of its individuals intuitively, for if a conclusion needs two premises, the chain must eventually terminate in two premises that are known without recourse to further premises; otherwise one would fall into the vicious circle or the endless regress, both of which are invalid. Hence it is a settled rule among the critical thinkers that every conception and every assent must ultimately rest upon self-evident conceptions and self-evident assents.
Let us posit, purely for illustration, two self-evident premises: “Every intoxicant is wine,” and “Every wine is forbidden.” Though these two are not in fact self-evident, the point is simply to furnish an example from which the ruling for all other propositions may be understood. Suppose it were known intuitively that every individual instance of wine is unlawful, and known intuitively as well that every individual instance of an intoxicant is wine; then our intuitive knowledge that those very items are unlawful would be among the easiest of all things.
The only reason this remains obscure is that most premises are not self-evident; rather, they themselves require proof—just as in this example, the second premise is established by scriptural text and consensus, while the first is established by sound Sunnah, though many scholars are unaware of it. Thus the path to knowing the two premises differs.
If, however, the two premises are set out separately and both are grasped through the same avenue of knowledge, we have no need of a syllogism at all. Take, for instance, the knowledge that every human being is an animal and that every animal is a sentient creature that moves by volition: our knowledge that every human being is a sentient creature that moves by volition may here be even clearer and more obvious. The same holds if we say, “Every human is a body, or a substance, or a bearer of attributes,” and then add, “Everything that is a body, substance, or bearer of attributes is not an accident, or is self-subsistent, or is qualified by attributes,” and the like. Knowing that every human being possesses those characteristics requires no such prolongation. If both premises are known by a single method and have already been established, there is no need to rehearse them; but if they are known by different methods, then whoever is ignorant of one of them will need it explained, even though he has no need of the other, which he already knows. This is evident in every case you may consider.
It thus becomes clear that their brand of logic leads only to wasted time, excessive babbling, and the wearing out of minds. Likewise, when we know that every Messenger is a Prophet and that every Prophet is in Paradise, we then know that every