A reasonable distinction by which it is said about the one precedent and the other a conclusion, but we said that the conclusion is the same as the previous one, but that is in the ruling on the convicted and the convict. The conclusion is clear from the previous

[ Weddings are divided into two parts ]

And know that weddings are of two types: a wedding for a contract and a wedding for a contract and consummation, and a wedding with consummation and no contract, and the contract is about what the consent of the spouses and consummation falls upon due to the presence of pleasure or the creation of an eye and consummation without a marriage contract. Let him specialize in his pronunciation of the best of creation, which is Muhammad, may God s prayers and peace be upon him, and a believer said that if he gave himself to the Prophet, if the Prophet wanted to be brought to him, then he is a good one who is a good Because there is no contract in it, no bond, no bond, then we go back and say, as for the rings, the deadlines set them, and if not, there would be no conclusion, because the conclusion ends in what is described by it, and every ending is previous and does not reflect. The separation between things in the revelation, he said with the rings in things, because the chapters show them for example, but all this is in the world of division and structure. For two things, if it falls between two words, then the ending of the first is a specific letter, and if it is two verses, then the conclusion of the first is a specific word, and if it is two surahs, then the conclusion of the first is a specific verse, and if it is an accident, it is said that its term is like this in this world, because everything in this world runs to a specified term, in which the period ends with the term, so the conclusion of that thing. The end of its ruling is the end of the breath in the animal, the last of it is when it moves to the isthmus, then the period ends in the isthmus until the separation between it and the resurrection, then the period ends in the Resurrection to the separation between it and the entry of the two homes, then the period ends in the fire for the right of those who are in it Paradise to the separation between residence in it and exit from it with intercession and grace, then the period ends in the torment of the people of Hell who do not exit from it, to the separation between the state of torment and the attainment of the rule of mercy that encompasses everything, so they enjoy in the Fire according to their different moods as we have mentioned, then there is no longer That is an apparent term of time, but hidden, precise deadlines, and that is because the innovator s permanent eye causes him to fluctuate conditions for him to require him to lack the continuity of existence for him always, so his conditions do not separate from the terms, so he remains in his conditions between a precedent and a conclusion. It was completed by removing harm from the road, so the legislator crossed the previous with the highest and the conclusion with the lowest. There is no higher in faith than monotheism, nor inferior in it than removing harm from the road, and from that is the path of monotheism, for the harm that is in its way is obvious and hidden polytheism. The apparent and obvious ascribing the divinity to the newly invented matters, then the monotheist removes all of this from his heart and the heart of others, for it is harm in the path of monotheism, and every harm is in one of the ways of faith according to the attribute that is called faith. There was no conclusion to God s judgment in His servants in general and absoluteness, and there is no precedent, for the non-existence of the possible prior to its existence is still likely to it by assuming the possible existence of it, and there is no precedent for it. Its existence is specific to all eyes, and to us it is not like that. Rather, the occurrence in our view of it is that its non-existence and existence is still likely in any case because it is possible for its own sake, although some observers have said that its occurrence is nothing but its possibility, but what is between this statement that His clarification in this is that the possibility refers to the words of this ruler, for it is possible that he is with one of the synonymous names, so that he is called an accident because he is called a possible and it is possible that he wants what we wanted from the fact that the non-existence by which he is judged to be for himself is, in our view, likely and still. He said that the impossibility of the possible is for himself, because if the non-existence had the attribute of a soul, it would be impossible for its existence, just as it is impossible for the existence of the impossible.

But our doctrine is not in it, except that its non-existence is still likely, for the existence of the possible has a precedent because it was not then was, but in terms of its own essence, if it exists by itself, not in terms of its form, then there is no end to it in its own form, and it has the rings in its form with proverbs and opposites. And a conclusion but