And know that this indication rests on several considerations:

First: the initial wording can express distributive succession.

Second: the implied meaning suggests that the provision applies exclusively to the specified case. No reasonable person disputes this, even if he disputes its validity as evidence.

Third: understanding the wording to establish a new provision is preferable to understanding it as mere emphasis. This is neither a case of conflicting evidence nor one of qualifying an unrestricted statement. Rather, it is a matter of explaining wording that admits two meanings.

If you object:

“If the initial wording apparently denotes succession from one group as a whole to another, then this entails departing from its apparent meaning. If you say, ‘It admits either meaning, or apparently denotes distributive succession,’ we reject your claim. If you say, ‘Wording cannot be described as having an apparent meaning or as complete until it has been fully stated, and the initial wording has not yet been fully stated,’ then this is the first argument. What, then, is the difference between them?”

We reply:

“The first argument explains that, even if the initial wording, when unqualified, were explicit and admitted no alternative interpretation, attaching a qualification to it would negate that implication. This is like someone saying, ‘I establish an endowment for Zayd,’ then adding, ‘if he is poor.’ This is not considered an explanation of wording that admits more than one meaning; rather, it is a qualification.

“This argument, however, explains that the initial wording admits two meanings, and it cannot be described as apparently conveying either one unless it is detached from what follows it. When it is connected to what follows, that connection identifies which of the two meanings is intended.”