِ أجْزَائِها وطَبَقاتِها، وهذا منها. ويُفَارِقُ الكَنْزَ؛ فإنَّه مُودَعٌ فيها، وليس من أجْزَائِها. ويُفَارِقُ ما إذا كان ظاهِرًا قبلَ إحْيائِها؛ لأنَّه قَطَعَ عَن المسلمين نَفْعًا كان واصِلًا إليهم، ومَنَعَهُم انْتِفاعًا كان لهم، وههُنا لم يَقْطَعْ عنهم شيئًا؛ لأنَّه إنَّما ظَهَرَ بإظْهَارِه له. ولو تَحَجَّرَ الأرْضَ، أو أُقْطِعَها، فظَهَرَ فيها المَعْدِنُ قبلَ إحْيائِها، لَكان له إحْيَاؤُها، ويَمْلِكُها بما فيها؛ لأنَّه صارَ أحَقَّ به بِتَحَجُّرِه وإقْطاعِه، فلم يَمْنَعْ من إتْمامِ حَقِّه. وأما المَعَادِنُ الجارِيَةُ، كالقَارِ، والنِّفْطِ، والماءِ، فهل يَمْلِكُها مَنْ ظَهَرَتْ في مِلْكِه؟ فيه رِوَايَتانِ؛ أظْهَرُهما، لا يَمْلِكُها؛ لقولِ النبيِّ -صلى اللَّه عليه وسلم-: "النَّاسُ شُرَكَاءُ في ثَلَاثٍ: فِي الْمَاءِ، والْكَلَإِ، والنَّارِ" (١٨). رَوَاهُ الخَلَّالُ. ولأنَّها ليستْ من أجْزاءِ الأرْضِ، فلم يَمْلِكْها بمِلْكِ الأرْضِ، كالكَنْزِ. والثانية، يَمْلِكُها؛ لأنَّها خَارِجَةٌ من أرْضِه المَمْلُوكةِ له، فأشْبَهَتِ الزَّرْعَ والمَعَادِنَ الجامِدَةَ.
فصل: ولو شَرَعَ إنْسانٌ في حَفْرِ مَعْدِنٍ، ولم يَصِلْ إلى النَّيْلِ، صارَ أحَقَّ به، كالمُتَحَجِّرِ الشارِعِ في الإِحْياءِ، فإذا وَصَلَ إلى النَّيْلِ صارَ أحَقَّ بالأخْذِ منه، ما دام مُقِيمًا على الأخْذِ منه، وهل يَمْلِكُه بذلك؟ فيه ما قد ذَكَرْنا من قبلُ. وإن حَفَرَ آخَرُ من ناحِيَةٍ أخرى، لم يكُنْ له مَنعُه. وإذا وَصَلَ إلى ذلك العِرْقِ، لم يكُنْ له مَنْعُه، سواءٌ
(١٦) الجلسى: ما كان من أرض نجد. والغورى: ما كان من بلاد تهامة.(١٧) سقط من ب، م.وتقدم تخريجه في: ٤/ ٢٤٠، ٢٤١.(١٨) تقدم تخريجه في: ٦/ ١٤٦.