In this article, the source of istisḥāb (presumption of continuity) according to the Mālikī methodology is analyzed through its types. In this context, having based on the commonly used classification of the types of istisḥāb, the...
moreIn this article, the source of istisḥāb (presumption of continuity) according to the Mālikī methodology is analyzed through its types. In this context, having based on the commonly used classification of the types of istisḥāb, the following types of istisḥāb are discussed: the istisḥāb of barā’ah al-asliyyah, the istisḥāb of ibāḥa al-asliyyah, the istisḥāb of shar‘ī ḥukm, the istisḥāb of ijma‘, and the maqlūb istishāb. There is no disagreement among the Mālikī scholars about the authenticity of using the istisḥāb of barā’ah al-asliyyah, which is also described as the aqlī (rational) istisḥāb in the sources. It is also stated that that ibāḥa al-asliyyah, which is considered as a type of istisḥāb, was used as a principle by the Mālikī jurists, however it is not regarded as a type of istisḥāb. Thus, the discussions mainly covers the fact that whether it is a type of istisḥāb or not in some cases instead of underliying the use of the istisḥāb of shar‘ī ḥukm as evidence, which is metaphorically expressed as an umbrella concept. Although the general approach regarding the istisḥāb of ijma‘ implies that it is not a valid evidence, there are Mālikī scholars who reach
the similar conclusions like those who sees the istisḥāb of ijma‘ as a valid evidence in the case of individual issues. The maqlūb istishāb, on the other hand, emerged in later periods and was characterized as an irregular evidence.
