According to the value of the food obtained, in terms of the value of an example, an example, and food, eating it is a reason for the continuation of the life of the one nourished by it, because this nourisher destroyed a soul and took away life, so he repaired it and disbelieved that in what would be a reason for not maintaining a life, as if he revived it during the time of its existence by obtaining that nourishment from an example or food

As for fasting, it is a divine attribute, so it is obligatory for this killer to perform it if he does not expiate by reciprocity or feeding. If you refuse, then refrain from being confined so that the hunter who kills the game is not interdicted, so it does not cost him anything. He said, “And what is it?” He said, “Fasting is for me, and I am not described as being restricted, so you wear my attribute and you get it.” In the fever due to quarantine on you, then if you fast, fasting is for me and hunger is for you. In fasting, the hunger for you that is not mine is an expiation, because hunger is one of the causes that remove life from the living, so I am like killing, which is the cause that removes life from the living, and your life is not removed by this hunger because it is hunger, fasting, and fasting. It is one of My attributes and it has no effect on eternal life, which is why the hunger of destruction has not come.

And the Truth, Glory be to Him, is the Creator of things, not their non-existence, because He is an agent, and the agent is the one who does something, for nothing is an object. And if things were removed from one place, they would have existence in another place. For the universe from which coming together and separating does not indicate the absence of entities, for death is a departure, not annihilation. It is a transition from this world to the afterlife, the beginning of which is the barzakh. Since departure is one of the attributes of truth and not death, as God Almighty said: If He wills, He may take you away, O people, and bring others, and He did not say that He will execute you. Therefore, He did not make the hunger of fasting the hunger of destroying the soul, even if it is departure, not death, and that is because death penalty is not valid for this existing person. Because the one who is characterized by existence is the truth that is apparent in the essence of appear

I considered the universe of the one whose will says *** If he directs himself to things, be, then they are

So when I reach my eye, you will be him *** If he has his eye and no other, then I will be

So take as ransom yourselves for knowledge of which you were ignorant *** and look at what is more difficult How can things be made light ?

Knowledge is the most honorable quality attained by human beings*** and the possessor of knowledge is preserved and protected.

If he rises, he rises or departs, he departs with it *** and the situation and wealth are subject to the ruling on the disappearance of it.

and not This nazim is something other than him. *** What I said is that he is the one who i

Our doctrine has been presented that the proverb is established, and we have explained what the proverb is. Some of them said, “The hunting is performed,” and some people said, “The proverb is established,” and this is our opinion. We disagreed with them regarding the proverb, what it is. Likewise, they differed in the estimation of fasting with food, and our doctrine regarding it was presented. A group said, “For every mudd, a day,” and some people said, “For every mudd.” I owe a day

There was a difference of opinion, and it was said that there is a punishment for it, and it was said that there is nothing wrong with it, and with that I say that killing by mistake is the killing of God, and there is no judgment on God, because according to God, killing is intended, and according to us, it is a mistake because of the appearance of killing at our hands and the lack of intent in it, so the killed person is intentional, that is, intentional. By killing, killing is not intended. Therefore, there is a difference of opinion regarding the two rulings on it. Whoever takes into account that he killed him due to his apparent appearance in the appearance of the killer does not necessitate the punishment, because that eye in which he appeared gave him the ruling that there is no punishment for him because he intended to kill. Whoever takes into account that he is the killer from behind the veil of the apparent universe, but what caused him? And it appears in the highest