Accordingly, in the world of testimony, if he had been in the time of legislation, as it was in the time of Moses, then the rule would have appeared from this guardian, just as it appeared from Al-Khidr, without the mediation of a king, but rather from the presence of proximity. The Messenger and the Prophet had the presence of proximity similar to this, and he does not have legislation from it, but rather legislation does not come to him, not through the mediation of kingship. The spirit and what remains unless the later prophet obtained from the law of the earlier one what was lawful for him. Does that happen through the mediation of the spirit like the rest of his law or does it happen to him as it happened to Al-Khidr and to this saint among us from the presence of the revelation? So my doctrine is that it does not happen to him except as what happens to him from the laws specific to that messenger and for this reason Let the trustworthy and just believe in his statement as long as there is no information about it, and there is no known dispute or dissent from what we have mentioned from the people of our path, nor have there been any opinions on it, except that if one of the people of our path disagrees with us in it, then it is not conceivable that we will disagree with it except from one of two men, or a man from the people of God who is confused about the matter. He made the divine definition a ruling and allowed the Prophet or Messenger to be like that, but in this nation and in the first time, it is a ruling for its owner, and it must be a definition of the Messenger through the mediation of the king, that this is legislated [Page 204 of the Cairo edition]

To others, God Almighty said, “When he mentioned the prophets, those are those whom God guided, so he followed his example. And their guidance was not mentioned to him except by revelation through the mediation of a spirit and another man .