Once it was made clear to him that the ruling is general rather than specific, his objective was met. This ḥadīth is recorded in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim and is reported in two formulations:
“Every intoxicant is khamr,”
and
“Every intoxicant is unlawful.”
He did not say, “Every intoxicant is khamr, and every khamr is unlawful,” in the manner of Greek syllogisms. Although this wording appears in some transmission chains, it is not sound, for the Prophet — may Allah bless him and grant him peace — is far too exalted in conduct and exposition to utter such incoherent speech. If his sole aim had been to state the ruling, his words would have sufficed without adducing proof; and if he intended to set forth the proof itself—just as Allah has laid out in the Qur’an the principal divine matters that establish faith in Him, His messengers, and the Last Day—then he, peace and blessings be upon him, is the most knowledgeable of creation concerning the truth and the most eloquent in conveying it.
It follows that not every conclusion requires two premises, nor are two premises adequate for every conclusion. Rather, one should mention whatever will impart clarification and evidence, whether that be one premise, two, or more. In works intended as universal guidance—such as the Qur’an, which Allah revealed as a clarification for all people—the proofs cited are those from which the generality of mankind can benefit.
As for the sophistries that may assail certain individuals on occasion, casting doubt upon established facts, these are akin to maladies and obsessive whisperings. Only their broad categories can be addressed; what afflicts each person in particular cannot be codified in a treatise. Such misgivings fade through remedies specific to the individual: his own supplication, a tailored conversation with someone who understands his state, his personal reflection on his situation, and the like.
Moreover, the syllogistic reasoning they put forward yields knowledge only of universal propositions and does not grant certainty about any particular existing thing. Even those universals can each be known by methods far easier than their syllogisms: there is no universal learned through their system without its particulars being ascertainable without it