as people frequently ask about particular drinks without knowing whether or not they intoxicate, although they already know that every intoxicant is prohibited. Once it is established for the questioner, through the report of someone he trusts or through other evidence, that the drink is intoxicating, he knows that it is prohibited. The same applies to any category or particular instance whose inclusion under a universal proposition is in doubt, while the ruling expressed by that proposition is already known. Examples include people’s disagreement over backgammon and chess: do they constitute gambling or not? Likewise, their disagreement over the disputed nabīdh: does it fall under the category of wine or not?

Another example is their disagreement over oaths involving vows, divorce, and manumission: do these fall within His words,

“Allah has already ordained for you the dissolution of your oaths,”

or not? Likewise, their disagreement concerning His words,

“or the one in whose hand is the marriage contract waives it”:

is this the husband or the guardian with independent authority? There are many similar examples.

An inference may require two premises for someone who does not know that the disputed intoxicating nabīdh is prohibited and does not know that this particular drink is intoxicating. He cannot know that it is prohibited until he knows both that it is intoxicating and that every intoxicant is prohibited.

He may know that this drink is intoxicating and that every intoxicant is wine, yet not know that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, prohibited wine—because he has only recently embraced Islam, or because he grew up among ignorant people or heretics who question this.

Or he may know that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said,

“Every intoxicant is prohibited.”

Or he may know that this is wine and that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, prohibited wine, yet not know that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. Alternatively, he may not know that he prohibited it for all believers, but suppose instead that he permitted it for some people and consider himself one of them—as someone might suppose that he permitted drinking it for medical treatment or some other purpose. For such a person, nothing suffices for knowing