of them, they would neither clarify nor guide, nor would they be unambiguous or a light. This applies to the term qur’, which he used as an example. If it is said that it is used for both menstruation and the interval of purity, the verse contains indications that clarify the intended meaning in several ways. The Muslim community agrees on this. None of them has maintained that the evidence for the two interpretations is equally strong. Rather, some have judged the evidence for one interpretation stronger, while others have judged the evidence for the other stronger. Thus, they agree that the Lawgiver has established evidence clarifying the intended meaning, but one group has recognized it, while the other has not and has supposed that the alternative meaning was intended.

This can only be on the basis of sound evidence, for sound evidence points only to the truth that is intended. However, the sound evidence may have escaped the latter group, whether through inability or negligence, so that they mistook something that was not evidence for evidence.

If, instead, he says, “Rather, the suspension of judgment and the equal balance reflect the actual state of affairs, because there is in fact no indication favoring either interpretation, or because the evidence for each is equally strong,” the response is: this is not conceded. Why do you say that this is so? It is well known that the mind may suspend judgment because of its limitations or its negligence, or because of a lack of