he capable of growth or not? Is he capable of movement or not? And is he rational or not? Likewise, in the earlier example: Is nabīdh forbidden or not? And if it is forbidden, is its prohibition established by an explicit text or by analogy?”

The reply is:

If you accept this approach—treating one thing as equivalent to several—then a single expression may convey an entire proposition. If someone says, “Intoxicating nabīdh is forbidden,” and the respondent says, “Yes,” the word “yes” is equivalent to saying, “It is forbidden.”

If he asks, “What is the proof for this?” and the reply is, “The prohibition of every intoxicant,” or “That every intoxicant is forbidden,” or “The words of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, ‘Every intoxicant is forbidden,’” or some similar expression, then the proof has been expressed as a single nominal expression, constituting one element. It has not been formulated as a proposition composed of two nominal elements—a subject and a predicate. For “the prohibition of every intoxicant” is a noun in a possessive construction.

Likewise, “that every intoxicant is forbidden,” with anna pronounced with an a-vowel, is a single nominal expression. This is because anna and its complement are equivalent to a single verbal noun, whereas inna, pronounced with an i-vowel, together with its complement, forms a complete sentence.

The same applies when you say, “The proof for this is the statement of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace,” or “The proof for this is the explicit text,” or “the consensus of the Companions,” or “The proof for this is such-and-such verse,” or “such-and-such hadith”; or “The proof for this is the presence of a ground for prohibition unopposed by any countervailing consideration of equal force”; or “The proof for this is that it shares with grape wine a characteristic that entails prohibition.” These and similar formulations express the proof through a single nominal expression, rather than through a proposition constituting a complete sentence. Yet when this proof, expressed through a single nominal expression, is set out in detail, it is expressed in multiple terms.