'File 14/115 VII Annex (B 9) Abu Musa oxide: collected background material on the case' [‎318r] (662/1904)

^ | Q
are wiwilBiouo In the opinion that the lease agreesaent
is invaxid for several speoific reasons ~ e«g»i
(15 Hon-pronunoiatlon and record of the usual foroula of
proposal and acooptance,
Cii) Non-specification of period,
(ill) ion-specification of the arjount of nrofit to be de
rived by the leasee.
it will o® seen that '-o separate questions were put to the
Clergy, (Annexe .
In the first place :
(A) As to the validity of the document acoording to shara
Law;
*h®ri n tcrwardnji I4%tkv** e ga JL^-^ i-**.,
to the ri^t^cf the lessor to^oanoel^lt
and eject the lessee, and reem© the control of his
property.
the concensus of these opinions entirely supports the view
that th© lease was invalid and that the lessor of the pro
perty is entitled to cancel the lease and resume his pro
perty. I would especially point to the opinions recorded
by Abdarrahman bin Abdul ahafoor El Mufti who has a very
high reputation among the inhabitants of the littoral and
islands.
As regards the olerioal contention, relied on in the
Canaan rejoinder, vis, that in Islam Mines are the oossson
property of all -ohaaaedans and that anybody who works then
has thereby acquired an Indefeasible right to thesu The
clergy of Islam may continue in the abstract to cherish this
ancient and chimerical tenet, which had its origin in the
Intereated aire of th< 'luhSBanedon hierarchy to fceop natters
concerning nines and the exploitation of minerals in their
own control, but no one can pay serious attention to such an
exploded clala at the present day, much leas conteaplat®
giving effect to it in practice. It seess waste of time
to discuss it.
The conclusion to be drawn from the opinions now pro
duced Is that the lease was bad in law, whether comfaercial
or