Al-Waadih Fee Usool ul-Fiqh by Muhammad Hussein Abdullah

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”.

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:

The Qaa’idah Al-Usooliyah establishes that:

That is because Allah (swt) said:

And He Ta’Aalaa said:

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:

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.

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

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:

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:

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:

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:

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’.

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:

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?

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.

At-Tarjeeh (outweighing):

- 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.