rather than in detail. The ruling may then fail to apply to some of those individuals because of a countervailing factor.

For example, someone may say, “Give every poor person a dirham.” If he is then asked, “What if he is an unbeliever or an enemy?” giving may be prohibited. An individual whom he intended to include within the general expression may have been intended specifically, or merely because the meaning encompasses him, without his particular circumstances being brought to mind, provided that nothing prevents his inclusion while the grounds for inclusion are present.

In the first case, he intended that particular individual to be included. This is analogous to the particular occasion that prompted the general expression. This is one benefit of mentioning the particular after the general: it establishes that the shared meaning applies to that particular instance without any countervailing factor. Another benefit, however, is to make clear that it is included both through the generality of the shared meaning and through the specificity of its distinguishing meaning, even if the ruling is not established for the shared meaning.

As for an individual whom he did not intend to include within the general expression, he may have been conscious, when uttering it, of a countervailing factor present in that individual. This prevents him from intending that individual’s inclusion under the ruling attached to the general meaning, even though the grounds for inclusion—namely, the general meaning—are present in him. Alternatively, he may have been conscious of that factor before uttering the general expression, but at the moment of speaking have overlooked that individual’s inclusion or exclusion. The first resembles a qualification accompanying the general expression, and the second a preceding qualification. Alternatively, he may become conscious of that factor after uttering the general expression, while