In repentance

For the first, it is possible for something to arise in itself that removes the light from him, which, when combined with the light of faith, realizes the matters that faith obliges him to say, and he is the believer who has no evidence and looks at things on his own, and doubt enters into him from those who doubt him, for his nature gives consideration to the evidence except that he did not look, so if he is alerted, he is alerted. If the taste does not rush to him, otherwise it will be feared for him. The other believer is like a body whose structure has become straight, the mechanisms of its powers have become straight, and the layers of its eyes have been installed, except that unless the spirit is breathed into it, there is no light for its eyes. If a person is in this state of obscurity, then the spirit of faith is breathed into him, then his eyes see things with the light of faith. It is not possible for him to introduce doubts into him completely, for he has no light in hi

[ Intelligent instinct and obliterated instinct ]

The intelligent nature that accepts consideration of intelligible things is one of the greatest obstacles to the attainment of what should happen from divine knowledge, and the obliterated nature is the midwife whose eyes have no light from themselves except from the light of faith, so his nature does not allow consideration of matters of all kinds. What is supported by what we have said is the hadith of the wells of palm trees. And the hadith of his coming down with his companions on the day of Badr and his saying, “I do not know what will be done to me or to you, if I follow only what is revealed to me,” meaning I have no knowledge and do not consider anything other than what is revealed to me. This is a chapter that only the people of God know, and the status of the prophets in what they take from the unseen by the path of faith from the angels is the status of the believers with Whatever they take from the prophets, the prophets are believers in what the spirit gives them, and

[ The believer’s share of the apparent, the hidden, the first and the last ]

So the believer’s share is that which is from the outward aspect what was thrown to him, and his share from the inner aspect is what he concealed, and his share from the first is knowledge of the divine thoughts, and his share from the latter is the connection of the rest of the thoughts with the divine thoughts, which is the fulfillment of His saying, and He is All-Knowing .

( Question ninety-seven )

What is the fate of the believers when he says, “Everything is perishing except His Face?”

The answer: The believer is the one we mentioned, the one whose vision has no light except the light of faith. For him, everything is perishing due to his being, the being of his stability and the being of his existence, except his face, the face of the thing. His essence, reality, and face are His appearance, that is, His appearance in objects. As for the objectivity of His essence, it is necessarily the exception. As for His face in appearance, some of our companions include it in everything that is destroyed, and some of our companions do not include it there. As for the one who brings it into destruction, it is considered a special appearance. As for the one who does not include it in destruction. Consider that it is not devoid of some appearance

[ Applying the word objectivity to the essence of the right ]

As for us, we do not confirm the application of the word “objectivity” to the essence of the truth, because it was not mentioned and we were not addressed with it, and etiquette is more appropriate, and it is better for it to have its face here, like the first application, meaning the appearance, not its identity. If we mean it and call it a thing in the event of its destruction, then everything is described as perishing, because the predicate of the subject, which is everything, is perishing, that is, everything to which the name of a thing is given is perishing, and if it is a manifestation, then in the case of it being a manifestation in something itself, which is perishing, then it is perishing. In the event that it is characterized by existence as it is perishing, in the event that it is characterized by perishing, which is non-existence .

[ The nothingness of the possible is subjective ]

The nothingness of the possible is intrinsic, that is, from the reality of its essence that it is non-existent, and if things require things for themselves, it is impossible for them to disappear, for it is impossible for the ruling of nothingness to disappear from this possible entity, whether it is characterized by existence or not, for what is characterized by existence is not the essence of the possible, but rather it is what is apparent in the essence of the possible. What is called the possible is a manifestation of the existence of the truth, so everything is destroyed. For this reason, we denied the truth by applying the word “thing” to it, and the exception is a discontinuous exception, such as His saying, “Then all the angels prostrated, all of them together, except Iblis.”

[ Possible before existence by preference ]

Do you not see that when the Real deserved existence for its own sake, non-existence became impossible for it? Similarly, if the possible deserved non-existence for its own sake, its existence is impossible. That is why we made it manifest. We said in the Book of Knowledge that the possible did not deserve non-existence for its own sake, as some people say. Rather, what the possible deserved is that its description of non-existence takes precedence over its description of existence for its own sake. Not the nothingness, and for this reason he accepted existence by preference. Therefore, the nothingness upon which existence is weighted is not the nothingness that precedes its existence, but rather it is the nothingness that has in exchange for its existence in the event of its existence that if existence had not been, nothingness would have been, so that nothingness is the weightage over which existence is weighted in the essence of the possible. This is what is required by rationa

[ Existence in the possible is not the same as the existing ]

As for our doctrine, the possible entity is only possible because it is an appearance unless it accepts the description of existence, so existence is itself. Therefore, existence in the possible is not the same as the existing, but rather it is a state of the essence of the possible through which the possible is called an existent metaphorically, not a reality, because the reality refuses to be