And this is forbidden in the right of truth, because its essence is not compounded by a matter in which participation occurs, so it is in the sex and a matter in which the privilege occurs, and there is only God and creation, and there is no fit between God and the world, nor the maker and the manufactured, there is no participation, there is no gender, there is no separation, and the one who permitted that rationally and prohibited it according to Sharia said, I do not say The limit is a compound of gender and separation. Rather, I say that the question is about what knowledge is sought by the truth of the one who is responsible for it, and every known or mentioned fact must be within himself, whether it is based on a fact in which he participates, or it is based on a fact in which he does not participate. What the Shari a stated prevented us from asking about the truth because of the Almighty s saying that there is nothing like Him. To the existence of the two necessary existences for their own sake, and the evidence has been established to refer to that and that there is no duty but He for its own sake, so the method is impossible to reason. In all that is attributed to him From what he attributed to himself, he says he is according to what he ascribes to the truth, and if the utterance takes place, the meaning is different. He did it legally by saying that it is not attributed to him unless it is attributed to himself. This is the meaning of what I say legally, not that God forbid everything that we mentioned was forbidden by Sharia.

[ Who has permitted the what and how and why to be applied to God according to Islamic law?

This we have mentioned the method of prohibition. As for the scholars who permitted the question about them with these demands, they are the people of Sharia among them and the reason for their permission. If they say what the Sharia has imposed on us, we have stoned it, and what we have to engage in, we engage in it in obedience as well. And what is not mentioned in it is prohibition or obligatory, then it is wellness if we wish. We spoke about it, and if we wished, we remained silent about it, and he is what Pharaoh, on the tongue of Moses, peace be upon him, forbade his question by saying, He is the Lord of the worlds. Rather, he answered with what befits the answer for that high honor. On the compound essence, and it was termed that the answer by effect is not an answer to the one who asked with what, and this terminology does not obligate the opponent, so it was not forbidden to give this question in this form to him, since the words were not asked for themselves, but rather asked for what they indicate from the meanings that were put to them, for it is by virtue of the situation and what each group put it In relation to what the other has put it, the disagreement is in terms of expression, not in reality, and the disagreement is not considered except in meanings.

His saying that God has an eye, two eyes and a hand, and in His hand is the scale, it lowers and raises

And these are all modalities, even if they are unknown, because there is no resemblance to that. Confinement in the release of these expressions, so there is evidence, so it is said to all of the legislators who are permitted and who prevent all of you. It is permissible unless the Shariah permits or obligates it. But if it is not intended to engage in it with them, there is no way to actually engage in it with them, and the ruling in that is stopped, so the one who argues about it is not judged to be right or wrong, and likewise for one who left the discussion, because there is no ruling except for the Sharia. With regard to what may or may not be uttered, that is obedience or disobedience. So, my guardian, we have explained to you the people s responses to these demands.

[ Similarity and transcendence by means of meaning ]

As for the useful knowledge in that, we say that just as He, Glory be to Him, does not resemble anything, so do things not resemble Him, and the rational and legal evidence has been established to deny the analogy and to prove exaltation by means of the meaning. As for releasing it to him, it is not free. Either the servant is commanded with that release, so his release is an obligatory obedience, and the one who utters it will be rewarded, obedient, like his saying in the opening takbeer, God is great.