fixed shares each have a designation specific to them, the expression “blood relatives” came, in customary usage, to be reserved for those who inherit neither by a fixed share nor through agnatic succession (1).

Likewise, the terms “permissible” and “allowed” apply broadly to anything that is not forbidden. A term may then be restricted to one of the five legal classifications (2). Similarly, the term “possible” is applied (3) to whatever is not impossible, but is then restricted (4) to what is neither necessary nor impossible. A distinction is thus made between the necessary and the contingent, and between possibility in its general and specific senses. Likewise, the term “animal” [and the like] (5) encompasses human beings and other creatures, yet it may subsequently be restricted to nonhuman creatures.

There are many such examples: when one of two kinds has a name specific to it, the general name comes to be reserved for the other kind. The term “wiping” belongs to this category. The Quran indicates that, by wiping the feet, He did not intend the kind of wiping that stands in contrast to washing, but rather wiping in the general sense, of which washing is one form. For He says (6), “up to the two ankle-bones,” and does not say, “up to the ankle-bones” in the plural, as He says, “up to the elbows.” This shows that there is not one ankle-bone on each foot (7), as there is one elbow on each arm; rather, each foot has two ankle-bones. It follows, then, that He