Al-Istishaab zarur bo'lib, u faqih va mujtahid uchun kerak, ko'plab ahkomlar ham aynan shu orqali kelib chiqadi. Al-Qurtubiy aytadi: "Al-Istishaabni ushlab turish hammaga zarur, chunki u Nubuvvat va Shariat qurilgan Asl (asos)ni ifodalaydi. Agar biz o'sha dalillarning holati davom etadi, degan qarashni ushlamaganimizda, o'sha masalalar haqida hech qanday bilim hosil qilinmagan bo'lardi".

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”.

Shu sababli, barcha masalalarda asl (boshlang'ich holat) o'z kuchida davom etadi va unga qarshi yoki zid dalil o'rnatilmaguncha, istishab (davom ettirish) qoidasi amal qiladi. Biroq ulamolar oldingi hukmlarga nisbatan istishabni masalalar bo'yicha to'rt turga ajratdilar:

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:

Al-Qoidah al-Usuliyah quyidagilarni belgilaydi:

The Qaa’idah Al-Usooliyah establishes that:

Chunki Alloh (SWT) shunday degan:

That is because Allah (swt) said:

Va Allohu Ta'olo aytdi:

And He Ta’Aalaa said:

Ushbu oyatda zikr qilingan taskhir (foydalanish uchun berilgan, xizmatga qo'yilgan bo'lish) faqat ulardan foydalanish mubah bo'lgan taqdirdagina amalga oshishi mumkin. Biroq Alloh (SWT) yaratgan narsalardan ba'zilarini istisno qildi, ya'ni ularni haram qildi: bularga o'lik hayvon go'shti, qon va cho'chqa go'shti kabi boshqa taqiqlangan narsalar kiradi.

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.

Misol:

Example:

Agar faqih biror narsaning hukmi haqida, ya'ni u halol yoki haromligi borasida so'ralsa va uning harom qilinganligi haqida hukm topmasa, u holda u asl joiz bo'lish qoidasiga (istishob) amal qilgan holda mubох hisoblanadi, bu qoida Oyatlar va Hadislarda zikr qilingan.

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.

Ushbu al-Istishaab turi ulamolarning jumhuri (aksariyati) tomonidan ittifoq qilingan.

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

Ma'lumki, inson zimmasining (mas'uliyati va majburiyatining) asli, uning boshqa birovning haqqi bilan band emasligi, ya'ni biror kishining haqqi borligi uchun dalil qaror topmagunicha, shunday hisoblanadi.

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.

Misol:

Example:

Agar bir kishi boshqa birovda o‘ziga qarzi borligini da’vo qilsa, qarzdor esa buni inkor etsa, u holda asliy bara’at istishabi (asl aybsizlik) qo‘llaniladi, ya’ni qarzdorning zimmasi qarzdan ozod deb hisoblanadi. Agar da’vogar qarzning mavjudligini bayyina (guvohlik dalillari) bilan isbotlamasa, shunday bo‘ladi. Agar da’vo qilinayotgan shaxsdan qasam (hilf) ichish talab qilinib, u rad etsa, uning rad etganligi sababli unga qarshi hukm chiqarilmaydi. Chunki asl holat zimmaning ozodligidir, qasam esa faqat da’vogarning zimmasida bo‘ladi; agar u qasam ichsa, shundan so‘ng da’vo qilingan yoki da’vo qilayotgan shaxsga qarshi hukm chiqariladi.

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).

The user's message is "Another example:", which is a label to translate, not a request for me to respond to. Translation: Yana bir misol:

Another example:

Agar sherik savdo qilingan biznesdan foyda olmaganini da'vo qilsa, uning so'ziga ishonilади, chunki foyda asl yo'qlikdan keyin paydo bo'lgan yangi narsadir, foyda olinganini tasdiqlovchi bayyinah (dalil) keltirilmagan bo'lsa.

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.

Misol:

Example:

Agar ma'lum bir mol-mulkning egaligi biror kishi uchun isbotlangan yoki tasdiqlangan bo'lsa, bu egalikning davom etishi haqidagi hukm chiqariladi, to agar dalil uning yo'qolganini yoki olib tashlanganini ko'rsatmagan bo'lsa. Yana bir misol:

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:

Agar kishi namoz uchun vuzu qilgan bo‘lsa-yu, so‘ngra vuzusi buzilganmi yoki bekor bo‘lganmi, degan shubhaga tushsa, u dalil bilan sobit bo‘lgan narsaga istishab qilgan holda vuzu bilan namoz o‘qiydi. Vuzusini buzuvchi yoki bekor qiluvchi dalil sobit bo‘lguncha shunday davom etadi.

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’.

Agar ijmoʻ biror masalaning hukmi ustida vujudga kelsa-yu, o‘sha masalada mavjud bo‘lgan sifat (vasf) o‘zgarsa, masalaning hukmi o‘z holicha qoladimi? Bu borada ulamolar ixtilof qilishgan.

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.

Misol:

Example:

Agar tayammum qilgan kishi suv yo'qligi sababli tayammum qilgan bo'lsa va namoz paytida suvni topsa, bu haqda hukm qanday? U namozini davom ettirishi yoki uzishi kerakmi?

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 Hanifa is of the view that his namoz is invalidated upon seeing water, and that wudu is necessary for him and he must resume his namoz. Abu Hamid al-G'azoliy, Abu at-Toyyib at-Tabariy, Ibn as-Sabbog and other faqihlar also agreed with this opinion. B – As for Ash-Shofi'iy, he held that his namoz is sahih (valid), and that seeing water during his prayer has no effect on his namoz. This opinion was also upheld by Dovud az-Zohiriy, al-Omadiy and Ibn ul-Hojib, among others.

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 (ma'noni og'irlik berish):

At-Tarjeeh (outweighing):

Suvda yo‘qligi sababli tayammum qilgan kishining, suv mavjud bo‘lganda tayammumining botil bo‘lishi matn bilan sobit bo‘lgan, ijmo’ bilan emas. Tayammum qilgan kishi o‘zi davom ettirayotgan holat — suvning yo‘qligi (Istishaab) — bilan namozga kirganda, u namozni uning sihat shartlarini to‘liq bajarib boshlagan bo‘ladi va u namozdan faqat uni botil qiladigan narsa bilan chiqadi. Suvni ko‘rish namozni buzmaydi va uni botil qilmaydi. Namoz Takbiri Ihrom bilan boshlanib, Salom bilan tugaydigan yagona davomli amaldir. Shuning uchun, sihat shartlari bajarilgan ekan, uning namozi o‘z-o‘zidan unga hisoblanadi.