Birinchidan: Ko'pchilik ulamolar, jumladan hanbaliylar, shofi'iylarning ko'pchiligi, molikiylarning bir qismi, zohiriylar va hanafiylarning ba'zilari, "al-Istishob" (asl holatni davom ettirish) ning hujjat (shar'iy dalil) ekanligiga, ijobiy yoki salbiy masalada bir xil ravishda, qarashgan. Chunki ular o'tmishda sobit bo'lgan hukm, hukmning o'zgarganligi isbotlanmaguncha, davom etadi, deb hisoblashgan. Shu sababli, yo'qolgan kishi o'lgan deb isbotlanmaguncha tirik deb hisoblanadi, chunki uning hayoti avval sobit bo'lgan va davom etishi (istishob) asosida shunday qaraladi. Shu sababli uning mol-mulki merosga taqsim etilmaydi, xotini boshqaga tegolmaydi, va agar otasi vafot etsa, u o'z ulushini meroskdan oladi. Xuddi shunday, agar kimdir boshqa shaxsda puli yoki mulki bor deb da'vo qilsa-yu, bunga dalil keltirmasa va o'sha shaxs mulkka ega ekanligini tan olmasa, asl holat "baro'at uz-zimma" (majburiyatdan xoli bo'lish) hisoblanadi, agar uning mulkni olganini tasdiqlovchi bayyina (guvohlik dalili) mavjud bo'lmasa.

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.

Ikkinchidan: Mutakallimlarning aksariyati va ba'zi hanafiylar istishab hujjat bo'lmaydi, deb hisoblagan. Bunga sabab shuki, ular bir narsaning o'z holatida qolishi uchun ham dalil kerak, deb qarashgan. Haqiqatlardan biri uchun hukmni belgilaydigan dalil hukmning mavjudligi va o'rnatilishi uchun dalildir, lekin uning davom etishi va qolishi uchun emas. Ularning fikricha, uning davom etishi va qolishi boshqa dalilni talab qiladi, mavjudligi uchun xizmat qilgan dalildan o'zgasini. Masalan, oldin zikr etilgan misoldagi bedarak yo'qolgan kishi ma'lum muddatdan so'ng uning hali tirik ekanligini ko'rsatuvchi dalilga muhtoj bo'ladi. Shunday qilib, bu nafy hujjati bo'lib, ithbot (tasdiq) hujjati emas. Bu degani, istishab orqali sobit bo'lgan holat unga zid bo'lgan narsani inkor qiladi, lekin dalil tomonidan sobit qilinmagan yangi hukmni o'rnatmaydi. Shu sababli, agar merosxo'rlar bedarak yo'qolgan kishining mol-mulkini taqsimlashni talab qilsalar, biz ularning talabini rad etamiz, xuddi uning xotinining boshqa turmushga chiqish talabini rad etganimiz kabi. Bunga sabab, istishab orqali u tirik deb hisoblanadi va bu, to uning aksi haqiqatda (haqiqatan) yoki hukm jihatidan isbotlanmaguncha, davom etadi. Biroq, boshqa jihatdan, u vafot etsa, o'zi meros qoldirgan kishidan meros olish huquqi sobit bo'lmaydi. Bu esa, oldinroq zikr qilganimizdek, istishab nafy va ithbot uchun hujjat, deb hisoblovchilarning qarashiga zid. Chunki ularning fikricha, bedarak yo'qolgan shaxsga nisbatan uning o'ziga tegishli huquqlari va zimmasidagi majburiyatlari borasida xuddi tirik kishi kabi munosabatda bo'linadi.

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.