ar قاعدة: «الدليلُ إذا طَرَقَهُ الاحتمالُ سَقَطَ بِهِ الاستِدْلال» (دراسةٌ تأصيليّةٌ تطبيقيّةٌ)

The Principle: "If Evidence is Subject to Doubt, Its Validity as Proof is Nullified" (A Foundational and Applied Study)

Abstract

 

This study explores the principle "If evidence is subject to doubt, its validity as proof is nullified," which has received limited analytical attention. It aims to clarify the principle's meaning, identify the Islamic legal foundations that support its authority, and establish guidelines to ensure its application aligns with scriptural texts. The study also critically examines how scholars of Islamic jurisprudence and legal theory have applied this principle, assessing whether their implementations adhered to its established guidelines. To achieve these objectives, the research addresses key questions: What is the intended meaning of the principle? What foundational sources underpin its authority? What are the guidelines for its application? What are the instances of its application or dismissal, and were they consistent with the prescribed guidelines? The study employs foundational, inductive, and critical methodologies to answer these questions. The findings reveal that the principle is best defined as follows: "The aspect of reasoning derived from evidence is nullified if the evidence is countered by an opposing possibility that is equally probable and contradicts it in judgment." This definition highlights two key conditions: the conflict between opposing possibilities and their equivalence in weight. The study concludes that only the disputed aspect of the evidence is nullified, leaving other aspects unaffected. The research further notes variability among scholars in their adherence to the principle's guidelines. While some applied or dismissed the principle appropriately, others deviated, leading to unwarranted applications or dismissals.