The valid „Illah is the Shar‟ai „Illah that is mentioned in the text from Qur'an and Sunnah, for only these two are the Shar‟ai texts. Therefore, the „Illah upon which the reasoned Hukm Shar‟ai is built is a Shar‟ai „Illah and not a rational „Illah. In other words, „Illah must be mentioned in the text either explicitly or implicitly or by deduction or through Qiyas. This „Illah is connected with the reasoned Hukm in presence and absence. Thus the rules revolve with their „Illal. So we find a thing is prohibited in a situation due to the existence of a Shar‟ai „Illah, and if this „Illah disappears that very thing becomes permissible. So the Hukm Shar‟ai revolves with the „Illah in existence and in absence, thus when it exists the Hukm exists, and if the „Illah does not exist the rule doesn't exist either.

However, the absence of the rule due to the absence of the „Illah does not at all mean that the Hukm Shar'ia has changed, rather the Hukm Shar‟ai of the question remains as it is, without change. It is only the rule no longer applied due to the absence of the „Illah, and will be applied once the „Illah returned.

The relationship of the rule with the „Illah in existence and in absence does not mean that the rules change due to the change of the time and place. Thus claiming that bringing about the benefit and preventing corruption is the „Illah of the Hukm Shar‟ai, which changes as the time and place change, so the Hukm Shar‟ai changes accordingly is false. This is because bringing about benefit and preventing harm are not at all the „Illah of the Akham, since no text came to denote that bringing about benefit and preventing corruption are „Illah for all the Akham, nor to denote that they are a „Illah for a specific rule. Thus, it cannot be taken as a Shar‟ai „Illah.