Shaykh Taqī al-Dīn replied, “That is exactly what was intended; nevertheless (1) this nullifies the claim that the verse is absolutely general, for an unrestricted claim of generality (2) contradicts the assertion that it is general only with respect to some kinds and not others. This is perfectly clear.

A certain person alleged that the matter comprises two opinions: first, that it is a general statement that has been qualified; second, that its generality is fully intended.

Shaykh Taqī al-Dīn said, ‘To claim that full generality is intended is decisively false, for we know that many individual forms of sale are forbidden.’

Ibn al-Murahhil objected, ‘Those particular forms were prohibited only after having first been permitted; that would constitute abrogation.’

Shaykh Taqī al-Dīn replied, ‘That would mean we could never prohibit any type of sale on the basis of a single report or by analogy, since the Quran cannot be abrogated by either; they can only particularize it. Yet the scholars (3) unanimously declare certain sales unlawful by precisely these means.’

Ibn al-Murahhil said, ‘I retract that objection. Still, I maintain that full generality is intended for everything the Law terms a sale, because “sale” is a transferred term that denotes every valid, lawful transaction.’

Shaykh Taqī al-Dīn responded, ‘“Sale” is not a transferred term; its referent in the Law and in common usage is exactly its linguistic sense. The Lawgiver has merely stipulated conditions for its lawfulness and validity.’"}