Precedence of Amârât over Istishab: Approaches and Challenges

One of the points of contention concerning the principle of istiṣhab or presumed continuity in Ilm al-Uṣul relates to the theoretical support that causes amârât to take precedence over this principle. The basic assumption among the contemporary scholars is that the principle of presumed continuity is used where there is no evidence (amârah). When it comes to why an amârah precedes the said principle, there are discrepancies among the scholars. Late Sheikh Ansari is of the view that the precedence is due to an amârah governing the principle of presumed continuity. According to this approach, the relationship between two arguments is that of the main text and marginal annotation and that the principle of presumed continuity is understood with this assumption that amârah is dominant. On the contrary, late Akhund Khurasani has spoken of wurūd saying that in existence of a valid evidence that leads to a strong speculation, the principle of presumed continuity goes to the periphery and cannot be applied. Although scholars like Shahid Baqir Sadr has defended a variable called takhṣiṣ, Imam Khomeini (ra) has put forth a pattern as per which takhṣiṣ is the only way out to resolving contradiction among oral evidences. As for wurūd, it can be used to present an argument characterized by a lack of verbal supervision. The arguments behind this theory that can be seen with Shahid Sadr’s juridical notions can be instrumental in solving this dispute as well as in explaining the sphere of the linguistic principles for a coherent understanding of the apparently conflicting proofs.