the stronger view is that he acquires ownership of it without the ruler’s permission—unless the ruler issues an order that no one may revive any land without his permission, in which case it may not be revived except with his permission. If the ruler orders that no one may revive land except with his permission, must he be obeyed? The answer is: yes, he must be obeyed, because obedience to the authority is obligatory in all that does not entail disobedience to Allah. Regulating land, and allowing people to receive it only through permits and according to clearly defined boundaries, is not disobedience to Allah; rather, it serves to preserve people’s rights.

His statement, “in the land of Islam and elsewhere,” means that whoever revives it acquires ownership of it, whether it is in the land of Islam or outside it. The land of Islam is that in which Islam predominates openly and widely: the call to prayer is made, congregational prayers are held, Ramadan is observed and publicly proclaimed, and the religious rites are manifest—even if disbelievers live there. Thus, even if disbelievers constitute fifty percent or more of its population, it remains a land of Islam so long as the rule of Islam predominates over it. But if the rule of Islam does not predominate over it, then it is a land of disbelief, even if Muslims are numerous there. What counts is what is outwardly manifest. Evidence for this is that when the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, raided a people, he would wait until dawn. If they made the call to prayer, he refrained from fighting them; but if they did not make the call, he fought them (1).

For example, the countries of Europe today are lands of disbelief, because the prevalent and outward order in them is disbelief, even though there are Islamic organizations there and, perhaps, in some countries, areas where congregational and Friday prayers are held. Yet they remain lands of disbelief, because what prevails and dominates over them is the rule of