the one who negates a matter is required to present evidence for his negation, just as the one who affirms a matter is required to present evidence for its affirmation.

It has been reported from some people that they claimed, “The denier is not obliged to supply proof.” Others tried to differentiate between rational matters and scriptural matters, insisting on evidence in the rational sphere but not in the sphere of revelation. These individuals have confused the simple objector who merely withholds assent and demands proof with the true denier who makes a counter-claim.

If a person states something and another responds, “I am unaware of this, I do not agree with you, and I will not concede the point until you bring proof,” the latter is in the right, and no evidence is demanded of him; the burden of proof remains on the claimant. By contrast, if someone rejects what another has affirmed and says, “Your statement is wrong; the truth is the very opposite of what you say; things are not as you claim,” then that denier must bring evidence for his negation, just as the affirmer must bring evidence for his affirmation. If neither party produces proof, then neither possesses an argument.

For this reason, anyone who asserts or denies something and, when asked for proof, fails to supply it is deemed defeated in debate. If his opponent objects or counters and he successfully answers the objection, the opponent is silenced and the first party’s position stands. But if he cannot answer the counter-argument, the proponent’s case collapses, for the only evidence that must be followed is that which is untouched by an equally powerful rebuttal.

Should someone present a conclusive proof and it is challenged only by what does not yield certainty, he may rightly say, “What I have produced engenders knowledge, and knowledge is not overturned by conjecture; clear proofs are not set aside by flimsy doubts akin to sophistic discourse.” Thus—glorified be He—He has forbidden speaking without knowledge.