As evidence and proof, it necessarily results that the occurrence of the world has a cause, so the cause is the occurrence and the ruling is the cause, so the ruling is more general than the cause. It is a condition of this knowledge that the ruling be more general than the cause or equal to it. If this is not the case, then this is not true in rational matters. As for its basis in legal matters, if you want to know For example, wine is forbidden in this way, so you say that every intoxicant is forbidden, and wine is an intoxicant, so it is forbidden, and you consider in that what you considered in rational matters, as I presented to you, so the ruling is prohibition and the reason is intoxication, so the ruling is more general than the reason that necessitates the prohibition, as the prohibition may have a reason other than intoxication in another matter, such as the prohibition in usurpation. And theft and felony, and all of that is an explanation for the existence of the prohibition in the forbidden, so this specific aspect is true. It has become clear to you, by approximation, the balance of meanings, and that the results only appeared by the combination that is in the two premises, which are like parents in sense, and that the two premises are composed of three, or what is in the same ruling as three, so the sentence may have the meaning of one. In the addition and the condition, no result appeared except from the individuality, since if the pre-emption were and the One was not accompanied by a special companion, then it would not be valid for anything to exist from the pre-emption at all, so the partner in the existence of the world was invalidated, and the action was confirmed for the One, and that by His presence the existents appeared from the existents.