Xulosa qilib aytganda, yer quyidagi yo‘llar bilan egalik qilinadi: to‘siq qurish orqali, Xalifa tomonidan berilish orqali, obodonlashtirish orqali, meros orqali va savdo orqali. Uch yil davomida parvarishsiz qoldirilgan yerni egasidan olish haqidagi matnlarda yerga to‘siq qurgan shaxs va Xalifa tomonidan yer berilgan shaxs zikr qilingan. Ular boshqa turdagi yer egalari, masalan, meros oluvchi, yerni obodonlashtiruvchi va sotib oluvchi haqida zikr qilmagan. Demak, bir shaxsning egaligidagi har qanday yerni uch yil davomida e’tiborsiz qoldirish Xalifaga uni undan olib boshqasiga berish huquqini beradimi? Yoki bu hukm faqat o‘lik yerga to‘siq qurgan va Xalifa tomonidan yer berilgan shaxsga xosmi?
Bu savolga javob berish uchun shuni e’tiborga olamizki, yerga to‘siq qurish uni sotib olish yoki meros qilib olish yoki egalikning boshqa har qanday yo‘li kabidir, yerdan foydalanish va uni egallash jihatidan. Agar yerga to‘siq qurgan shaxs uni sotsa, sotuvdan tushgan pulga u egalik qiladi, chunki bu mol almashinuviga oid haqdir va shu sababli unga evaz berilishi joizdir. Shuningdek, agar yerga to‘siq qurgan shaxs vafot etsa, yerning egaligi uning merosxo‘rlariga o‘tadi, xuddi ular tasarruf etadigan boshqa mol-mulk kabi, va ular o‘rtasida shariat qoidalariga muvofiq taqsim qilinadi. Bu, shuningdek, Xalifa tomonidan yer berilgan shaxsga ham o‘xshaydi. Shunday ekan, yerga to‘siq qurgan va yer berilgan shaxslarning boshqa yer egalaridan ajratib turadigan alohida fazilati yo‘q. Shu sababli, agar yer uch yil davomida e’tiborsiz qoldirilgan bo‘lsa, uni ularning qo‘lidan olish boshqa egalik yo‘llari orqali yer egalik qiluvchi qolgan yer egalarini chetga qoldirib, faqat ularga xos bo‘lib qolmaydi. Yerga to‘siq qurish va yer berish ham uch yil e’tiborsiz qoldirilgan yerni olish uchun cheklov bo‘ladigan darajada xususiyatga ega emas. Shu dalillarga qarshi aytiladigan gap, matnlar faqat ularni zikr qilgani cheklov bildirmaydi, chunki bu sifat bayon qilish emas. Yer egasidan uni parvarishlamagani uchun olinishi esa, uni qo'riqlash yoki in'om qilish orqali egallagani sababli emas. Bu matn umumiy bo'lgan mutlaq (cheklanmagan) ko'rinishlardan faqat bir turini zikr qilgan xolos: agar bir turdagi egasi yerni parvarishlamasa, yer undan olinadi. Matn umumiydir, qo'riqlash va in'om orqali egalik qilishni zikr qilish esa mutlaqning faqat bir a'zosini eslatishdir, bu boshqalarni chiqarib tashlovchi cheklov emas.
Lekin matn biror voqea haqida kelgan bo'lsa, uni tekshirish lozim. Agar unda illat (sabab) ko'rsatilgan bo'lsa, u holda matn shu sababga oid masalada umumiy hukmga aylanadi. Ko'rib chiqilayotgan matnda sabab ko'rsatilgan: yerni uch yildan keyin, uni ekishdan bo'yin tovlagani uchun olish. Yerni uch yil davomida parvarishlamay qo'yish uni olish uchun illatdir. Demak, yerni qo'riqlab o'ragan kishidan uni olish sababi uch yil davomida uni parvarishlamagani bo'lib, u yerni qo'riqlab o'ragani uchun emas, yoki qo'riqlab o'ragan egasining parvarishlamagani uchun ham emas. Yerni qo'riqlab o'rash, na o'zi bilan, na parvarishlamaslik bilan birgalikda olinish sababi bo'lib ko'rsatilmagan. Aksincha, faqat parvarishlamaslik olinish illatini bildiradi.
Shunday ekan, yerni parvarishlamaslik illat bo'lib, hukm u bilan birga bor va u bilan birga yo'q bo'ladi. Yer egasi uni uch yil parvarishlamagan har qanday holatda, u yerni qo'riqlab olgan, in'om qilingan, meros bo'lib olgan yoki boshqa yo'l bilan egallagan bo'lsa ham, yer undan olinadi. Agar qo'riqlab olgan egasi yerni uch yil parvarishlamagan bo'lsa, u yer undan olinmaydi.
In conclusion, land is owned by fencing, by granting from the Khalifah, by cultivation, by inheritance and by trading. The texts, which came concerning taking the land from the one who neglected it for three years, have mentioned the one who fenced the land, and the one who was granted the land by the Khalifah. They did not mention other types of landlords, such as the inheritor, the one who cultivates the land and the buyer. So, does ignoring any land for three years owned by a person allow the Khalifah to take it from Him and give it to another? Alternatively, is this specific to the one who fenced a dead land, and the one who was granted the land by the Khalifah? To answer this question we notice that fencing of the land is like buying it or inheriting it or any other means of ownership from the angle of disposal of the land, and possession of it. If the one who fenced the land sold it He would own its price because it is a right in exchange of property, so it is allowed to be recompensed for it. In addition, if the one who fenced the land died, the ownership of the land is transferred to his inheritors like the rest of the properties which they dispose of, and they are divided amongst them according to the Shari’ah rules. This is also similar to the one to whom the Khalifah grants a piece of land. Therefore, the one who fences a land and the one who is granted a land, do not have any specific merit that distinguishes them from the other landlords, which would make taking the land from them, if it was neglected for three years, specific to them to the exclusion of the rest of the landlords, who own the land through other means of ownership. Nor do they have that merit that makes the fencing and the granting of land as a constraint for taking the land if it was neglected for three years. With regards to the argument that the texts specifically mentioned them alone, this does not indicate constraint, because this is not a description, which means that taking the land from the one who neglects it, is only because He owned it by fencing or granting. It is rather a text that stated one single member of the Mutlaq (unrestricted), where land is taken from one type of owner if He neglects it. The text is general and mentioning ownership by fencing and granting is just a mention of one member of the Mutlaq (unrestricted) not a restriction that excludes other than them. However, if the text came regarding an incident, it has to be examined. If it included reasoning, then it becomes a general text in the reasoned matter. The text in question indicates reasoning, which is taking the land after three years because of neglecting its farming. The neglect of the land for three years is the reason (Illah) for taking it. The reason for taking the land from the one who fenced it is thus because He neglected it for three years, not because He is an owner by fencing, or because He is an owner by fencing who neglected the land. Fencing of the land does not indicate it is the reason for taking it, neither by itself (fencing) nor by combining it with neglecting. Rather neglecting alone is the matter which indicates the reason (Illah) for taking it. Thus neglecting the land is a reason (Illah) which revolves with the reasoned rule, in existence and absence. Wherever neglecting of the land by its owner for three years occurred, it would be taken from Him whether He owned it by fencing or by granting or by inheritance or by any other means. If the owner by fencing did not neglect his land for three years it would not be taken from him.