国有化是资本主义制度的做法之一,即当国家认为存在需要由国家拥有该财产的公共利益时,将原本属于个人的财产转为国家财产。国家没有义务实行国有化,而是可以自行选择国有化,也可以不予国有化而让财产维持原状。这种情况不同于公共财产和国家财产。按照伊斯兰教的法规,公共财产和国家财产取决于财产的性质及其特征,与国家的看法无关。因此,必须考察财产的实际情况:如果全体穆斯林对其拥有权利,那么它就是国家财产,国家应当拥有它。但如果全体穆斯林对其没有任何权利,那么它仍然是个人财产,国家不应拥有它。如果该财产属于社区公用事业或矿产,或其性质不允许个人拥有,那么它自然成为公共财产,国家不能将其作为个人财产保留。如果该财产不属于公共财产的范畴,那么它就必须仍然是个人财产,国家绝对不能将其国有化,也不能违背所有者的意愿而拥有它,除非所有者同意将其出售给国家,国家则如同向任何个人购买一样向其购买。因此,国家不得以公共利益为借口,强行占有个人的财产,即使国家支付了价款也不行。这是因为个人的财产必须受到尊重和保护,任何人都不得对其进行侵犯,即便这个人是国家。 如果这种情况确实发生，那么这种侵犯就可以成为申诉的对象，个人所有者可以向“不义行为法庭”（Mahkamat al-Mathalim）提出申诉，使其申诉得到处理，并消除不义行为。这是因为哈里发无权夺取任何处于他人权力之下的东西，除非依据已知且确定的权利。国家也不能以公共利益为借口，将任何公共财产或国家财产留在某个个人手中，因为财产的利益已由沙里亚所确定，它规定了公共财产、国家财产和个人所有财产的界限。

Nationalisation is one of the practices of the Capitalist system, which is the transferral of individual property to State property, if the State viewed that there was a public interest which required the ownership of this property (by the State), which is originally owned by individuals. The State is not obliged to undertake nationalisation; rather it is free to nationalise if it chose to, or to leave the property as it was without nationalisation. This behaviour is different from that regarding the public property and State property, which are according to the rules of Islam, consistent with the nature of the property and its description, and it is so, irrespective of the view of the State. Thus the reality of the property has to be examined; if there was a right of all Muslims in it, then it would be a State property and she should own it. But if all the Muslims had no right in it, then it remains an individual property, which the State should not own. And if the property is of the community utilities or of the minerals, or its nature does not allow its individual ownership, then it becomes naturally a public property and the State cannot keep it as an individual property. If such property was not of the category of public property, then it has to remain as an individual property, and the State absolutely cannot nationalise it, nor can it own it against the will of its owner, unless He accepted to sell it to the State as He would sell to any individual, and the State bought it from Him as any individual would buy it. Thus the State cannot own the properties of individuals by force, under the pretence of the public interest, even if it paid its price; this is because the individual’s properties have to be respected and protected, and no one is allowed to commit aggression with regards to them even if it was the State. If this took place, the aggression would be considered eligible to be a subject of complaint, which the individual owner could submit to the Mahkamat al- Mathalim (court of unjust acts), allowing his complaint to be settled (and the unjust act removed). This is because the Khalifah has no right to take anything that is under the authority of anybody, except by a known and confirmed right. The State also cannot keep any part of the public or State properties in the hand of an individual under the pretence of the public interest, because the interest of the properties has been determined by the Shar’a when it identified the public property, State property and the individually-owned property.