as in the 'ma'arid' (equivocations), and the explanation of the possibility of the expression is that it is linguistically permissible in the speech of the Arabs to express the general through the specific. Allah the Almighty said: {They do not possess a qitmir (a date-stone skin)}, {And they will not be wronged a fatila (a thread on a date stone)}, {Then they would not give the people a naqira (a speck on a date stone)}. The qitmir is the covering of the date stone. The fatila is what is in its groove. The naqira is the notch on its back. He did not intend those specific things; rather, He negated everything. Al-Hutay'a said, satirizing the Banu 'Ajlan:

And they do not wrong the people a mustard seed

He did not intend the grain itself; he merely intended that they do not wrong them in any way. Sometimes the general is mentioned and the specific is intended, as in His saying: {Those to whom the people said}—meaning one man—{Indeed, the people have gathered against you}—meaning Abu Sufyan. And He, the Almighty, said: {It destroys everything}—He did not intend the sky, the earth, or their dwellings. When the wording admits this, it is obligatory to divert the oath to it, due to the saying of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him: "Actions are but by intentions." Because the speech of the Lawgiver is interpreted according to His intent when that is established by evidence, the speech of others is the same. As for their argument that a violation is the contradiction of what the oath was contracted upon, we say: This is indeed so, [for the oath] was established upon what he intended, and his wording is diverted to it. This is not a mere intention, but rather wording with which what it admits is intended.

Section: It is a condition for the diverting of the wording to what he intended that the wording must admit of it. If he intends what the wording does not admit, such as if he swears he will not eat bread, meaning by it that he will not enter a house, then his oath does not