To what extent does the rule "The lesson lies in the generality of the wording, not the specificity of the cause" align with the prohibition of women from holding judicial and ministerial positions, when applied to the authentic hadith "Never shall a people prosper who entrust their affairs to a woman"? Is the purpose of the rule here to affirm that the hadith applies to Muslims as the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, spoke about the Persians concerning supreme leadership, or can it be used to prohibit what was mentioned, on the grounds that the word "قوم" (people/group) is indefinite and implies generality?

The rule mentioned is established among the Usuliyyin (scholars of legal theory) and the jurists. They differed on whether the indication of a general text on its particulars is definitive (qat'i) or probabilistic (dhanni). The more correct view is that it is definitive regarding the essence of the cause, and probabilistic regarding other matters. The hadith (definition) narrated by Al-Bukhari applies in its generality to every people who entrust their affairs to a woman. Its indication regarding the Persians is definitive, and regarding others, it is probabilistic. Abu Bakra used it as evidence against the permissibility of women holding public offices. The majority of jurists stipulate masculinity for public offices. Examples of a general text with a specific cause include the verse of inheritance, the verse of trusts, the verse of cursing (Li'an), the verse of stoning, and the hadith "The child is for the bed."