And he said: I knew, so he adhered

So he bore witness to his knowledge, and this is the other manifestation. For the manifestation of imagination is gentler than the manifestation of sense in a way that does not come close, and for this reason he is quick to change from one state to another. Just as man’s interior is here, so his exterior will be in the afterlife.

So if the worshiper places his object of worship in such a way that he sees it, it is as if he has sent it down from his heart in the same position as one who sees it with his sight, without there being an image from outside, as there was in the manifestation of a dream, then if this imagination and truth has no limit, God Almighty abides by it, then purifies him with the knowledge of fear, which is the stone of restriction that we mentioned. Boundaries are purified in the heart only through fear of such resemblance and restriction, since there is nothing like it.

This is based on the agreement of the scholars that the stones purify the directors, and they differed except for what we mentioned of the agreement on fluids and solids that remove impurities from the places we mentioned. So who says that every fluid and solid in any place, if it is pure, then it removes the essence of impurity, and I say so, and who says: Absolutely prohibited, except for what was agreed upon regarding water and sterilization, which we have mentioned

Some people forbade that and permitted cleaning oneself with something else that had been purified. A group excluded from that what was flavored and sanctified, such as bread, and it was stated in the bones that it was the food of our brothers among the jinn. A group insisted that one should not clean oneself with something that is used for extravagance, such as gold and rubies. As for their restriction that this is extravagance, it is not With something, if they had explained it with another reasonable matter, it would have been better, but one should look into something like this. If the gold is minted and has the name of God on it, or one of the names unknown to him from the tongue of its owners, for fear that it might be one of the names of God in that tongue, or have an image on it, then he should avoid using stones. It is for this reason, not because it is gold or rubies, and some people limited purification to stones only, and some people permitted cleaning with bones but n

If it is valid to purify oneself from reprehensible morals and ignorance by any thing, it is valid by good character, or by another immoral character, and by honorable knowledge for the honor of what is known, or by knowledge less than that, which has no effect in the place other than purification, then it is permissible to use it to remove this impurity, and this is without reason. Al-Tabari, regarding what he made anomalies in it without the group, and whoever takes care in removing it, it is still with it, it is not removed, and the Sharia is followed, and what the legislator has detailed in that, then it is according to what is understood by the legislator in his jurisprudence in the religion of God, for people’s nature is different in understanding from God, and it is the subject of ijtihad, so it does not remove the essence of impurity. Except for what is most likely to be understood from the intention of the legislator, which is what is preferable, and this applies to t

It is washing, wiping, sprinkling, and pouring, which is pouring water on impurity, as

It was mentioned in the hadith when a Bedouin urinated in the mosque and the people shouted about him, so the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, said, “Do not bind him until he has finished urinating,” the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, commanded. May God bless him and grant him peace. Or he called water for sins and poured it on him.

This is a state that is not called washing, wiping, or dousing. For this reason, we increased pouring, and the scholars did not use this word. They included this verb under washing, so they confined themselves to the word “washing” rather than pouring. We saw that expressing it with the word Pouring is preferable because the narrator mentioned it with the word pouring and did not call it washing

And know that these levels have not differed except due to the difference in impurities in light of this nation, for what is meant is the removal of their essence from the existing, specific or imagined entity. So with anything that the illusion or the eye is removed from these attributes were used to remove it, and the use of the more general ones includes the specific ones, so it dispenses with the use of the specific ones, if you understand. Like washing, it is the most comprehensive of them, so it does not need to do anything, and the lawful one has poured, washed, wiped, and sprinkled, which is spraying, and there have been reports about all of that, based on books of jurisprudence .

If we find a reprehensible character, if we use it, it removes all the reprehensible morals. We use it, then it is like washing that covers all the qualities that remove certain impurities and their imaginings, and it is the first and easiest. If that is not possible, then we look at every reprehensible character and look at the characteristic that removes its essence and use it to remove that. Creation and nothing else is the link to this chapter .