A shared expression can carry more than one established meaning. Its mere occurrence does not make one meaning certain. Taʾwīl selects a meaning through a reasoned preference, but preference should not be confused with indisputable certainty.
Two flawed conclusions arise in the qurūʾ example: applying both possible meanings simultaneously to every case, or claiming that the rejected linguistic sense never existed merely because a jurist preferred another meaning.
A sound explanation separates linguistic possibility, contextual or legal proof, and juristic preference.