If the proof is said to rest on a single premise, they claim that the second premise is merely suppressed and call the argument an “implicit syllogism.” Should the proof contain several premises, they insist that these are multiple, combined syllogisms rather than one. In both directions, the assertion is unsound.

People’s need for premises varies. Some require only one premise because they already know everything else; some need none at all, for the conclusion is self-evident to them. Others need two premises, others three, still others four or even more.

Suppose someone wishes to know whether a particular intoxicant is forbidden. If he already knows that every intoxicant is unlawful but does not yet know whether this specific drink intoxicates, he needs only one premise—namely, that “this drink is intoxicating.” When told, “This is forbidden,” he may ask, “What is the evidence?” If the answer is, “The evidence is that it intoxicates,” he may reply, “I do not concede that it intoxicates.” Once proof is presented that it does indeed intoxicate, the issue is settled.

The same holds if two people dispute whether a certain beverage intoxicates—an inquiry people often raise about modern drinks. The questioner may be unsure whether it causes intoxication, yet he already knows that every intoxicant is prohibited. Once it is confirmed—by the report of someone he trusts or by other evidence—that the drink intoxicates, he immediately knows it is forbidden. The principle applies whenever there is doubt about a particular species or individual falling under a general ruling whose verdict is already known: for example, the debate about backgammon and chess—are they forms of gambling or not? Or the dispute over a contested type of nabīdh—does it count as wine or not?

Likewise, people argue about oaths expressed through vows, pronouncements of divorce, or manumissions: are they included in Allah’s words,

“Allah has already ordained for you a way to dissolve your oaths” (Qur’an 66:2),

or not? They also differ over the verse,

“Or the one in whose hand is the knot of marriage may forgo” (Qur’an 2:237):

is the person intended the husband, or an independent guardian? And so forth.