And the implications of this view are that every noun or verb accompanied by an adjective, an explanatory apposition, a substitute, any qualifying complement, a circumstantial qualifier, an accusative of specification, or the like would be used figuratively. This is self-evidently false. The distinction between an attached verbal indicator that signifies by linguistic convention, other indicators—whether circumstantial or verbal—that do not convey the intended meaning by linguistic convention, as in “I saw a lion writing and an ocean sailing on the sea,” and separate expressions is known with certainty in the languages of Arabs and non-Arabs alike.

Nevertheless, no rational person doubts that an utterance is complete only when it reaches its end, and that its meaning can be understood only after it is complete in its entirety. Its beginning cannot convey its meaning independently of its ending, whether that beginning is called “literal or figurative.” Nor may it be said that its beginning contradicts its ending. Contradiction can arise only between two independent proofs, whereas a connected utterance in its entirety constitutes a single proof. To posit a contradiction between its parts is like positing a contradiction between the parts of compound names.

This is clear, particularly in “the subject of endowments.” The founder of an endowment may wish to stipulate numerous conditions concerning the endowed property and its beneficiaries—joint or successive entitlement, equal or preferential allocation, and unrestricted or restricted provisions—enough to fill a lengthy document. Yet no Muslim has disputed that it is impermissible to treat the beginning of his statement as unrestricted and general while disregarding its ending, or to regard the restrictions, details, and specifications at the end of his statement as contradicting or conflicting with what came at the outset