as when one examines a matter under inquiry to determine whether it is established or not: examining someone who claims prophethood—is he truthful or a liar? Examining the question of seeing Allah Most High—is it established that He will be seen in the Hereafter, or not? Examining intoxicating nabīdh—is it lawful or forbidden?

The person reasoning in this way is seeking an answer, and while seeking it, he is in doubt.

This, however, is not the reasoning that yields knowledge. The latter consists in examining something whose examination yields knowledge: examining evidence, such as a Quranic verse, a hadith, or an analogy used as proof. Such reasoning yields knowledge and necessarily entails it, whereas the former kind of reasoning is incompatible with knowledge and excludes it.

Because the term “reasoning” is ambiguous, much confusion has arisen on this point, and some have contradicted themselves. They make reasoning obligatory because it entails knowledge, then say that reasoning is incompatible with knowledge. How can something that entails knowledge be incompatible with it, such that the two cannot coexist?

Whoever distinguishes between examining evidence and reasoning that consists in seeking evidence will see the difference.

Examining evidence does not necessarily entail doubt about what it establishes. Rather, a person may be inwardly heedless of something, then come to know the evidence for it and thereby know what it establishes, even if it has not