this view: for the Prophet ﷺ granted certain lands, (1) and his granting them was unquestionably a conveyance of ownership. Moreover, the imam is responsible for the lands of his state and for the affairs of the state; thus, when he grants land to a man, it is as though he has gifted it to him, and a gift establishes ownership. However, the stronger view is that he does not thereby own it, but merely has a greater right to it. Then, if he reclaims it, that is what is required, and he acquires ownership through reclamation. But if he does not reclaim it, and someone comes forward seeking to reclaim it, the imam must say to the one to whom it was granted: either reclaim it, or relinquish it. He should be given a period within which he can reclaim it.

Question: May one who has been granted such land relinquish his grant in exchange for compensation?

Answer: There is a difference of opinion regarding this. Some scholars say that it is not permissible, due to the possibility that the second person may not obtain it; for if the second person does not reclaim it, he will be told: “Relinquish it.”

Some scholars say rather that this is permissible, because the person to whom it was granted has relinquished his right in exchange for compensation. The basic principle regarding contracts is that they are lawful and permissible, and there is nothing prohibited in this, since, when he relinquishes it, the second person takes the place of the first. There is nothing to prevent this, and this view is correct.

His statement, “and granting the right to sit in broad roads, so long as it does not harm people”: that is, the imam may grant the right to sit in broad roads, on condition that it does not harm people, because the public interest takes precedence over private interest. Let us give the example of a vegetable market: such a market is usually