Knowledge does not change by changing the known, but attachment changes, and attachment is relative to a known thing, an example of which is the attachment of knowledge that Zaid will come to be, and so he was, so knowledge is attached to his being an instantaneous being, and the attachment of knowledge is removed by the resumption of his being, and a change in attachment does not necessitate a change in knowledge, and likewise a change in the audible and visible does not necessitate a change in vision. And hearing

It is proven that knowledge does not change, so the known also does not change, for the known knowledge is only a ratio of two known and verified things. The body is known and never changes, and the standing is known and does not change, and the ratio of the standing to the body is the information to which the change is due, and the ratio also does not change, and this personal ratio also cannot be for anyone other than This person does not change, and nothing is known at all except these four, which are the three things that are established: the ratio, the ascribed, the ascribed to him, and the personal ascription. If it is said that we only attached change to the ascribed to him because we saw it in one state and then saw it in another state, we say, “When you looked at what was attributed to a matter, you did not look at it from the same perspective.” Its reality, its reality is unchangeable, nor in terms of what is attributed to it, for that is a reality that does not change e

Nothing of conceptual knowledge is acquired through intellectual consideration. Acquired knowledge is nothing but the ratio of a conceptual knowledge to a conceptual knowledge, and the absolute relationship is also from conceptual knowledge. If you attribute acquisition to conceptual knowledge, this is nothing but the fact that you hear an expression that a certain sect has agreed upon for the meaning of what it knows. Everyone, but not everyone knows that that word refers to him, so he asks about the meaning to which this word was given, i.e. what meaning it is, and the person in question determines it for him according to what he knows. If the questioner does not have knowledge of that meaning in terms of its meaning and the significance by which he arrived at knowing what that person meant by that. The terminology for that meaning is what came before it and it is not known what it says, so all the meanings must be concentrated in the soul and then revealed to it with patience,

Describing knowledge as encompassing information stipulates its finiteness, and finiteness in it is impossible, so encompassing is impossible, but it is said that knowledge encompasses the truth of every known thing, otherwise it is not known by means of encompassing, for whoever knows a matter from one aspect but not from all aspects, then he does not encompass it

Seeing insight is a science, and seeing sight is a path to attaining knowledge, so the fact that God is All-Hearing and All-Seeing is a detailed connection, so they are two rulings on knowledge, and the duality occurred for the connected, which is the hearing and the seeing

The Ash'aris indicated the occurrence of everything other than God by the occurrence of prejudices and the occurrence of their symptoms, and this is not correct until they establish evidence for restricting everything other than God Almighty to what they mentioned, and we accept the occurrence of what they mentioned as occurring .

Al-Ashari’s meaning regarding the first possible thing is that it is permissible to precede it over the time of its existence and to be behind it, and for him time in this matter is decreed and not existing, so specificity is evidence of specification, so this is an invalid indication of the lack of time, so it is invalid for this to be evidence. If he said the ratio of possible things to existence or the ratio of existence to possible things in proportion. One in terms of what it is in relation, not in terms of what is possible. The specification of some possible things to exist without other possible things is evidence that they have a special purpose. This is the same as the occurrence of everything other than God .

The statement of the one who said that time is an imaginary period interrupted by the movement of the astronomy is a departure from the statement because what is imagined does not have a verified existence, and they deny that the Ash’aris estimate time in the first possibility, so the movements of the astronomy are interrupted in nothing. If the other says that time is the movement of the astronomy and the astronomy is biased, the movement is only interrupted. In bias

I was astonished by the two large groups, the Ash'ari and the anthropomorphic, in their mistake in the common word, how they made it a simile, and the simile can only be made by using the proverbial word, or a sufficient adjective between the two matters on the tongue, and this is very present in everything they made it a simile of a verse or a predicate. Then the Ash'ari imagined that when they interpreted it, it had It came out of the simile, and it did not depart from it, except that it moved from the simile with bodies to the simile with the new meanings that separate from the old attributes in reality and definition, etc.