—which require treating wāw (“and”) and thumma (“then”) alike—is all the more justified.

If he concedes that his words bear the interpretation we have given, well and good. Otherwise, we shall address him with the ninth argument:

This alleged distinction between a particle that simply joins items and one that places them in sequence has no basis in the language, customary usage, the statements of jurists or legal theorists, or the rulings of the Sharia. Moreover, the evidence cited to establish its validity is unsound. The distinction must therefore be unsound.

As for the first point, the scholars of language have said:

“Coordinating conjunctions are those that give what precedes them and what follows them the same grammatical inflection.”

They are of two kinds. One kind also joins the two in meaning: wāw, fāʾ, and thumma. Wāw indicates simple coordination and combination, except according to those who hold that it indicates sequence. Thumma indicates sequence in general, though it is also said to indicate an intervening delay. Fāʾ indicates a particular kind of sequence: immediate succession. These particles therefore do not differ in whether the coordinated element and the element to which it is joined share the same meaning; they differ only in the timing of that shared participation.

Thus, if it were said that coordination with wāw entails that the coordinated element and the element to which it is joined both fall within the scope of subsequent exceptions, adjectival modifiers, and similar qualifications attached to the clauses, whereas coordination with thumma does not entail their sharing in these subsequent qualifications, it would follow that thumma is not