عنوان مقاله [English]
many jurisprudential have been raised regarding oil and gas. One of those issues is the status of ownership of mines or oil and gas resources within the geographical borders of Iran. In this article, after examining the topic of hydrocarbon sources and knowing the general nature of these sources, the jurisprudential theories related to mines or hydrocarbon sources have been examined.
According to the arguments presented in the topic of Anfal by some Islamic jurists, it is clear that some groups have accepted absolute ownership and others have accepted the realization of general ownership in mines or underground resources, and at the end of the research, this result is obtained. If hydrocarbons are minerals, legal texts such as jurisprudential texts generally accept the Anfal theory regarding them. In this case, the property of the ruler of Sharia will not be accepted for them.
But if the hydrocarbons are in the sub-set of resources, then the laws of mines and their effects will not apply to them. In jurisprudence, a rule is used that says "when the titles of the rulings change, they also change". Regarding the subject of the present research, such a result is obtained, that is, when the title of mines is applied to hydrocarbons, its effects are also proven.
On the other hand, the types of ownership in different types of mines are common in the sayings of jurists, and if the title of resource is applied to hydrocarbons, the identification and evaluation and jurisprudential evidence and ijtihad regarding their ownership will have a different literature, and in a sense, the principle of private ownership in them. It is accepted and it seems that in this case it is proved that the source of hydrocarbons is a lexical source by arguing on the word source.