Bodies about which there is no doubt, and the revealer sees in his wakefulness what the sleeper sees in his sleep, and the dead person after his death, just as he sees in the afterlife images of deeds weighed despite their being symptoms, and he sees death as a ram ripe for slaughter, and death is a ratio separated from a meeting, so Glory be to Him who is ignorant. He does not know, and he knows, so he is ignorant. There is no god but He, the Mighty, the Wise .

And among the people are those who perceive this imaginary with the eye of the senses, and among the people are those who perceive it with the eye of the imagination, and I mean in the state of wakefulness, and as for sleep, then certainly with the eye of the imagination. If a person wants to differentiate in his state of wakefulness where he was in this world or on the Day of Resurrection, then he should look at the imaginary and restrict it with his sight, if there is a disagreement over it. The universes of what is being viewed due to its difference in formations, and he does not deny that it is that in itself, and he is not restricted by looking at the difference in formations in it, like one looking at a chameleon in the different colors on it. That is the eye of imagination, without a doubt, what is the eye of sense, so imagination is perceived with the eye of imagination, not with the eye of sense, and few of those who claim to discover this are aware of this. If the fiery

Then the Lawgiver, who is the Truthful One, named this door, which is the Barzakh Presence to which we move after death, and in which we witness our souls with the pictures and the nooks, and the pictures here are plural of sura with the saad, so he blows on the pictures and taps on the nook, and it is the same thing, and the names differed over it due to the differences in conditions and attributes, and the attributes differed, so the names differed, so they became His names are like he is confused about them out of his habit, he recites the facts and does not throw anything out of them, for he does not realize that the naqq is the origin in the existence of the noun naqur or the naqqur is the origin in the existence of the noun al-naqr, such as the grammarian’s question: is the verb derived from the infinitive or the infinitive derived from the verb? Then he differed from the grammarian’s issue with something. Another thing so that it is not similar to the grammarian’s issue of