All aspects, therefore, names are not intelligible except by intelligible attributions, and attributions are intelligible only by intelligible the appearances expressed in the world. Accordingly, attributions occur through the occurrence of appearances, because appearances insofar as they are objects do not occur, and insofar as they are manifestations, they occur, so the ratios are an event, so the names are subordinate to them and there is no existence. It has a reasonable ruling .

If this is proven, then the one who says, “What is the beginning of names” is the one who says, “What is the beginning of lineage?” And ratio is a reasonable matter that does not exist between two people. Either we talk about it in terms of its relation to the first or in terms of what the trace indicates about it, then we look at it in terms of what is called it, not in terms of the indication of its effect. His saying, “What is the beginning of names” means “what is the beginning of names?” Let us say that the first of the names is the One, the One, and it is one compound name that is composed of Baalbek, Ramhormuz, and the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful. We do not mean by that two names, but rather the One, the One, was the first of the names because the name is subject to connotation, which is the scientific one that indicates the essence of the essence, not in terms of the proportion of what is described by it. Like the solid names of things, it is not more specific in

If you say, God is more worthy of priority than the One, the One, because God is described by the One, the One, and is not described by God. We said the meaning of God seeks the world with all that is in it, so it is for Him, like the name of king or authority, so it is a name for a rank, not for an entity, and the One is a subjective name with no illusion of meaning other than the eye, so for this reason it is not It is true that God is the first of the names, so nothing remains except the One, since nothing can be understood from Him except the eye without any combination. If it were called a thing, we would have called it the thing, and He was the first of the names, but it is not mentioned in the divine names, oh thing, and there is no difference between the meaning of the one and the thing, for it is Evidence of a non-composite essence, since if it were composite, the name of the One would not be correct, nor would the thing be truly called Him. There is no likeness to Him or

Despite this, we have decided that names are a relation, so what is the relation of this first name and no trace of it that requires it? We said: As for the relation that necessitated this name for it, it is known, and that is that corresponding to its existence are fixed entities that do not exist except by benefiting from the existence of truth, so its manifestations are in That is the description of existence, and they are objects for their own sake. They are not objects for a reason or a cause, just as the existence of the truth is for its own sake, not for a reason. And just as God Almighty is All-Sufficient in absolute terms, the poverty of these entities in general is due to this necessary All-Sufficient One who is All-Sufficient in Himself for His own sake. And these objects, even if they are of this type, some of them are examples and non-examples that are distinguished by something. And it is not distinguished by something in which participation occurs, so the name of th

If his saying, “What is the beginning of names,” means what the names begin with in terms of traces in these particular objects, then this question asks for two things. The one thing is what begins with it in every specific entity, and the other thing is what begins with it at all in the sentence, and its meaning is what is the first noun whose trace is requested to appear. In these objects, know that that name is Al-Wahhab, especially in the general sense, and in Ain Ain, there is no difference. It is a name brought about by gifts to these objects in terms of their poverty. When the name Mazhar was given to them, and they were devoid of this name, and it was not obligatory for the rich person to make them his manifestations, this attribution required the name Al-Wahhab. That is why we do not make Him, the Almighty, a cause of anything, because the cause seeks its effect just as the effect seeks its cause, and the rich is not characterized by seeking, so it is not valid for it to

So if these entities, which are manifestations, are characterized by the example of the Rich, and they are called “rich,” then the meaning of that entity is “rich” in God, unlike other entities, not that the entity is rich in itself, and so is every noun of transcendence, then it has these names insofar as it is manifestations. If the one named is the tongue of the apparent in it, then it is because it is a god. The relative relative to the Self is closer than the language of appearance. If it is called rich, then the name “appearance” does not go away from it .