Explanation of the author's statement: "And its essence is: if it is said that there is a conflict between two pieces of evidence, then either both are definitive, or both are probable,
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : The rule he mentioned is "that if it is said that there is a conflict between two pieces of evidence, if it is said that there is a conflict between two pieces of evidence, then either both are definitive, or both are probable, or one is definitive and the other is probable". What is definitive and what is probable? The definitive is that which the intellect is certain of its existence; there is no possibility in the intellect, out of a thousand possibilities, that it is not correct or that it is negated. This is the definitive, like a person being certain by seeing the sun while it is shining brightly. Is this definitive or not?
As for the probable, it is that which is more likely in the mind of a person, but it is not a matter of certainty, since it is possible that the matter is the opposite of it. For example, if the sun is setting and there is a piece of cloud, it is most likely that it has set. It may not have set, but what is most likely in your mind is that it has set. We say this is a probability. So the evidence is either both definitive, or both probable, or one is definitive and the other is probable. The first is "these are three categories."
As for the probable, it is that which is more likely in the mind of a person, but it is not a matter of certainty, since it is possible that the matter is the opposite of it. For example, if the sun is setting and there is a piece of cloud, it is most likely that it has set. It may not have set, but what is most likely in your mind is that it has set. We say this is a probability. So the evidence is either both definitive, or both probable, or one is definitive and the other is probable. The first is "these are three categories."