قَدْ أَشْرَبَ حِسِّي وَنَبَّأَنِي حَدْسِي أَنَّهُمَا صَاحِبَا دَهَاءٍ، لَا خَصْمَا ادِّعَاءٍ
My perception has absorbed it, and my intuition tells me they are men of cunning rather than genuine opposing claimants.
The pairs ḥissī / ḥadsī and dahāʾ / iddiʿāʾ join perception and conjecture while distinguishing cunning from genuine litigation. The judge senses something wrong, but intuition is not yet a confession or proof.
The later inquiry matters because it tests suspicion against what the participants actually disclose. A well-balanced reading respects the judge’s insight without presenting conjecture as verified fact.
Sequence: clue → suspicion → inquiry → admission; do not treat a preliminary stage as conclusive proof.
StageStatusClueReason to suspectIntuitionProvisional inferenceAdmissionDirect statement of the fact claimed