Primeiramente: A maioria dos ʿUlamaa, incluindo os Hanabilah, a maioria dos Shafiʿiyah, além de uma parte dos Malikiyah e dos Zhahiriyah e alguns dos Hanafiyah, considerou que Al-Istishaab constitui uma Hujjah (prova legal), quer em relação à afirmação, quer em relação à negação, porque entenderam que o Hukm estabelecido no passado permanece enquanto a mudança do Hukm não tiver sido comprovada ou estabelecida. Portanto, a pessoa desaparecida é considerada viva até que o contrário disso, que é a morte, seja comprovado, devido à continuidade e de acordo com a persistência (Istishaab) de sua vida, que havia sido afirmada no passado. Por essa razão, sua riqueza e propriedade não são herdadas, sua esposa não pode se casar novamente e ele herdaria, por exemplo, de seu pai, caso este falecesse, e receberia sua parte legítima da herança. Da mesma forma, se uma pessoa alegasse que tinha dinheiro ou propriedade com outra pessoa, mas não apresentasse uma Daleel para isso, e essa pessoa não admitisse possuir a propriedade, então a Asl (posição original) é a Baraa'at Udh-Dhimmah (quitação/isenção de responsabilidade), enquanto não existir uma Bayyinah (prova testemunhal) que estabeleça que ele tomou a propriedade.

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.