one of the two pieces of evidence is stronger, following it is best, and this is known. The jurist exercising independent judgment must therefore act upon what he knows to be stronger than the alternative—that is, upon the stronger of two conflicting pieces of evidence. In doing so, he acts only upon knowledge. This is the answer given by al-Hasan al-Basrī, Abū, and others. The Quran condemns those who follow nothing but conjecture, whose conjecture is not grounded in knowledge that this is stronger than the alternative. As Allah says:

“They have no knowledge of it; they follow only conjecture.”

And He says:

“Do you have any knowledge that you can produce for us? You follow nothing but conjecture.”

Likewise, elsewhere He condemns those who follow nothing but conjecture: they have mere conjecture, unaccompanied by knowledge, and they follow it. What the revealed Law prescribes, and what reasonable people practice, is to act only with knowledge that one alternative is stronger than the other. They thus hold its greater strength as a conviction on which to act. Yet its being stronger does not necessarily mean that the weaker alternative cannot be what is actually true.

This is as the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, explained when he said:

“Some of you may be more skillful in presenting their case than others, and I judge only according to what I hear.”

If one litigant presents evidence, such as testimony in his favour, while the other produces no witness of his own, the judge knows that the former’s evidence is stronger. He therefore judges only on the basis of knowledge. Yet the other litigant may have evidence of which he is unaware, or which he cannot present effectively. For instance, he may have paid the other party or released him from liability, and have testimony supporting this of which he is unaware, or does not