How many holes have I been in *** and were it not for it, I would have fallen on her lips

Perhaps the cause of lust, if Jesus *** supported him by the insults, he would not heal her

How many of the food did she eat with care *** because of her desire and did not reach her ego?

How many lusts did you look at us *** and we attained it, we would be protected from its harm

Our soul never had its intention *** and the mind had hidden its intention

Fearing that souls *** ask Him for it, and the mind warns of its dryness

Nor did it ever occur to him *** nor did she judge him nor intended her

But Sharia has proven it *** to the people of happiness in its shame

So they attained it, and it did not follow a veil *** and Al-Muhaimin protected them from zakat

Know, may God help us and you, that this poem and every poem in the beginning of each chapter of this book is not intended to be a summary of what comes in detail in the chapter s prose and talk about it. As he looks at prose from talking about it, in poetry from the issues of that section what is not in the discussion by the way of prose, and they are vocabulary issues that are independent of each issue mostly by itself unless it is

There is a link between the two issues, so they ask for each other, like the human being, for he asks to speak about the animal with its senses, and it asks for the plant, with its growth and nourishment, and it asks for inanimate matter, including what is not felt, such as nails and hair, so it clings to the plant because of its growth and clings to the inanimate because of its lack of sensation. Another thing is a link originally, even between the Lord and the Creator, for the creature seeks the Creator, and the Creator seeks the creature, and that is why knowledge from the world was in the form of the known, and the known came out in the form of knowledge. Because of the self-relationship that exists between all things, so understand what I referred to you in this connection, for it foretells of a great thing. The two groups are that it is possible and that every part of it is accidental and has no rank as necessary for existence by itself, but for some of them it is necessary to exist with another, either for the very existence of some of them, or for the knowledge of its existence preceded with others. It is an object, so the connection is an object, and repulsion and not repulsion from another aspect. Every divine reality has a ruling in the world, not for the other, and it is a lineage. The relation of the world to the reality of knowledge is other than its relation to the reality of power, so the ruling of knowledge in it is not appropriate between it and the quantifiable, but rather its relevance between it and the known and the matter of being known is different from being capable. If you look at it in this manner, you say that there is no appropriateness between God and His servants. What is forbidden to us with the correctness of the meaning, including what is absolutely permissible for us with the corruption of the meaning, divorce attribution of circumstance for one who does not accept circumstance, and as percentage of benefiting from knowledge for one who does not benefit from knowledge. His saying that he does not alter what I have said and enter it under if and does not fall under if except the possible and the intellect indicates the referral in the child a rational indication and indicates the possibility in the guidance of all people is a rational indication and indicates the referral of the guidance of all people to the above in the Knowledge of difference is a rational indication, and the word if indicates that he has the choice in himself, if he wills, a matter, and if he wills, he does not will that matter. In His commanding us to be aware of it, should we follow in that the indication of the Legislator and stand by tradition when telling him, or follow the method of consideration so that it is reasonable, or do we take it from the evidence of the mind that proves to us that he is a god?