utterly unsound reasoning. The obligations arising from contracts become binding only because the contracting parties bind themselves to them. A contract expressed without qualification has a recognized meaning; when they express it without qualification, they thereby bind themselves to what is understood from it.

An obligation arising from a contract is binding by virtue of that contract, just as an obligation arising from a vow is binding by virtue of that vow. The Lawgiver did not impose it in the first instance; rather, He commanded the fulfillment of contracts, just as He commanded the fulfillment of vows. Thus, if a contract has an obligation known from its unqualified wording, or the contracting parties recognize its imposition through specific wording, this constitutes mentioning the particular after the general. The obligation has thus been imposed twice, or has been given a specific basis of obligation that dispenses with the general one.

There are parallels to this in the Quran, such as His saying:

“Whoever is an enemy to Allah, His angels, His messengers, Gabriel and Michael—then Allah is an enemy to the disbelievers.”

And His saying:

“And when We took from the prophets their covenant, and from you, and from Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, son of Mary.”

And His saying:

“Guard strictly the prayers, especially the middle prayer.”

And His saying:

“Say to your wives, your daughters, and the women of the believers.”

And His saying:

“Indeed, Allah commands justice, kindness, and giving to relatives, and forbids indecency, wrongdoing, and oppression.”

And His saying:

“Those who break Allah’s covenant after its solemn confirmation.”

For Allah proclaimed His covenant, which He commanded them to observe, after taking their solemn pledge to fulfill it. Thus, both grounds are combined in it: that of the covenant and that of the solemn pledge.