say, “His word ‘then’ is the error.” For a scribe is more likely to substitute one particle for another by mistake than to insert several words in error: the phrase “without leaving a child, a grandchild, any offspring, or any descendants” contains more than ten Arabic words.

It is also astonishing to suppose that this is merely emphasis, when emphasis serves to dispel doubt. If the ruling were the same in both cases and emphasis were intended, “whoever among them dies leaving a child” would have been more appropriate than “whoever among them dies without leaving a child.” For transferring the deceased’s share to his brothers even when he leaves a child already indicates that it should pass to them when he leaves none. To provide emphasis by explaining the obvious ruling rather than the less obvious one is to overstep the bounds of reason and language.

Moreover, emphasis is not expressed through adjectives that restrict the scope of the nouns they qualify. If someone said, “Honor Muslim men,” then explained, “I intended all men to be honored; I singled out Muslims for emphasis, and mentioning them does not exclude others once they have been included under the first term,” this claim would be entirely untenable and unacceptable. For “Muslim” qualifies “men,” and an adjective restricts the scope of the noun it qualifies, leaving it no longer general.

But if he said, “Honor men and Muslims”—using a conjunction, with the same instruction applying to both groups and Muslims being a subset of men—this would constitute emphasis. For a conjoined term does not necessarily restrict or narrow the term to which it is joined, owing to the distinction created between them by the conjunction, unlike adjectives