Another example is that He attached the right to take one’s wife back to divorce after consummation, without dividing divorce after consummation into irrevocable and revocable divorce.

Another is that He recognized a third divorce following two divorces and a separation secured by compensation. Such a separation is obtained in return for compensation, and He made it entail an irrevocable separation without a divorce being counted toward the three. This ruling is attached to whatever falls under this designation, without distinguishing between one wording and another.

Another is that He attached expiation to whatever is termed an oath sworn by a Muslim, in His words, Exalted is He:

“That is the expiation for your oaths when you have sworn.”

And His words:

“Allah has prescribed for you a way to release yourselves from your oaths.”

He did not distinguish between one oath sworn by a Muslim and another. Dividing Muslims’ binding oaths into those that can be expiated and those that cannot therefore contradicts this.

Another is that He attached prohibition to whatever is termed an intoxicant, and explained what this encompasses through the words of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace:

“Every intoxicating substance is khamr, and every intoxicating substance is forbidden.”

He did not distinguish between one intoxicating substance and another.

Another is that He attached the ruling to whatever is termed residence, just as He attached it to whatever is termed travel, without distinguishing between one resident and another. Thus, there is no basis for dividing residents into two categories: those who must attend Friday prayer when others establish it, but who do not themselves count toward the congregation required to establish it; and those who do count.

Rather, it must be held that, since the Lawgiver attached these rulings to whatever is termed travel, they