Are the major jurisprudential maxims comprehensive or probabilistic, and what is the evidence for each view?

Juristic maxims are mostly, but not entirely, comprehensive. Scholars have explicitly stated this, and the existence of exceptions demonstrates their probabilistic rather than absolute nature.

The reasons for these exceptions include: the exempted issues resembling the maxim without truly falling under its scope, or the presence of an impediment that prevents an issue from being covered by the maxim.

Some of these exceptions are agreed upon, such as the exception of the 'Aqilah (male agnates) bearing the blood money (Diyah) from the maxim: "A person is not liable for another," and the exception of a virgin's silence when asked about marriage from the maxim: "No statement is attributed to one who is silent."

Others are subject to scholarly disagreement, such as the differing opinions among scholars regarding the ruling on ghusl (ritual bath) for someone who wakes up and finds moisture, doubting whether it is semen or not, in relation to the maxim: "Certainty is not removed by doubt."