And it is his saying, and our command is but one, then it resembles the signature in a blink of an eye, or it is closer, and likewise it is closer, so see the wisdom of God Almighty in this analogy and what it contains that glimpse of abundance in unity.

[ Knowledge and will are established by God Almighty ]

And know that the Almighty s saying, God willing, and if God knows that they are good for them to hear them, it requires the negation of knowledge with such and the negation of the will about the truth, as it requires his saying. That an attribute of him existing in him is superfluous to himself, and if the affirmers of the attributes say that neither he nor she is other than him, but they must say that it is superfluous, as Al-Ash ari believes, or it is the same as his essence, except that it has a special relation to a matter that is called by that ratio a science and so on the rest of what is called it From what the Almighty requires, so what is affirmed or denied except with the connection of knowledge and the will, but what is mentioned is nothing but the negation of knowledge of a matter and the will, so you know for sure that the negation of knowledge is knowledge and that knowledge is subordinate to the known and it becomes with it as it became and is attached to it on what it is in itself and in itself does not negate existence or all. What is proven to him by the foot of an attribute and others, there is nothing left to be negated except for a special attachment, which is a matter that occurs or a ratio as you wish, then say, and negation and affirmation are not directed except on an accident, that is, on a possible

Whether that judgment is described by existence or non-existence, the knowledge here is a means of attachment when you negate it with a tool in saying If he knew and if he willed, then he would not know and what he willed. This is the specific event. It is not correct for the saying to occur in the Essence of God, because it is not a place for accidents, so it is not said that he willed to say and the investigation is that what he intended of the intent is only what is intended by him from the readiness in the state of non-existence, that it is in it in the state of existence, or is characterized by it when it is absent from existence or the absence of a ruling. Existence is about him how you wish, then say, and since the distinction between will and knowledge is clear, we know that they are attributable to the essence of the world and the seeker, or two attributes in the doctrine of those who say the attributes of the theologians, and if we did not know the principle that made it easy for us to hear such a thing, the confusion in God would be more severe, and the original is only that God Almighty did not send A messenger except in the language of his people, because he wants to make them understand, so it is impossible for him to come out in his speech to them about what they were complicit in their tongue, so the wise found in that comfort. to talk nonsense Hood is a follower of belief, just as the discourse is a follow-up to what the people of that tongue colluded with, so the matter is easy for them, so they saw it in every belief as they understood it in every tongue.

The four hundred and thirty-fifth chapter on knowing when I took the covenant on myself, so I fulfilled it and a time at the hands of My servant .

We promised and promised, but as for our feast *** Leave it if you wish and the promise is fulfilled

I am generous and generous is his attribute *** as we have mentioned, and the judiciary is complete

If they are carrying out the threat because of his charity *** Qurm received it to allow a fencer

And he deters him from his worries with his influence *** because he has a millstone, some of which he fights

And he does not see enforcement except for a delinquent *** Ignorance of what we said about the truth is powerless

[ Promise and Threat ]

God Almighty said that God does not waste (indeed, we do not waste) the reward of the best deed. And God willed that that servant break his promise, and what he covenant with, he willed from the servant that he wills to break the covenant.

Saying it and a time I did not understand

Do not object to the servant, for he is compelled to choose him by my will, but the owner of this argument, if he sees someone who has fallen into something like this, should look at the discourse of the Sharia in it. So he speaks and does not slander him himself. This is literature, and this is only in the good as it is established