Note: In this session, Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Dr. Farahani explained the fiqh classification of lands and the economic consequences of leaving them idle, and proposed three key reform measures. In response, Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Sharifi critiqued the legal and fiqh foundations of the presentation and stressed the necessity of clearly distinguishing between the concepts of “mawāt bi’l-ʿaraḍ” (secondary dead land), “iʿrāḍ” (abandonment), and “taʿṭīl al-arḍ” (leaving land idle).
According to the official website of the Research Institute for Studies in Contemporary Jurisprudence, the 242nd scientific session, organized by the Natural Resources and Environment Fiqh Group, was held both in-person and online with the participation of seminary professors and researchers. Various fiqh, legal, and economic aspects of fallow and secondarily dead lands, along with juristic disagreements on their ownership, were thoroughly examined.
At the beginning of the session, Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Dr. Farahani, faculty member of Qom University, thanked the organizers and stated that the purpose of the discussion was to clarify the fiqh foundations of fallow lands and to investigate the economic effects of leaving them unproductive. He began with preliminary remarks on the fiqh issues and economic points related to fallow or secondarily dead lands.
He first classified lands in fiqh into four categories:
- Originally dead lands (mawāt aṣlī)
- Secondarily dead/fallow lands (mawāt ʿāraḍī or bāyir)
- Naturally cultivated lands
- Lands cultivated by human effort
Citing the views of jurists, he emphasized that the definition of “mawāt” (dead land) is a matter of common usage (ʿurf), and the criterion is the prevailing understanding of people.
Dr. Farahani then reviewed the opinions of Imami jurists and noted that dead lands are counted among the anfāl (public resources) and belong to the Imam, and that there is consensus among jurists such as Shaykh Ṭūsī and Ibn Zuhra on this point. Classifying relevant narrations according to the system of Martyr Ṣadr, he stressed that numerous hadiths prove that dead land belongs to the Imam.
Regarding fallow lands, he referred to the legal definition and added: According to the regulation approved by the Expediency Discernment Council, lands that have a history of cultivation but have remained uncultivated for more than five consecutive years are considered “bāyir” (fallow), and determining the owner’s abandonment (iʿrāḍ) is the responsibility of the court.
The faculty member of Qom University described the economic consequences of abandoning fallow lands as extremely widespread, emphasizing that leaving productive land idle leads to reduced food security, higher land and housing prices, deepening economic inequality, and increased speculative activity.
From an economic perspective, he described land as a “durable, finite resource” and pointed out that its non-utilization directly harms national production and employment. He proposed three key solutions:
- Imposing taxes on fallow lands
- Reclaiming the land and transferring it to active producers
- Converting such lands into economic and job-creating projects
A significant part of Dr. Farahani’s presentation was devoted to examining the various fiqh opinions on ownership of fallow lands, where views range from the continued ownership of the original owner to complete transfer of ownership to a new reviver.
According to the presenter, some narrations (such as the ṣaḥīḥah of Sulaymān ibn Khālid) rule in favor of the first owner, while others (such as the ṣaḥīḥah of al-Kābulī and Muʿāwiyah ibn Wahb) consider the second reviver more entitled.
In his concluding remarks, Dr. Farahani stated that land has different rulings depending on its situation—whether ownerless, intentionally abandoned, unintentionally abandoned, or ruined by natural causes.
Critique Section
Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Mansour Sharifi began by noting that the issue of fallow lands is both fiqh-significant and economically decisive. He highlighted terminological ambiguity between fiqh and legal concepts, stressing that the legal term “arāḍī bāyir” does not fully correspond to the fiqh concept of “mawāt bi’l-ʿaraḍ,” and the boundary between the two must be clarified.
He pointed out that some laws treat mere idleness of land as proof of abandonment, whereas abandonment (iʿrāḍ) is an internal, intentional act, and not every plot left uncultivated for five years can be deemed fallow in the sharia sense.
Critiquing the narrations cited, he observed that the only reliably transmitted narration in this area mentions a three-year period, and no five-year narration appears in authoritative sources.
Referring to the prophetic hadith “The Prophet forbade leaving land idle,” Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Sharifi distinguished three separate concepts: “mawāt bi’l-ʿaraḍ,” “iʿrāḍ” (abandonment), and “taʿṭīl al-arḍ” (leaving land idle).
He emphasized: “In some cases, the legislator has equated idleness with abandonment, whereas abandonment is intentional, and mere non-cultivation is not a sharia criterion.”
A Practical Fiqh Solution: Utilization Without Dispossession of Ownership
One of the critic’s key points was a proposal based on the well-known fiqh position that land can be made usable by others without stripping the original owner of title, provided fair rent (ujrat al-mithl) is paid to the owner. This approach would prevent hoarding and also reduce the judicial burden of related cases.
In the final Q&A session, the moderator raised a question about the fate of ownership when land is purchased and then left idle. Dr. Farahani replied that the criterion is whether the owner has truly abandoned it or not; purchase removes the land from the category of anfāl, but if ownership is revoked, the land reverts to the property of the Imam. He also stressed that “revival” (iḥyāʾ) is defined according to the intended use of the land and is not limited to agriculture.
The session demonstrated that the question of fallow lands is not merely a fiqh issue but carries broad economic and social implications. The presentation of differing juristic opinions and legal-economic critiques highlighted the urgent need to rethink laws and policies related to land—especially at a time when proper utilization of natural resources can play a decisive role in food security and economic justice.