This is what strengthens the Mu’tazila doctrine that what is ugly is ugly for itself and what is good is good for itself and that the correct realization is only for the one who perceived the forbidden drink as wine. If it were not that it was ugly for himself, then this revelation would not have been valid for its owner, and if his action was an eye, the discourse being related to prohibition and ugliness, that food would not have appeared to be pork. Whatever action occurred on the part of the accountable person, God revealed to him his image and that it was ugly, so that he would not go to eat it. This in itself is imagined for someone who perceives it as food as it normally is, but this person has more right in the Sharia, so he knows definitely that the one who sees it as food as he normally is has been prevented from the reality of the Sharia’s ruling on it as ugly, even if If the thing is ugly based on its positive ugliness, the legislator’s statement is not true in reporti