Contextual generality (al-iṭlāq al-maqāmī) is a modern topic that has been addressed by recent scholars in the discussion of doubt about the devotional nature of a duty or its means without defining its reality, conditions of application, and its differences from verbal generality (al-iṭlāq al-lafẓī). It is worthy of being studied analytically as an independent rule that clarifies its hidden aspects through contemplation of the words of the jurists when they relied on it to derive some rulings. Exposure to contextual generality, although it originated in the words of the scholars of ʿilm al-ʿuṣūl (principles of Islamic jurisprudence) in the context of doubt about the devotional nature of an act and its means to deny the interference of the possibility of a qualification such as the intention of seeking nearness to God in achieving the purpose of the legislator from his command, we see that in the course of jurisprudential discussions, it was used to deny a doubtful part of worship or a possible condition for the validity of a transaction or to reject an independent duty in the side of independent duties or to refine the subject of rulings and expand the scope of jurisprudential rules. It was even relied upon to determine the channels of some principles such as istiṣhāb (presumption of continuity). It is possible that the jurists may rely on it when they base the obligation on definitive and perceptible evidence when considering contingency and adequacy in what is obligated. As for the conditions for applying contextual generality, it depends on ascertaining the premises of wisdom as in verbal generality. The difference between the two generalities is that the legislator is in the position of clarification in contextual generality, and this is not proven except through a special sign and a valid argument (ḥujja). In order to ascertain it, it is not possible to rely on a rational principle such as the principality of clarification contrary to verbal generality. The result of the application of verbal generality is always the rejection of a qualification in the subject of the ruling and consequently the expansion of the ruling. However, the result of the application of contextual generality is sometimes the establishment of a qualification according to the ruling of custom and sometimes the denial of the qualification and the expansion of the scope of the ruling.