"Alloh (swt) sharob ni, uning ichuvchisini, uni quyuvchisini, sotuvchisini, sotib oluvchisini, uni siquvchisini, uni siqtirib oluvchisini, uni olib boruvchisini va unga olib borilganini la'natladi", - va shuning uchun sharob siqishni taqiqlash siqishning o'zini taqiqlash emas, balki aynan sharob siqishni taqiqlashdir. Demak, siqish harom emas, balki spirtli ichimlik ishlab chiqarish uchun siqish harom. Shunday ekan, siqish uning uchun siqiladigan narsaning hukmini oladi va taqiq siqishga, ya'ni siqish jarayoniga tegishli bo'ladi, bu esa siqish uchun ishlatiladigan asboblarga ham tegishli bo'ladi. Shuning uchun ishlab chiqarish o'zi ishlab chiqaradigan mahsulotning hukmini oladi, zavod esa o'zi ishlab chiqaradigan mahsulotning hukmini oladi, va bu zavod o'zi ishlab chiqaradigan narsaning hukmini olishining dalilidir, ya'ni bu hukmning dalilidir, chunki zavodning taqiqlanishi o'zi ishlab chiqaradigan mahsulotning taqiqlanishidan kelib chiqqan. Rivoyat zavodlarning jamoat mulki ekanligining dalili emas; u faqat zavodning o'zi ishlab chiqaradigan mahsulotning hukmini olishining dalilidir. Bu ikkinchi qism uchun dalildir; ya'ni rivoyatdan chiqarilgan hukm bu qism uchun dalildir.
“Allah (swt) has cursed wine, its drinker, its server, its seller, its buyer, its presser, the one for whom it is pressed, the one who conveys it, and the one to whom it is conveyed.”, and so the prohibition of pressing wine is not a prohibition of pressing itself, but rather it is a prohibition of pressing wine specifically. Therefore, pressing is not forbidden (Haram), but rather it is the pressing to produce alcohol which is forbidden. So pressing is forbidden due to the forbiddance of alcohol, and so it took the rule of the thing that it was being pressed for, and so the prohibition applies to pressing, or in other words, the process of pressing, and so it applies to the instruments used for pressing. Therefore, the production takes the rule of the product that it is producing, and the factory takes the rule of the product that it manufactures, and this is the evidence that the factory takes the rule of what it produces, in other words, it is the evidence for this rule, since the forbiddance of the factory came from the forbiddance of the product that it produces. The narration is not evidence that factories are public property; rather it is only evidence for the factory taking the rule of the product that it produces. This is the evidence for the second part; in other words, the rule deduced from the narration is the evidence for this part.