Some of the words are from the simile, so we say that they did not stand with the apparent meaning, for the apparent meaning did not come with the simile, because the proverb and the adjective kaf are not in the apparent meaning. So that error in the issue is only from the interpretation and the pronunciation, if it is in this relationship with the clear expression that does not bear interpretation, then if you associate it with it, it is in the status of a dead person. From the living, so when we did not find anything from the law preventing us from making use of it, we remained on the original, which is the Almighty’s saying, “He created for you all that is on the earth, and He did not separate the pure from the impure,” so we do not judge it to be pure. And if we benefit from it, not if it is tanned, then it is pure.

Considering that the wording coming from the law is possible, we rule by its apparent meaning and we are not certain that that is what is intended. If we happen to find another text in that ruling that removes the possibility given by that other wording, that first wording is purified of that possibility, and he has this second predicate, like the tanner for this. So we combined the purity of the skin in and of itself, which is that it was transformed by the second predicate into one of its conclusive possibilities, and we benefited from it just as we had benefited from it before it was pure, in terms of our benefiting from it, not in terms of our benefiting from it in a specific way, for that predicate may have diverted it from the apparent meaning that we were using. There is another matter in it that is possible, which is why we said in terms of what is beneficial from it, not in terms of what is beneficial from it in a specific way, since others do not see benefit from it at a

The scholars, may God be pleased with them, differed regarding the blood of marine animals and a small amount of blood of wild animals. Some say that fish blood is pure, some say that it is impure according to the principle of blood, some say that a little bit of blood and a lot of blood are the same in ruling, and some say that a little bit is forgiven. < /p >

What I am referring to is that the prohibition applies to all blood spilled from any animal, and it is forbidden to eat it. As for it being impurity, I do not rule that forbidden things are impure unless the law stipulates their impurity in general or depends on the amount that stipulates their impurity, and the text is not a text of avoidance in every case, so it is lacking. There must be a Qur’anah, so every forbidden thing is impure, and if we avoid it, we do not avoid it because of its impurity. The fact that it is impurity is a legal ruling, and it may be that he is not mentally filthy or impure.

Judging a thing that requires it for itself does not require the existence of its essence, nor is it necessary to estimate the existence of its essence. So, whether the eye does not exist or exists, the ruling on it is the same, whether it is pure or not, it does not matter whether it is in the knowledge of God or whether it exists in God. The same thing does not see what is possible. The probable has preferred its existence over its nonexistence or its nonexistence over its existence. However, he still does not adhere to the rule of possibility for him, and that possibility is obligatory for him in and of itself, just as referring to the impossible is obligatory for him in and of itself, just as the obligation for the obligatory is obligatory for him in and of itself, so the rationale for obligation applies to what is obligatory for himself. Likewise The ruling on the possible and the impossible does not change, even if the ranks differ.

The people of knowledge differed regarding the urine and droppings of all animals, with the exception of humans, with the exception of infant urine. Whoever says that they are all impure, whoever says that they are completely pure, and whoever says that their ruling is the same as their meat, and whatever of them is permissible to eat, his urine and droppings are pure. And whatever of it is forbidden to eat, its urine and dung are unclean, and whatever of it is meat is distasteful to eat, its urine and dung are distasteful.

Purity in things is a principle, and impurity is an incidental matter, so we are with the principle unless that incident occurs, and this is our doctrine. The servant is essentially pure in his servitude because he was created on the nature, which is acknowledgment of servitude to the Lord, Glory be to Him. God Almighty said, “And when your Lord took from the children of Adam from their backs their offspring.” And let them bear witness against themselves. Am I not your Lord? They said, Yes.

The Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, said in this verse that when God created Adam, He seized his back and extracted from him something like an atom, so they made them bear witness against themselves .

Likewise, knowledge is pure in its attachment to its knowledge, so no matter how much the truth appears to be restricted in a matter and knowledge, we do not stop at it. Likewise, life itself is pure and purifying, and everything other than God is alive, so everything other than God is essentially pure. In His Holy Name, the entire world was created .

But we said that everything other than God is alive, for there is nothing, even though nothing denies the indefinite things, except that it glorifies the praise of God, and praise cannot come except from a living person, even if God has taken our hearing from the glorification of inanimate objects, plants, and animals that do not understand, just as He has taken our sight from Realizing the life of inanimate objects and plants, except for those for whom God broke the habit, such as the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, and those of his companions who were present when God made them glorify the pebbles, but they did not break.