1. General Rules of Jurisprudence Lesson 5
أصالة الصحة
Principle of Correct
The rule
The source
Conditions
Few implementations

2. Other doubts: on the rule of Exceed and End
The condition for exceeding was to exit the previous and enter the next in sequence.
What if he exited the previous part but entered other than the next part in sequence? For example: He did Sujood of first RAKAAT and after that he sat for the TASHAHUD which was an error (it must be in the 2nd RAKAAT), and while he was reciting the error TASHAUD he doubted in his previous SUJOOD, so is this a part which qualifies to implement the rule of exceed, is he considered to be exceeded by entering a part which is non sequence or error part? ALKHOEI refused because it is not a valid part, ERAWANI says the evidence is absolute and did not exclude such case, he entered another part, even though it was not a sequence and was error but he entered into something else.
What about the TASLEEM, there is no part after it?
We cannot implement TAZAWOZ here, because there is no entry of next part, because there is no next part.
So we can only implement the rule of END or FARAGH, because the person has completed the whole salaat, so if he does any thing which invalidates his salaat after that and he doubts in his last salaam, he can implement the Rule of FARAGH and ignore the doubt.

3. Principle of Correction أصالة الصحة
ESALAT USSEHAH: Principle of the correction of others actions.
It does not mean that if a Muslim does an action which is doubtful of being HARAAM or permitted, we will consider it permitted, because that is so obvious from the rule which says a person is innocent unless proven guilty. That is the rule of innocence.
The RULE OF CORRECT has more to do with the actions which has affects and consequences, such actions are considered correct.
So if a Muslim does an act or purification, or contract, or divorce, or Salaat for others on rent, and there was a doubt whether this act was performed correctly or not, so that we can carry on following acts which rely on the correction of this act. This rule will consider it correct, and reliable. Salaat relies on the purification of the cloth.

4. The difference between:
the rule of END (FARAGH)
1. Correction of the action of other
Correction of the action of himself
2.It can be implemented while or during the action of a Muslim
It is the rule of END and can only be implemented when a person has ended with his action.
The Rule of
Correction
(SEHHAH)

5. Example: If a person was leading a prayer and while his prayer:
He doubts in his WODHO, we will tell him to break his salaat and redo his WODHO, because he was not done with his SALAAT so he can not implement the rule of END or FARAGH.
If some one else who was praying behind him (Imam) , he doubted in the WODHO of the IMAM, and he was in the middle of the SALAAT, we will tell him based on the RULE OF CORRECTION, his WODHO and SALAAT is ok and you can rely on his salaat.
Both rules are general for Worships and transactions.

6. The source of the Rule of SEHHAH:
The behavior of the intellectuals and the lifestyle of the companions of the Infallibles (AS).
There are religious evidences from the Qur’an and the HADEETH, but supports the rule of innocence, and not the rule of correction, what needs to be proved is the rule of correction, i.e. that the action of Muslim is reliable and dependable. The evidence for the rule of innocence is:
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا اجْتَنِبُوا كَثِيراً مِّنَ الظَّنِّ إِنَّ بَعْضَ الظَّنِّ إِثْمٌ وَلَا تَجَسَّسُوا وَلَا يَغْتَب بَّعْضُكُم بَعْضًا أَيُحِبُّ أَحَدُكُمْ أَن يَأْكُلَ لَحْمَ أَخِيهِ مَيْتًا فَكَرِهْتُمُوهُ وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ إِنَّ اللَّهَ تَوَّابٌ رَّحِيمٌ {12}
[Shakir 49:12] O you who believe! avoid most of suspicion, for surely suspicion in some cases is a sin, and do not spy nor let some of you backbite others. Does one of you like to eat the flesh of his dead brother? But you abhor it; and be careful of (your duty to) Allah, surely Allah is Oft-returning (to mercy), Merciful.

7. Rule of innocence: “:يقول أمير المؤمنين(ع)
ضع أمر أخيك على أحسنه حتى يأتيك ما يغلبك منه ولا تظنن بكلمة خرجت من أخيك سوءا وأنت تجد لها في الخير محملاً“
The chief of the believers (AS) said: Put the affairs of your brother with the best (of thought), until you receive a proof which overtakes your good thought in him, and as long as you can give your brother the benefit of doubt do not doubt in a word came out of him with evilness. And in the following Hadeeth (عليه السلام) عن أبي عبدالله
قال: إذا اتهم المومن أخاه انماث الايمان من قلبه كماينماث الملح في الماء( ماثه : خلطه ودافه. انماث. أى اختلط وذاب. . )
If a believer accuses his brother (without any evidence), his faith will dissolve as the salt dissolves in the water. ) Imam Assadiq (AS). Wassel Alshia chapter 161, the relations.

8. Evidence for the rule of correction:
The lifestyle of the intellects and the companions of the Infallibles (AS) is based on considering the actions of others correct unless if any evidence of inaccuracy in their actions exists. If such evidence does not exist the doubtful action is considered correct and affective.
This rule is also correct in ruling the actions of a non –Muslim, (if it was not an act of worship)
The point behind the lifestyle of the intellectuals or their behavior is that, the intellectuals if they act or perform an action, in most cases they try to do it right and correct, taking the matter seriously, that is what appears obviously from the actions and dealings the of intellectuals.

9. The evidence for both lifestyles:
The behavior of the intellects:
It was practiced before the Infallibles (AS) definitely, and in their time too, they acknowledged it and did not reject it.
The behavior of the companions or their lifestyle, can be understood by one point:
It is taken from the teachings of the Infallibles (AS), other wise it would not have been the so their lifestyle reflects the teaching of the Infallibles (AS) therefore it does not require their acknowledgement.

10. Three cases: Knows, Does not, and doubt ful about the correct procedure
If we know that other person knows the rules which corrects his action, and we doubt that did he perform it correct or not, we will implement the rule of correction.
If we know for sure that the other person does not know the rules which corrects his actions, and we doubt that did he perform it correct or not, we will not implement the rule of correction here and consider his act incorrect on doubt.
If we do not know whether he knows the rules of his actions or not, and we doubt in the accuracy of his act, we will consider it correct based on the rules of correction, because it is derived from the behavior of the intellects and the companions, where we know that many were not aware of every single details of the laws and rules which correct the action, but yet their actions were considered reliable from the intellects and the companions.

11. In the trade:
If the doubt was in the qualification of the parties, we will not implement this rule, such as whether he is the owner or not (another rule will be used), because owner is not an action.
Or the doubt in the qualifications of the thing which is being exchanged between both the buyer and the seller, we will not implement this rules, because again it is not an action. Such as wine or not. (we will implement another rule)
We will implement when the doubt is in the procedure of reciting the exchange contract. Was the recitation (Action) done according to the rules or not.

12. Last two implementations:
The action must exist and then the doubt happens in the correction, so if a person doubts in the origin of the existence of the marriage contract we will not implement this rule, but if we know that the contract was recited but we are doubting in its accuracy, in this case we will implement the rule of correction. So if we saw man and women say something but we are not sure whether it was the marriage contract or something else, we will not implement this rule and consider something else might happen. But if we know that they have recited it and we doubt in the accuracy of it, we will consider it correct base on the rule of correction.
We mentioned the this rule allows the observer to consider the action of other person correct, here we add it should be correct based on the laws of the other doer and not the observer (implementer of this rule) if they had difference in their laws.