. If the negation were assumed to apply to the restriction, its implication would be contrary to the intended meaning, which is that (243) one owns the dirham but does not own the dinar. Since this is not possible (244), it becomes necessary to adopt the less likely interpretation, which is applying the negation to the restricted term, which is the dirham, thus negating the dinar, because one who does not own the lesser does not own the greater. For the intended meaning of the dirham is what is equivalent to it in currency, not the conventional dirham. What has become apparent to me in explaining this statement is to say: it originally consists of two independent sentences, but the second sentence underwent much omission and alteration, causing the confusion. The explanation of this is that this statement, either in wording or estimation, serves as a response to an inquirer who said: "Does so-and-so own a dinar?" or as a reply to an informant who said: "So-and-so owns a dinar," and the response was: "So-and-so does not own a dirham." Then another statement was initiated. You have two ways to interpret it: one is to estimate: "I inform you of this in addition to informing about a dinar you inquired about, and in addition to a dinar you were informed he owns." Then the phrase "I inform you of this" was omitted, leaving its object, which is "in addition," as they say: "at that time now," estimating: "it was at that time, and listen now." They omitted the two sentences and kept the object of each, then the object of "ʿan" and the preposition "al-dīnār" were deleted, and "ʿan" was inserted before "al-dīnār" as they say: "I have not seen a man with kohl in his eye more beautiful than Zayd," and originally it was: from him in Zayd's eye. Then, the object of "min," which is the pronoun, was deleted, along with the preposition of the eye, which is "fī," and "min" was inserted before