and the absence of giving the dirham remains. Thus, what remains is the negation of the lesser mentioned before (as a preference), and what has departed is the very greater mentioned after it. According to this interpretation, two things are lost from the original (20) usage: first, that what remains is of the same kind as what has gone, since the negation of the lesser is not of the same kind as the greater. Second, that what remains is less [than what has gone, since there is no meaning in the negation of the lesser being less] (269) than the kind of the greater. If you say: it could be argued (270) that the understanding from (as a preference) at that time is that what follows it is completely gone and negated, but that it is more included in the negation and stronger in it than what was negated before, as intended, is not. I say: this can be understood from it being higher and lower, because the higher is more deserving of negation than the lower. Some have considered the aspect of scarcity and abundance and said: the estimation in the example is: the preference of not giving the dirham over not giving the dinar, meaning: the first non-existence is small in comparison to the second non-existence, for the first is a possible non-existence that is unlikely to occur, and the second is an impossible non-existence, so it is stronger and more established than the first. In this interpretation, the original usage loses the meaning of departure and remaining, and it becomes necessary that the word "about" is not connected to it according to its intended meaning, but according to its origin, and it requires estimating the negation afterward (in addition)