A polysemous expression does not require all its recognized meanings to operate simultaneously in every context. In the dispute over qurūʾ, one juristic reading uses menstruation and another periods of purity. The real inquiry concerns grounds for preference, not mechanically combining every lexical sense.
Two flawed arguments are common: “Two meanings exist, so both legal consequences must apply together,” and “One meaning is preferred, so the other was never linguistically possible.” The first confuses polysemy with cumulative meaning; the second confuses preference with denial of an alternative.
Correction: Identify established lexical senses, compare contextual and legal indications, and then assess the strength of the selected reading. A reasoned interpretation (muʾawwal) is not automatically equivalent to a fully clarified mufassar.