As for the internal ruling in what we mentioned in this chapter )

It is water that is mixed with impurity and does not change any of its attributes. It is divine knowledge that requires separation from human attributes. If it is mixed with knowledge of the attributes that give the illusion of a connection between Him and His creation, then a kind of confusion occurs in the soul of the world, so that amount of knowledge is consumed by the attributes that share in it. The knowledge that requires exaltation from the point of view of the evidence of reason, and there is nothing like Him in the evidence of hearing, so knowledge of God remains on its basis of purity of exaltation in mind and law, despite the fact that we describe Him with such qualities that give the illusion of resemblance, for His descriptions, the Almighty, have not been changed, so all of this is proven to Him with verification, the like of which is nothing.

_

[ Much evidence and suspicion surrounding one of them ]

As for the ruling on too little and too much in that matter, and the differences between people regarding impurity, if the water is little, then too little or too much water is pure, it is due to the evidence obtained by the one who knows God. If he is the owner of one piece of evidence and it occurs to him in his knowledge of the truth being exalted in any way, then any doubt affecting his evidence will be removed. That it is knowledge is also removed from the fact that this water is pure and purifying, and if it has a lot of evidence for one meaning, then doubt is consumed in it, because if it was cast in one of the pieces of evidence, he did not pay attention to it and relied on the rest of his evidence, so this suspicion did not affect his knowledge, but rather it affected specific evidence, not all of his evidence. The meaning of abundant water in which impurity does not change its ruling .

[ Knowledge is subject to suspicion at the time it was conceived. ]

As for the one who says that the punishment in this matter is left out and that water corrupts him, he considers the singularity of the eye and not the singularity of the evidence. He says that knowledge raises this suspicion in the time when he conceived it, and time is accurate. Perhaps he died in that time and he did not recall all the other evidence due to the shortness of time, so it is corrupted for him, and in this regard. A lot of branching that does not need to be included, and this amount is sufficient for what is required.

( Chapter: Water is mixed with something pure, which is often separated from it when one of its three characteristics is changed. )

As for water that is mixed with something pure, which is often separated from it when it changes one of its three characteristics, it is pure and not purified according to everyone except some imams, for whom it is purified unless the change is due to cooking.

[ Knowledge of God through thought is pure and not purified ]

As for the internal ruling on that, it is that knowledge of God in terms of the mind that he acquired through thought, if it is mixed with a legal description of what the Sharia brought, then that knowledge of God is pure in itself, not purified, because of the attribute of resemblance that is indicated by it, such as their saying regarding the attribute of the speech of God that it is Like a chain on Safwan, and he brought all of the characteristics, and the entire Sharia is clear and acceptable. What he brought was accepted, so the mind was unable to escape from its evidence in denying the likeness, and it surrendered to the Sharia what it brought without interpretation. And whoever sees that it is purified in its original form unless it is cooked, then by cooking he meant the natural thing, which is not to take that description from The legislator who informs about God and takes it from his understanding and consideration by applying an analogy to himself in terms of his abilit

( Chapter on water used in purification )

The scholars of Sharia law differed about it in three schools of thought. Some say that it is not permissible to purify it with it, some say it is permissible to purify it with it, and with it I say, and some say it is disliked to purify it with it, and it is not permissible to perform tayammum in its presence, and a fourth opinion is deviant, which is that it is impure. < /p

[ Does using water remove it from the description of its release? ]

As for the internal ruling on it, know that the reason for this disagreement is that it is not possible for that water to be given the name absolute water, or it is not used. Whoever sees that it is released says that it is permissible to purify it with it, and whoever sees that it has influenced its use by using it, it is not permissible for that or he dislikes it as much. What is strong according to him, and as for the one who said it was impure, it is an unconsidered statement, even if the one who said it was one of those who considered it, and he is Abu Yusuf .

[ Returning monotheism to the essence after using it in the singularity of actions ]

Know that knowledge of the oneness of God is purification in general, so if you use it in the oneness of actions, then after this use you return it to the oneness of the essence. The scholars differed regarding God with a similar difference in the water used. Among the knowers are those who say that this monotheism is not accepted by the truth in terms of itself, so it should not be used anymore. This is in knowledge of the essence, and among the knowers there are those who say it is accepted because we have not established an additional entity, and lineage is not an existential matter, so it affects the unity of the essence, so knowledge of monotheism remains on its basis of purity.

[ Absolute monotheism is appropriate only for God ]

As for those who say that it is impure, then absolute monotheism is appropriate only for God Almighty. If this monotheism is used to refer to the oneness of every person by which he is distinguished from others, then it has the rule of the possible universe. This is the meaning of impurity, so such monotheism should not be attributed to God because Distinguishing Him in His oneness from His creation is not a matter of sharing, just as possible entities are distinguished from each other with regard to their description, which is their oneness.