Here, there is a third interpretation based on considering the occurrence of negation [on the lesser after "in addition" intervenes between it and the greater, as if it were said: he gives the dirham in addition to the dinar, meaning: the giving of the dinar departs and what remains of its kind is the giving of the dirham, then the negation is applied] to the remainder. And if the remainder of the thing is negated (273), then what is beyond it is negated before it. The essence of the meaning returns to the fact that the giving of the dinar is negated first, then followed in negation by the giving of the dirham (274). This concludes the summary (275). Then he mentioned after what has passed, his text, he said (276), may Allāh have mercy on him: (It is necessary to omit the agent of (let alone) as it follows the course of completing the first, like (not to mention) and there is no place for that omitted in the syntax at all, refuting those who claimed that it is a circumstantial clause (277). And it should not be confused with you that the subject of that [verb] omitted is the lesser in the last aspect, and its negation in the first two aspects). End. The invalidity of it being a circumstantial clause in the sense he established is evident, as is the invalidity of the sentence being an attribute, contrary to all of that in the sense established by Ibn Hishām as is not hidden from those with understanding.

It appears that the report (disagreement) and the "bāʾ" is extra in it, as in the saying of the Almighty: