الاستصحاب ضروري للفقيه والمجتهد، وكثير من الأحكام يُستنبط بواسطته. قال القرطبي: «التمسك بالاستصحاب واجب على كل أحد، لأنه يمثل الأصل الذي تُبنى عليه النبوة والشريعة. ولو لم نقل ببقاء حال تلك الأدلة لما حصلت المعرفة بتلك الأمور».

Al-Istishaab is necessary for the Faqeeh and the Mujtahid and many Ahkaam come about through it. Al-Qurtubiy said: “To uphold Al-Istishaab is necessary for everyone because it represents the Asl (origin/basis) that the Prophethood and Sharee’ah is built upon. If we had not held (the view of) the continuance of the condition of those Adillah then no knowledge of those matters would have been attained”.

فلهذا، فإنّ الأصلَ في كلّ الأمور يبقى ويستمر (الاستصحاب) حتى يقوم دليلٌ مخالفٌ له أو معارضٌ لذلك. غير أنّ العلماء قسّموا الاستصحابَ بالنسبة للأحكام السابقة للمسائل إلى أربعة أقسام:

Therefore, in all matters, the Asl (origin) carries through and continues (Istishaab) until a Daleel is established contrary or in opposition to that. However, the ‘Ulamaa categorised Al-Istishaab in regards to the previous Ahkaam for the issues into four categories:

القاعدة الأصولية تقرر أن:

The Qaa’idah Al-Usooliyah establishes that:

لِأَنَّ اللهَ (سبحانه وتعالى) قَالَ:

That is because Allah (swt) said:

وَقَالَ تَعَالَى:

And He Ta’Aalaa said:

هذا التسخیر المذکور فی الآیۃ المذکورۃ أعلاه لا یمکن أن یقع إلا إذا کان الانتفاع بهذه المخلوقات مباحًا (مباح). غیر أن الله سبحانه وتعالی استثنى أو أخرج من هذه المخلوقات ما حرّمه، ویشمل ذلک المیتۃ والدم ولحم الخنزیر من بین الأشیاء المحرّمۃ الأخرى.

This Taskheer (putting at disposal to be used) mentioned in the above Aayah cannot occur unless the benefiting by these created things is permissible (Mubaah). However, Allah (swt) exempted or excluded from these created things, things that he has made Haraam: That includes the carrion, blood and flesh of the pig amongst other prohibited things.

Example:

Example:

إذا سُئل الفقيه عن حكم شيءٍ من الأشياء من حيث الحِلّ أو الحُرمة، فإنه إن لم يجد دليلاً على تحريمه، كان مباحاً استصحاباً للأصل في الإباحة الذي ذُكر في الآيات والأحاديث.

If a Faqeeh is asked about the Hukm (legal ruling) of a thing from amongst things in respect to it being Halaal or Haraam, then if he does not find a Hukm for its prohibition it would then be Mubaah in following (Istishaab) of the original rule of permissibility that has been mentioned in the Aayaat and the Ahaadeeth.

هذا النوع من الاستصحاب مُتَّفَقٌ عليه عند جمهور العلماء.

This category of Al-Istishaab has been agreed upon by the Jumhoor (vast majority) of the ‘Ulamaa.

من المعلوم أن الأصل في ذمة الإنسان براءتها من الاشتغال بحق أحد، ما لم يقم دليل على ذلك.

It is known that the Asl (origin) in respect to the Dhimmah of the Insaan (liability/responsibility of the person) is its non-preoccupation in relation to the right of anybody unless a Daleel is established over it.

Example:

Example:

إذا ادّعى شخصٌ أنّ له ديناً على آخر، فأنكره المدّعى عليه، فإنه يُعمل بالاستصحاب ببراءة الأصل، وهي تفريغ ذمّته من الدين، وذلك إلا أن يُثبت المدّعي وجود الدين بالبيّنة. وإذا طُلب من المدّعى عليه أن يحلف اليمين فامتنع، فلا يُقضى عليه بسبب امتناعه، لأنّ الأصل براءة الذمّة، وإنما اليمين على المدّعي، فإذا حلف حُكم على المدّعى عليه (أي صدر الحكم ضدّه).

If a person claims that he has a debt owed to him from somebody and that person denies the debt, then it would follow the Istishaab of Al-Baraa’ah Al-Asliyah (original innocence) which is the freeing of his Dhimmah (liability) from the debt. This is unless the claimant proves the existence of the debt by way of a Bayyinah (testimonial evidence). And if the one who has the claim made against him is requested to swear an oath (Hilf) but refuses, judgment is not passed against him because of his refusal. That is because the origin or original position is being free of liability and the Yameen (swearing of an oath) is only upon the claimant and then if he does that the one being accused or who has a claim against him is judged against (i.e. the verdict is passed against him).

Another example:

Another example:

إذا ادّعى الشريك أنه لم يحصل على ربح من التجارة التي جرت، فإنه يُصدَّق في قوله، لأن الربح أمرٌ حادثٌ بعد العدم الأصلي، إلا إذا أُقيمت بيّنة تثبت حصول الربح.

If the partner claims that he has not received profit from the trade that has been conducted, he is believed in his speech because the profit is a newly added matter upon the original non-existence unless a Bayyinah (evidence) is brought confirming the gaining of profit.

Example:

Example:

إذا ثبتت ملكية مال معيّن لشخص ما أو تقررت له، فإن الحكم بدوام هذه الملكية يُصدَر ما دام الدليل لم يدلّ على زوالها أو انتقالها. مثال آخر:

If the ownership of a certain property has been proven or affirmed for a person, the judgement of the continuation of this ownership is passed as long as the Daleel has not indicated its disappearance or removal. Another example:

إذا توضّأ الإنسان للصلاة ثم شكّ في نقض وضوئه أو إبطاله، فإنه يصلّي بوضوئه استصحابًا لما ثبت بالدليل، وذلك حتى يقوم الدليل الذي يدلّ على نقض وضوئه أو إبطاله.

If a person makes Wudoo’ for the performance of the prayer and then has a doubt in respect to having broken or invalidated his Wudoo’, he prays with his Wudoo’ due to Istishaab of that which the Daleel has established. That is until the Daleel is established that indicates the invalidation or breaking of his Wudoo’.

إذا انعقد الإجماع على حكم مسألةٍ ما، ثم تغيّرت الصفةُ التي في المسألة، فهل يبقى حكم المسألة كما هو؟ وقد اختلف العلماء في ذلك.

If Ijmaa’ occurs upon a Hukm of a particular Mas’alah (issue) and that Siffah (descriptive element/attribute) that is in the issue changes, then does the Hukm of the issue remain as it is? They (the ‘Ulamaa) have differed in respect to that.

Example:

Example:

ما الحكم إذا وجد المتيمم الماء أثناء صلاته بعد أن تيمم لعدم وجود الماء؟ وكيف يتصرف فيما يتعلق بإتمام صلاته أو عدم إتمامها؟

What is the Hukm if the one who has made Tayammum due to the absence of water discovered water during his prayer? And how should he act in respect to completing his Salaah or not completing it?

أ – يرى أبو حنيفة أن صلاته تبطل بمجرد رؤيته للماء، ويجب عليه الوضوء ليستأنف صلاته. ووافق هذا الرأي أبو حامد الغزالي، وأبو الطيب الطبري، وابن الصباغ، وغيرهم من الفقهاء. ب – أما الشافعي فيرى أن صلاته صحيحة، وأن رؤيته للماء أثناء صلاته لا أثر لها على صحتها. وقد أيّد هذا الرأي داود الظاهري، والآمدي، وابن الحاجب، وغيرهم.

A – Abu Haneefah views that his Salaah is invalidated upon the sighting of the water and Wudoo’ is necessary for him and to resume his Salaah. Abu Haamid Al-Ghazaaliy, Abu At-Tayyib At-Tabari, Ibn As-Sabaagh and other Fuqahaa’ also agreed with this opinion. B – As for Ash-Shaafi’iy then he viewed that his Salaah is Saheeh (valid) and the sighting of the water during his prayer has no impact or effect upon his Salaah. This opinion was also upheld by Dawood Azh-Zhaahiriy, Al-Aamadiy and Ibn ul-Haajib amongst others.

التَّرْجِيح

At-Tarjeeh (outweighing):

- بطلان التيمم عند وجود الماء في حق من تيمم لعدم الماء ثابتٌ بالنص لا بالإجماع. - إذا دخل المتيمم في الصلاة وهو مستصحبٌ حالَ عدم الماء، فقد افتتح صلاته وقد استوفى شروط صحتها كاملة، ولا يخرج من صلاته إلا بما يبطلها. ورؤية الماء لا تقطع الصلاة ولا تُبطلها، والصلاة عملٌ واحدٌ متصل يبدأ بتكبيرة الإحرام وينتهي بالتسليم، ولذلك تُحسب صلاتُه له ما دام قد استوفى شروط صحتها.

- The invalidity of At-Tayammum when water is present of the one who has made Tayammum due to the absence of water is established by the text and not by Ijmaa’. - When the one who made Tayammum entered into the state of the Salaah he was continuing upon (Istishaab) the case of the absence of the water and so he began his Salaah having met the conditions of its validity in full (completely) and he does not exit from his Salaah apart from by that which invalidates it. Seeing water does not break or invalidate the prayer and the prayer is one continuous action beginning with the Takbeer Al-Ihraam and ending with Salaam. Therefore, his performance of the Salaah counts for him as long as he had fulfilled the conditions for its validity.