a particle conveying shared meaning where wāw does. Yet this plainly contradicts the position of the scholars of language; indeed, it contradicts what is known of the Arabic language itself.

Linguistic rules—that is, the meanings conveyed by expressions—are established through the usage of native speakers and what is transmitted from them. Since both transmitted evidence and usage establish that these two particles convey shared participation in meaning, claiming that one alone does so departs from the Arabic language and from what has been transmitted from its speakers.

As for customary usage, we have already explained that people understand such statements only as making the condition apply to all the clauses. This is self-evident from ordinary usage.

As for the statements of scholars among the jurists and legal theorists, they discussed an exception following several clauses. Some said that it applies to all of them. Others said that it applies to the last clause alone. Others said that if the two clauses are related, the exception applies to both, whereas if they are unrelated, it applies to the last. They then distinguished related clauses from unrelated ones, setting out several kinds of distinction.

Others held that coordination is open to all these interpretations. Still others advocated suspending judgment regarding all these views.

Yet none of them distinguished between coordination with wāw, fā, or thumma. Rather, their expression “clauses coordinated with one another” encompasses them all. Likewise, the jurists discussed this under the “Chapter on Oaths” and the “Chapter on Endowments.” They then based their conclusions on their respective principles, saying that when an exception or a descriptive qualification follows several clauses, it applies