A single spirit governs multiple bodies if it has the power to do so, and this in this world is for the guardian by breaking the custom, and in the afterlife the development of man gives that. Qadib al-Ban was one of those who had this power, and he is the one with the Egyptian Nun .

Just as the one spirit governs all the other parts of the body, such as the hand, foot, hearing, sight, and so on, just as the soul is held accountable for the actions of the limbs for what happens to them, likewise the many bodies that are controlled by a single spirit. Anything that occurs from them is questioned by that one spirit, even if it is the same as what happens to it. This body of action is the same as what occurs in the other body, so what necessitates censure for the action of one of the two bodies necessitates it for the action of the other, even if it is similar .

And the schools of thought divided on this point regarding what requires one soul to repeat the action with multiple bodies, similar to the multiplicity of time in relation to the gatherings in Ramadan, so know that

The one who is deprived of acts of witnessing and revealing is obstructed and has nothing, so nothing is binding on him. If he is withheld from these witnesses and proves that through knowledge after the witnesses, such as imagining the sensed after what he had perceived by sense, then the legal rulings bind him without a doubt and it is not impossible. The ruling regarding his right is the presence of knowledge and the absence of observation, for he sees the truth as his mover and abode. Likewise, if his status is higher than this, which is for the truth to be his hearing and sight upon revelation and witnesses, then among us are those who say his ruling is the ruling of the possessor of knowledge, for God has made it obligatory upon Himself and this does not fall under the definition of duty. Whoever attaches it to witnessing the actions of God Almighty, as we have presented, is not bound by the ruling, just as it was not bound to him there. Sometimes the name of the Truth i

All those who made it obligatory for these and similar actions to break the fast differed. Some of them said that he had to make up for it, and some of them said that he had to make up for it and make up for it, and so on. Everyone disagreed about it. What I have come to from what we have mentioned is that taking it as a pretext is making up for what is known, and we have already considered what we mentioned of these actions, so who He broke his fast on a day on which it is permissible for him to break his fast, just as a woman breaks her fast before she menstruates, then she menstruates on that day. The sick person and the traveler break the fast before sickness and before travelling, then he falls ill on that day or travels. Our doctrine is that he must make up for it and there is no expiation. Rather, we made it obligatory for him to make up for it because she menstruated, fell ill, or travelled. As for its ruling on sin, The ruling on someone who deliberately breaks the fa

In this act there is a scent of revelation that is for souls and an exploration of the unseen from where one does not feel, and its reason is that it is from the world of the unseen, and if the physical creation is its mother, then the divine spirit is its father, so it has access from behind a thin veil, such that if the person performing this act enters the path The people of God hastened to reveal it due to his preparation and qualification for it. Such a thing is not called an agreement, since for us the matter of the agreement is not valid, because the whole matter belongs to God, and God does not create anything by agreement, but rather He speaks it out of sound knowledge, will, and unseen decree and destiny, so what exists must exist in His knowledge. < /p >

What remains is whether or not it relates to the one upon whom such a divine act appears to be a sin. In our view, the sin is related to it, even if he had the correct knowledge that on a day on which it is permissible for him to break the fast and he was not confused about the reason, then it is not prescribed for him to break the fast except with the circumstance in which he is called a menstruating woman or Sick or traveling, in the apparent tongue, this is the doctrine of investigators from among the people of God, and it is our doctrine in such an issue, and the judgment regarding its owner belongs to God, if He wills, He will pardon, and if He wills, He will take grace and justice, unless his situation is among those who know what crimes will occur from him by witnessing and uncovering, and who has knowledge of what is destined for him to know. He is not held accountable for that before God, and if it does not appear, then he should not hasten and have no right to act on tha