His statement, “with the ruler’s permission”: must the ruler grant permission directly? We say: it may be with the ruler’s permission or that of his deputy, because circumstances and methods of governance have now changed. The ruler himself does not personally attend to such matters; rather, he has deputies and ministers: one is the Minister of the Interior, another the Minister of Municipal Affairs, another the Minister of Labour, and so on.

A minister acts as the ruler’s deputy. If the ruler authorizes a minister to appoint someone else in each town—such as an emir or governor—then that emir or governor takes the ruler’s place. I make this distinction so that no one may say that the permission of an emir, governor, minister, mayor, or the like is not valid, on the grounds that only the ruler’s permission counts. We say: those who serve as his deputies have his standing and take his place.

His statement, “with or without the ruler’s permission”: this is because the land belongs to Allah, and the Prophet ﷺ said: “Whoever revives dead land, it belongs to him.” (1) Yet someone may say: there is no need to mention this, for when he says, “Whoever revives it acquires it,” without mentioning “the ruler’s permission,” this indicates that the ruler’s permission is not a condition. However, when jurists state something which appears unnecessary in wording, they are in fact alluding to another view. Here, the author wishes to point to another opinion: namely, that dead land cannot be acquired except with the permission of the ruler or his deputy, lest disorder and encroachment occur. If it is done with the permission of the ruler or his deputy, it will proceed in an orderly and regulated manner.

The reason for their disagreement is their differing understanding of the Prophet’s statement ﷺ: “Whoever