The State is not permitted to transfer private property into public property, since public property is confirmed by the nature and characteristic of wealth and not by the opinion of the State.

The evidence are the words from the agreed upon narration of the Messenger (pbuh) through Abu Bakra:

. إِنَّ دِمَاءكَُمْ وَأَمْوَالَكُمْ وَأَعْرَاضَكُمْ عَلَيْكُمْ حَ رَامٌ كَحُرْمَةِ يوَْمِكُمْ هَذَا فِي بلََدِكُمْ هَذَا « »... فِي شَهْرِكُمْ هَذَا .

“No doubt! Your blood, your properties, and your honor are sacred to one another like the sanctity of this day of yours, in this (sacred) town (Mecca) of yours, in this month of yours”, which is general and encompasses every person, and so it is forbidden to take the wealth of any individual, whether Muslim or not, except for a legislated reason. Therefore, it is forbidden for the State to take the wealth of any individual except for a Shari’ah reason. Accordingly, it is forbidden for the State to take the wealth of any individual into its possession on the grounds of benefit, or to make it public property for the benefit of the Ummah, since the narration forbade that and benefit does not make it permitted, as its permission would require a Shari’ah evidence. It cannot be said that the Imam can do that as part of governing the interests of the Ummah since he has the right to manage the affairs. This is because the management of the affairs is the undertaking of the interests of the people according to the Shari’ah rules, and not the undertaking of the peoples’ interests according to the opinion of the Khalifah, and so the Khalifah has no power at all to permit whatever Allah (swt) forbade, and if he did so the action would be considered an injustice which he would be taken to court for, and the wealth would be returned to its owner.

Based upon this, what is called nationalisation is not from the Shari’ah in any shape or form, since if a property had the nature and characteristic of public property then it would be obligatory upon the State to make it part of the public property, and it would have no choice in that, and so this would not be considered nationalisation but rather the nature and characteristic of the property meant that it was in reality part of the public property, and it would be forbidden for the State to allow it to be privately owned. As for if the property was owned by an individual and did not have the characteristic or nature of public property, then it would be forbidden for the State to nationalise it, and if it did so it would be taken to court and the property would be returned to its owner. This is since the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) took the salted land back from Abyad Bin Hammal after he had granted it to him, once it became apparent that it was not depleted.