Firstly: Yawancin malamai, ciki har da Hanabilah, yawancin Shafi'iyyah, wani sashe na Malikiyyah da Zahiriyyah, da wasu daga cikin Hanafiyyah, sun ga cewa Al-Istishaab hujja ce (hujjar shari'a), ko dai wajen tabbatarwa ko wajen musantawa, saboda sun ga cewa hukuncin da aka kafa a baya yana nan muddin ba a tabbatar da canjin hukuncin ba. Saboda haka, mutumin da ya ɓace ana ɗaukarsa da rai har sai an tabbatar da akasin haka, wato mutuwa, saboda ci gaba da rayuwarsa da aka tabbatar a baya (Istishaab). Saboda wannan dalili, ba a gadon dukiyarsa, matarsa ba za ta iya sake aure ba, kuma misali, zai gaji mahaifinsa idan ya rasu, ya kuma karɓi rabonsa na gado. Haka kuma, idan mutum ya yi iƙirarin cewa yana da kuɗi ko dukiya wajen wani mutum, amma bai kawo hujja ba, kuma wannan mutumin bai yarda cewa yana da dukiyar ba, to asali shi ne Baraa'at Uɗ-Ɗimmah ('yanci daga nauyi) muddin babu Bayyinah (shaida ta zahiri) da ke tabbatar da cewa ya karɓi dukiyar.

Firstly: The majority of the ‘Ulamaa including the Hanaabilah, the majority of the Shaafi’iyah in addition to a section of the Maalikiyah and the Zhaahiriyah and some of the Hanafiyah, viewed that Al-Istishaab represents a Hujjah (legal proof) whether this was in respect to affirmation or negation because they viewed that the Hukm established in the past remains as long as the changing of the Hukm has not been proven or established. Therefore, the missing person is judged to be alive until the contrary to that, which is death, has been proven, due to the carrying forward and according to the continuance (Istishaab) of his life that had been affirmed in the past. For that reason, his wealth and property is not inherited, his wife cannot remarry and he would, for example, inherit from his father if he passed away and would receive his rightful share from the inheritance. Similarly, if a person claimed that he had money or property with another person but he did not bring a Daleel for that and that person did not admit that he had the property, then the Asl (original position) is Baraa’at Udh-Dhimmah (quittance/innocence of liability) as long as no Bayyinah (testimonial evidence) exists establishing that he had taken the property.

Secondly: Most of the Mutakallimeen and some of the Hanafiyah held that Al-Istishaab does not represent a Hujjah. This is because they viewed that the remaining of the Hukm upon what it is needs a Daleel to support it. That is because the Daleel establishing the Hukm for a reality from the realities is a Daleel for the existence of the Hukm and its establishment but not for its continuance and its remaining. Its continuance and remaining, in their opinion, requires another Daleel other than the one for its existence. So for instance, the missing man in the previously mentioned example, requires after a certain period, an evidence indicating that he is still alive. It is therefore a Hujjah of negation (Nafy) and not a Hujjah for affirmation (Ithbaat). This means that the established condition by way of Istishaab negates that which is contrary to it but it does not establish a new Hukm that the Daleel has not established. Therefore, if the inheritors demand the division of the missing man's wealth and property we refuse their request just as we refuse the request of his wife to remarry. That is due to the Ghalabat Azh-Zhann in respect to him being alive through Istishaab and that continues until contrary to that is proven in reality (Haqeeqatan) or in respect to the Hukm. However, from another angle, his right to receive inheritance from the one he inherits from is not established if he dies which is contrary to the view of those who say that Al-Istishaab is a Hujjah for (both) the negation and the affirmation which we mentioned earlier. That is because the missing person, in their opinion, is treated and dealt with in accordance to the one who is living in respect to his rights that are his and the obligations that are upon him.

Secondly: Most of the Mutakallimeen and some of the Hanafiyah held that Al-Istishaab does not represent a Hujjah. This is because they viewed that the remaining of the Hukm upon what it is needs a Daleel to support it. That is because the Daleel establishing the Hukm for a reality from the realities is a Daleel for the existence of the Hukm and its establishment but not for its continuance and its remaining. Its continuance and remaining, in their opinion, requires another Daleel other than the one for its existence. So for instance, the missing man in the previously mentioned example, requires after a certain period, an evidence indicating that he is still alive. It is therefore a Hujjah of negation (Nafy) and not a Hujjah for affirmation (Ithbaat). This means that the established condition by way of Istishaab negates that which is contrary to it but it does not establish a new Hukm that the Daleel has not established. Therefore, if the inheritors demand the division of the missing man’s wealth and property we refuse their request just as we refuse the request of his wife to remarry. That is due to the Ghalabat Azh-Zhann in respect to him being alive through Istishaab and that continues until contrary to that is proven in reality (Haqeeqatan) or in respect to the Hukm. However, from another angle, his right to receive inheritance from the one he inherits from is not established if he dies which is contrary to the view of those who say that Al-Istishaab is a Hujjah for (both) the negation and the affirmation which we mentioned earlier. That is because the missing person, in their opinion, is treated and dealt with in accordance to the one who is living in respect to his rights that are his and the obligations that are upon him.