١ - الحكم الثابت في الماضي يبقى ما دام لم يُثبت تغيّرُ ذلك الحكم، وذلك لأن الأمر الثابت باليقين لا يزول إلا باليقين.

1 – The Hukm Ath-Thaabit (established ruling) in the past remains as longs as the change of that Hukm has not been confirmed. That is because the matter established by certainty (Yaqeen) does not go away except by certainty.

فَمَن تَوَضَّأَ لِلصَّلَاةِ ثُمَّ شَكَّ فِي نَقْضِ الوُضُوءِ، فَإِنَّهُ يُصَلِّي بِوُضُوئِهِ مَا شَاءَ أَنْ يُصَلِّيَ، وَذَلِكَ لِأَنَّهُ قَدْ رُوِيَ أَنَّ رَجُلًا جَاءَ إِلَى رَسُولِ اللهِ ﷺ وَهُوَ مُتَرَدِّدٌ فَقَالَ: «إِنَّ الرَّجُلَ يَجِدُ الشَّيْءَ فِي صَلَاتِهِ». فَقَالَ ﷺ:

So the one who makes Wudoo’ for the Salaah and then has doubt in respect to breaking the Wudoo’, prays with his Wudoo’ as much as he wishes to pray. That is because it has been related that a man came to the Messenger of Allah (saw) with doubt and said: “The person perceives that something happens in his Salaah”. He (saw) said:

لذلك، فإن استمرار الأمر الذي ثبت وجوده أو بقاؤه يبقى راجحًا على عدمه، ولا يزيله الشكُّ فيه. وهذا ما أرشد إليه حديثُ رسولِ اللهِ ﷺ، فلا يُزال الاستصحابُ للوضوءِ السابقِ بالشكِّ (الشكّ) في الحالِ، بل يبقى قائمًا. فإن تيقّن الشخصُ حصولَ ما يُبطله، فلم يَعُد قائمًا.

Therefore, the continuance or remaining of a matter that has been determined to be present remains predominant over its absence whilst doubt in respect to it does not remove it. This is what the Hadeeth of the Messenger of Allah (saw) has guided to and as such the Istishaab of the Wudoo’ from the past is not removed by doubt (Shakk) in the present but rather it remains present. Then if the person is certain about the occurrence of that which invalidates it, it is no longer present.

قال رسول الله ﷺ:

2 – The Messenger of Allah (saw) said:

هذا يُقرّر الحكم بالظاهر، أي بما يُسمع في الخصومة. والأمر الظاهر هو ما ثبت حكمه في الماضي، فيجب أن يكون الحكم وفق ما هو ظاهر. فإن ادّعى أحدٌ خلاف الظاهر، فعليه أن يأتي بدليلٍ يُثبت دعواه. وإلا بقي الأمر على ما كان عليه في الماضي من حيث الحكم، وهذه هي حقيقة الاستصحاب. وهو الحكم على أمرٍ في الحاضر بناءً على ثبوته في الماضي، أي سابقًا.

This establishes passing judgment upon what is apparent i.e. that which is heard in the dispute. The apparent matter is that which the Hukm of a matter has been confirmed for it in the past and so the Hukm must be in accordance to what is apparent. If someone then claims the contrary to what is apparent, then he must bring a Daleel that supports his claim. Otherwise the matter stays as it was in the past in respect to the Hukm and this represents the reality of Al-Istishaab. It is the passing of judgment upon a matter in the present based upon its affirmation (or having been established) in the past i.e. previously.

3 – إذا ثبت أو تقرر في الماضي وجودُ أمرٍ أو وصفٍ أو شيءٍ، ولم يظهر زواله، فإنه يجب بالضرورة أن يُظنّ بقاؤه في الوقت الحاضر كما كان من قبل. وذلك في الحالة التي يكون فيها العمل بالظن في الأحكام الشرعية واجبًا، أي في الحالة التي تُبنى فيها الأحكام الشرعية على غلبة الظن، ويكون فيها الاستصحاب هو إجراء الحكم على الأمر في الحاضر استنادًا إلى ثبوته وتقرره في الماضي.

3 – If that which has been established or confirmed in the past in terms of the existence of a matter, description or thing, and its disappearance has not become apparent, then it is necessary by Daroorah (necessity) for to be thought (Zhann) to be remaining in the present time, as it had been before that. This is in the case where working with Zhann in respect to the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah is Waajib in the case where the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah are built upon Ghalabat Azh-Zhann (preponderance/what is most likely) and where Al-Istishaab represents passing the Hukm upon the matter in the present based upon its confirmation and having been established in the past.

هذه الأمور الثلاثة تمثل دليلاً على أن الاستصحاب قاعدةٌ شرعيةٌ يُعمل بها، وأنه يجوز أن يُبنى عليه التفريع. وعليه، فإن ما ثبت وجودُه أو تحققُه ولم يظهر زواله، فإن بقاءه أو استمراره هو الراجح غلبةً على الظن.

These three matters represent a Daleel for the Istishaab being a ‘Qaa’idah Shar’iyah’ that is to be utilised. This means that it is permissible for branching (At-Tafree’) to take place upon it. Consequently, in regards to that which its presence or existence has been established or affirmed and its disappearance has not become apparent, then its remaining or continuance is preponderant (Ghalaba ‘Alaa zh-Zhann).

لذلك فإنّ عدم النسخ هو الأصل في الشريعة، ولا بدّ لمن يدّعي وقوع النسخ من دليلٍ يدلّ عليه. وهذا هو جوهر الاستصحاب.