Existence and non-existence, and know that no one has ever been neglected of the rights that the Shari a obligated him to fulfill. There is no sin, nor is the right addressed to him in the necessity of a right on him despite that impediment and the impediments are of two types, one with attendance and the type with non-attendance, which is negligence. As for the type that is with attendance, it is divided into two parts. God assigned him to seek evidence that this matter is obligatory, but he does not find it, and he is one of the people of ijtihad, so he is not obligated to him except what is required by his evidence, and he is obligated in the same matter with God. And he performed what God assigned him of diligence in seeking evidence, but he did not find it, and the mujtahid has no right to imitate someone else in a ruling whose evidence is not known, but from his ijtihad, if he did not find evidence, to ask the people of diligence who judged him to be obligatory, and the form of his question is to tell them what is your evidence for what I obligated him in this matter and He does not imitate them in judgment, if they know him with their evidence. It is evidence in the eyes of this diligent questioner, or is it not evidence, so if he performs his ijtihad in that this is evidence as it is with the one who took it as evidence, he must act with it, and if he insults it in a way that the other does not find it, he does not have to follow it and imitate that responsible in the judgment that this ruling The evidence for it is that the mujtahid, then this is an impediment, and the other part is that he knows that it is obligatory for him, whether he did or left, and then prevents him from doing that, if it was a forced abandonment, and if it was a command, then not being able to do so. And heedlessness in such-and-such is heedlessness about such-and-such leaving that entirely, and he is not held accountable for that with God, for God has removed from His servants a mercy to them for error, which is the case of the diligent that we mentioned above. What is uttered by it, if it has no action for that uttered except the eye of God It is pronounced like backbiting and gossip, so he will be held accountable for that according to what that utterance leads to. Something has another ruling in the Sharia, unlike the hadith of the soul, for that is a citizen, for whoever comes in the Meccan sanctuary with atheism with unjustness, We will make him taste a painful torment, whether he committed that injustice that he wanted or not. They have a good deed written for him if he left it for the sake of God in particular. If he did not leave it for God s sake, it is not written for him or against him. This is the difference between psychological hadith and the will that is concern. He did not take his servants negligently in such-and-such as he did not blame them for being negligent in such-and-such, for if he neglected in such-and-such, then he neglected part of the parts of what is in it or a worker, then he is the one who neglected such-and-such.

God has prescribed a rule for the negligent in such and such actions, such as the forgetful one in his prayer, for he has prescribed the prostration of forgetfulness in order to make up for what he forgot about him, and as a compulsion against the devil who whispered to him until he fell into forgetfulness and negligence in what he is a factor in. He means what stands between him and what

God made it obligatory upon him to do or leave it, and if a person neglects or neglects his servitude and sees for him an advantage over another servant like him, especially if the other servant is owned by his right hand, or this negligent person is one of those in authority such as the ruler and the ruler, then he considers himself an advantage over others, as he sees that advantage for the rank in which he was established. If he is one of those in authority or of the attribute that exists in him in terms of divine competence for him, such as knowledge and generosity of morals, then he does not differentiate between himself and the rank, nor between the attribute and the attribute with which he is described. Is the value of so-and-so and is he only my servant or one of my subjects or is he such and such from every reprehensible matter that he deprives himself of and entrusts him with that other, unlike the one who is not unaware of himself, for he gives credit to the attribute and rank not to himself, for he did not attain it