What Is Default Ruling In Matters Where There'S No Evidence Of Haram/Halal
@Irfan76 sir if matter is suggestive that the person will use it to rob someone, then only it will be Haram? because I am stuck in a linguistic fallacy type confusion. when we say while selling a gun, if the person will use it for halal purpose then it’s halal to sell him, but if he will use it to rob someone then it’s Haram to sell him. then which side is to be put on default? because both sides there’s no evidence for suggestion there’s only possibilities in both sides. we say if there are evidence to suggest that he’ll use it to rob someone then we should not sell him. but if there’s no evidence and it’s just a doubt about whether he will Rob or not because there’s no evidence to suggest this, then we are told that we should not put any weights on doubt. but for this seller he has no conclusive suggestive evidence that this man will use it for Halal purpose as well only. here on this side a person can also say that it’s just a doubtful thought that he will use it only for halal purpose. we don’t have evidence for this too. then if we say the same thing that don’t give weights to doubt. then where will we land? which side to put on default and which side to be considered doubt? A- “He’ll use it to rob someone” B- “He’ll use it for non rights-violation purposes” in both these statements we only have thoughts without evidence. so will both be classified as doubts? then comes the confusion that if A is considered doubt then we should continue with B as truth. But if B is doubt then A is to be considered truth. Now which thing is to be put on default and which to be considered doubt? please help me understand this sir