In the form of the possible, and this is why we reproached us in saying that God should not be said that it is permissible for Him to do such-and-such and it is permissible for Him not to do it, and we say that it is permissible for this possibility to be and it is permissible for it not to be, just as if compulsion appears on the part of the servant, it only appears from him in a way of truth, not by himself. Because he is not a slave except by performing the rituals of his master while he is deprived of the act authentically, it must appear in the form of truth if it appears through his servitude, which is doing what he is assigned to do. Therefore, the truth did not say that it is the identity of the thing, but rather said that it is the identity of the servant, so we know that the rule of the servant is the rule of the thing. So the voluntary ruling is more deserving of the servant if it were not for the smells of lordship in it, and the ruling of the obligation is more deserv