In knowing the supererogatory acts at all

An analogy is similar if it is clear and undoubted, and with us, even if we do not say it in my case, then I allow the ruling on it to the one whose diligence led him to prove it who made a mistake or was correct in that, for the legislator has proven the ruling of the diligent person, even if he made a mistake and that it was unjust. If not, the diligent person relied on evidence in Proof of analogy from the book, the Sunnah, consensus, or from any source thereof would not be permissible for him to rule by it. Rather, perhaps in the ruling of consideration according to the fair person, the clear analogy is stronger in indicating the ruling than the authentic narration of a single person. We only take it in good faith with its proofs and do not recommend it in knowledge to God. Sharia prohibits us from giving praise to God to anyone, and let us say, “I think he is such-and-such,” and I think he is such-and-such.

[ Clear analogy and correct rational consideration ]

The clear analogy involves us with correct, rational consideration, and we have proven with rational consideration that we are commanded by the Sharia in His saying, “Have they not looked into the kingdom of the heavens and the earth?” or “Have they not contemplated what is in their companion of Paradise?” And in the Qur’an there are many such things. The law has considered the rule of rational consideration in proving the existence of God or not, and it is the greatest pillar. Then he considered it in his monotheism in his divinity, so he assigned us to consider that there is no god but God with our minds, then we looked with rational evidence for the rulings required of this god, then we looked with the rational consideration that he commanded us to do in believing what this Messenger brought from him, since he was a human. Like us, we looked with reason at His verses and what He established as evidence of its truth, so we confirmed it. These are all foundations. If one of them

[ A mistake made by those who prove the analogy and the diligent scholars in the branches is an offense to the street .]

Anyone who, in my view, makes a proven analogy error in principle, or makes a mistake as a diligent scholar, whether in a branch or in a principle, has misbehaved with the legislator, as he has proven his ruling, and the legislator does not prove falsehood, so it must be true, and the error should be attributed to that in proportion to the fact that he erred in the evidence of the dissenter, which was not correct when The diligent opinion is that this is evidence, and the one who is mistaken in the Sharia is one, not one in particular, so it is necessary to take what he says, and from what he says is proof of analogy. The legislator has commanded us to take it, and if he is wrong in the matter itself, then you may worship him by it, for the legislator has the right to worship as his servants want, and this is a method that is unique to us in our knowledge, although I do not We say by analogy based on our consideration, and we say by analogy based on the one whose diligence led him

[ The arrangement of the chapters of conquests is not by choice or by thought, but by inspiration .]

Then we explain in this chapter what is related to the principles of rulings according to Islamic scholars, as we learned about acts of worship. It would have been preferable to introduce this chapter at the beginning of acts of worship before embarking on them, but this is how it happened. We did not intend this arrangement out of choice, and if it was from an intellectual perspective, this would not have been its place in the book. The order of wisdom is similar to the verse of His saying: “Be careful of the prayers” and the middle prayer between the verses of divorce, marriage, and the waiting period for death, before and after it, so it appears that this is not its place, and God made that its place because of His knowledge of what is appropriate in things. For the wise is the one who does what is appropriate for what is appropriate, as it is appropriate, even if we are ignorant of the meaning. This should be the case, for God Almighty arranged this arrangement for us, so we l

[ The two verses or two reports conflict ]

If two verses or two authentic reports contradict each other and it is possible to combine them and use them together, then we do not deviate from using them. If it is not possible to use them together, such that there is an exception in one of them, then the one in which there is an exception must be taken, and if there is an addition in one of them, then the addition is taken and it is acted upon. If nothing is found, From that, and they contradict each other in all aspects, then one should look at the history and take the later one. If there is ignorance of the history and difficulty in knowing it, then one should look at the one that is closest to removing the embarrassment in religion and act upon it because it is supported by what

( made )

There is no hardship for you in religion, and the religion of God is ease.

And God desires ease for you and does not desire hardship for you. And whatever I have commanded you to do, do of it what you are able, and whatever I have forbidden you to do, leave it.

If they are equal in removing the burden, then they will not be forfeited. You have the choice to act with whichever of the two reports or the two verses you wish .

[ Contradiction of a single authentic verse and report and ignorance of history ]

If a verse and a narration that is true in all respects, such as single narrations, and ignorance of the history, conflict, we take the verse and leave the narration, for the verse is definite and the narration of a single person is presumed, so