In repentance

Relatives: You do not see His saying, “And I created you before, and you were not a thing.” And His saying, “Our word is only for a thing. When We intend it, we say to it, ‘Be,’ and it is,” so he denied the objectivity of it and affirmed it for it, and the eye is the eye and nothing else.

( Question twenty-three )

What is the meaning of his saying, peace be upon him, “There was God and there was nothing with Him”?

The answer: “Objectivity” does not accompany it, nor does it refer to it. Likewise, he and nothing is with him, for it is a self-description of him, and objectivity is taken away from him, and objectivity is taken away from him, but he is with things, and things are not with him. Because association is subordinate to knowledge, it teaches us, so it is with us, and we do not know it, so we are not with it .

[ Time, Now, Existence and Possibility ]

Know that the word “kan” gives the temporal restriction, and what is meant here is not that restriction, but rather what is meant by it is the universe, which is existence, so the realization of “kan” is that it is an existential letter, not an action that demands time, and for this reason what the graphic scholars from the theologians say is not mentioned, and it is their saying, and it is now as it was, so this is An addition included in the hadith from those who have no knowledge of the knowledge of kān, especially in this situation, such as: God was Pardoning, Forgiving, and other things that the word kān is associated with. This is why some grammarians called it and its sisters letters that act as verbs, and according to Sibawayh it is an existential letter, and this is what the Arabs understand, and if they act, they act. Actions are not similar to anything in any way that resembles it in all aspects, other than the addition of their saying, “And it is now.” Now is indicativ

[ We should not explain what is not to our taste ]

And know that our words in explaining what was mentioned are only based on the words of the guardian, if he said such a statement or uttered it from the position of his guardianship and not from the position of the rank from which he was sent as a messenger, for if the Messenger said such a statement regarding knowledge of God from his position of specialization, then we have no words. And we should not explain what is not our taste. Rather, our words about it are from the language of the guardianship. We interpret it in the highest manner required by its condition. This is the goal of the guardian in this .

[ Meaning and objectivity ]

There is no doubt that the entity in this predicate is established, and the objectivity is negative, and the objectivity requires multiplicity, and the true existent is the essence of its existence in its relation to itself and its identity, and it is the essence of the object of its appearance, so the entity is the same in the two ratios, so how can the entity be valid when the entity is one, so objectivity here is the essence of the appearance, not its essence, and it is with it because Existence accompanies it, but it does not accompany it, because it does not accompany existence, and how can it accompany it? The necessity of this existence is intrinsic, and there is no sense of what is possible in intrinsic necessity. It requires it, so it is valid if it is with it, and it does not require it, so it is not valid for it to be with it. For this reason, the thing is denied to be with the identity of the Real, because existence is an attribute of glorification and no. Glory to the

( Question twenty-four )

What does the nouns begin with ?

The answer: Giving this word in the way requires two matters. The first is a question about the beginning of the nouns, and the second is a question about what the nouns begin with in terms of traces. These two matters are branches of the meaning of the nouns’ pronunciation, what it is, whether it exists or non-existence or non-existence or non-existence. It is lineage and does not accept the meaning of occurrence or eternity , for only existence or non-existence accepts this description

[ The Self, Names, Lineage and Appearances ]

Know that these divine names that are in our hands are the divine names with which He called Himself from His being a speaker, so we put the explanation with which we used to explain the meaning of those names to these names that are in our hands, and He is called by them in terms of what is apparent and in terms of His speech and His speech is His knowledge and His knowledge itself, so He is called by them. From the point of view of its essence and lineage, it does not make sense for what is described by the singularity of