He did it according to the law, by saying that he should not be attributed to him unless he attributed it to himself. This is the meaning of my words according to the law, not that it is forbidden by God from everything that we have mentioned that he forbids according to the law. This is all imaginary talk, and it is not possible to get rid of it through validity or corruption except after a great length of time.

This we have mentioned is a method of It is prohibited. As for those scholars who permitted asking about him with these requirements, they are the people of Sharia law among them, and the reason for their permitting of that is if they say, “What is the Sharia’s prohibition on us, we have made it obligatory for us to engage in it, we also obediently delve into it, and whatever prohibition or obligation is not mentioned in it, it is well-being. If we wish, we may speak about it, and if we wish, we may remain silent.” And He, Glory be to Him, did not forbid Pharaoh, through the tongue of Moses, peace be upon him, from asking him by saying, “And what is the Lord of the worlds?” Rather, he answered in a manner befitting an answer on the authority of that sublime entity, even if the response did not match the question, then that is due to the convention of those who agreed that he would only ask about the complex essence, and he agreed on The answer with the effect is not an answer to the one who asked by what, and this term does not bind the opponent, so it does not prevent this question from being asked in this form to him, since the words are not asked for themselves, but rather they are asked for what they indicate from the meanings that were given to them, so they are by virtue of the situation, and each group does not put it in relation to what it put it . p