In repentance

Air which

The Messenger of God, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him, confirmed this description for the Almighty when he was asked, “Where was our Lord before He created creation?” He said, “May God’s prayers and peace be upon him, ‘He was in a blind, with air above it and air beneath it. ’” p>

So it is fair for His description of things to be based on the desires, because when He expressed that existence by what is a name for the clouds, the place of the description of the desires, He denied that there is air above that cloud or under it air, so He has permanent abiding, neither on air nor in air, for the question occurred with the name Lord and its meaning. The fixed one is said to be the Lord of the place if he resides in it and remains firm, so the answer matches

[ Blindness is like existence: ancient in the ancient, occurring in the newly created ]

And the Truth did not describe Himself in His creatures except by saying, “He manages the matter and details the verses.” And He said, “This is how We explain the verses.” So imagine one who has no understanding, the conditions changing upon him, and he is exalted and sanctified above change. Rather, states are variable, as long as he changes them, for he is the ruler and there is no judgment upon him, so the lawgiver came with the attribute of stability that It does not accept change, so its verses are not changed by the hand of desires, because its blindness does not accept desires, and that blindness is the matter that we mentioned that it is in the ancient, ancient, and in the newly created, and it is like your saying, or the same as your saying about existence. If you attribute it to the truth, you say it is ancient, and if you attribute it to creation, you say it is created, then blindness in terms of

[ Old speech and modern remembrance ]

God Almighty said in His eternal and eternal words: “Whatever remembrance comes to them from their Lord is innovated,” so He described it as having occurred, because it was revealed to an innovator, because it occurred with him what he did not know, so it is innovating with him, without a doubt or doubt. Is it innovated in itself, or is it not innovated? So if we say about it that it is. The attribute of Truth that His Majesty deserves, we say, is ancient without a doubt, for He is exalted that the attributes that occur in Him should exist, so the words of Truth are ancient in themselves, ancient in relation to Him, and also new, as He said, according to the one to whom it was revealed. Likewise, it is also one of the aspects of His antiquity that it is attributed to occurrence in view of the one to whom it was revealed, for He is also the one who made it obligatory. It has the quality of antiquity, since if creation were removed from the created thing, the ratio of antiquity woul

( Question thirty-two )

How is the attribute of quantities ?

The answer: Quantities are the intrinsic attributes of things, so they do not have an attribute. They are the limits that prevent someone who is characterized by them from being an attribute of others. I have a look at the definition of the definition.

[ The three levels of subjective, formal, verbal boundaries ]

If, by saying “the attribute of quantities,” he means prohibition and makes it an attribute in the sense that you express it with a matter that is itself after knowing this, then say that this is an attribute of magnitude, and if you want the truth, then there is no attribute of quantities because a thing is not an attribute of itself. If you say, then psychological attributes are not something that is additional to something. The essence, we said, “You are right.” He said, “So, if I have described the thing by itself, I said, ‘If it is not composed, then the description in it is the same as giving a word that is an explanation of another word for the listener through which the understanding occurs to him. And if the thing is composed, then that is a description of the whole, and the ruling on the thing from being a whole is different from its ruling from Because it is not a sum, then you have only mentioned the individuals of that intelligible sum of this assembly, something that

( Question thirty-three )

What is the reason for the knowledge of predestination that was hidden from the Messengers and those below them?

The answer to the question is omitted, which is to say: What is the reason for the concealment of the knowledge of predestination that was withheld from the Messengers and those below them ?

[ The knowledge of destiny is not known, but he may know its secret and its control over creation .]

If this man was saying that the best of human beings are superior to the best of angels, then it is as if he had said that the best of angels is better than the best of human beings, then it is as if he said that the best of angels is better than the best of human beings, then his saying, “Below them, it is not necessary that whoever is better than the messengers is excluded from the knowledge of destiny” may be possible. According to him, there must be someone higher up who knows that, so the answer to what the matter requires remains within himself. Is there anyone who knows the knowledge of destiny or not? We said no, but he may know its secret and its control over creation. He informed us of it, so we taught it, praise be to God, and that the manifestations of truth in the concrete things of the possible expressed by the world are < /p>