B14 · باب وجوه الاحتجاج بما ليس بحجة مطلقا · Arguments that are not proof: "there is no proof", assuming a past state continues (istiṣḥāb), and other empty moves (v2/215–232)

In short

This chapter lists arguments that look like proof but bind no one [Overview]. "There is no proof" binds no opponent [B14.01]. Assuming a past state continues can defend but never establish a new ruling [B14.03]. Arguing from a missing feature, or by eliminating the other features, proves nothing [B14.05, B14.06].

Because assuming a state continues only defends, a missing person's life keeps his own property but does not give him a relative's estate [B14.03].

In plain words: Does "there is no proof" prove your view? Sarakhsī says "there is no proof" binds no opponent. At most it excuses the speaker; it admits he found no proof. In God's rights it can only defend what already stands; in people's rights, as the Ḥanafī rulings imply, it cannot even defend. Others share it: "the cases conflict", "no counter-case breaks my cause", "your cause lacks this feature", and eliminating every feature but one. Each rests, in the end, on an absence: of proof, of a counter-case, or of a feature.
Example: No fifth (khums, the share taken from spoils) is owed on ambergris. Abū Ḥanīfa's "no report came" was his own excuse, not his argument. His argument, as Muḥammad reports it, was that the fifth is for spoils taken from the enemy by force, and the sea was never in the enemy's hand.
Who disagrees: al-Shāfiʿī says a ruling established by its proof continues by that proof, so "no proof ended it" binds. The Ḥanafī scholars answer that the establishing proof says nothing about continuing. ⚑ al-Jaṣṣāṣ allowed proving a cause by eliminating the others; Sarakhsī calls this an error.
Deeper: v1 B14.01; B14.02; B14.04; B14.05; B14.06

In plain words: If something was true before, may we assume it is still true? Sarakhsī gives four cases. With certain knowledge, by revelation or the senses, that nothing changed it, the assumption is sound. After searching as far as one can, it excuses you and defends what you hold, but binds no one else. Before searching, it is ignorance, and no excuse either, if searching was possible. Used to establish a new ruling, it is pure error, since it can only keep a ruling that already stood.
Example: One in doubt about the qibla who prays without searching has no valid prayer unless he knows he faced it. One who searched and then prayed has a valid prayer, even if he turns out to be wrong.
Who disagrees: ⚑ Some Ḥanafīs argue by it, for example "no zakāt on a child's property, since the base state is no duty". Sarakhsī calls this way of arguing void: proof that something did not exist does not show that it still does not.
Deeper: v1 B14.03