Affinity: You do not see his saying, I created you before, and you were not a thing.

(Question twenty-three) What is the meaning of his saying, peace be upon him, was God and there was nothing with him?

The answer is not accompanied by objectivity and is not based on it, as well as he and nothing with him, for it is a self-description of him taking the objectivity from him and taking the objectivity with him, but he is with the things and the things are not with him because the conscious is subordinate to knowledge, he teaches us, he is with us, and we do not know him, we are not with him.

[ Time, Now, Existence, and Possibility ]

So know that the word used to give the temporal restriction, and what is not meant here by that restriction, but rather what is meant by the universe, which is existence, so a realization was that it is an existential letter, not a verb that asks for time, and that is why it was not What the graphologists say from the theologians, which is what they say, and it is now as it was, this is an addition included in the hadith of those who have no knowledge of the knowledge that was, especially in this place and from it, God was pardon, the Forgiving, and other than what was associated with the word was and that is why some grammarians called it and its sisters letters that work The action of verbs, which according to Sibawayh is an existential letter, and this is what the Arabs understand. In the now, it is the limit of the two times, so when its meaning was the existential time, the legislator did not release it in the existence of the truth, and it was released because it is an existential letter and time is imagined in it for the existence of the action. Imagine that its rule is the rule of time, so they include now a sequel to the news and not from it. Time is the meaning of that God is present and there is nothing with him, i.e. what is then of his existence is necessary for his own sake other than the right and the possible is necessary to exist by him because he is his appearance and he is visible in him and the possible eye is hidden by this apparent in it so this appearance and the apparent is described by the possible judgment by the eye of the back which is the possible and the possible included In the Necessary Existence for its own sake, and the Necessary Existence for its own sake is included in the possible in terms of judgment, so reflect on what we have said

[ We shouldn't explain what we don't like ]

And know that our words in explaining what was mentioned are only according to the saying of the guardian, if he says such an expression or utters it from the position of his guardianship and not from the position from which he was sent as a messenger, for if the messenger says such an expression in the knowledge of God from his specialized station, we have no words about it and we should not It is for us to explain what is not to our taste, but our words about it are from the tongue of the guardianship, so we translate it in the highest manner required by her condition. This is the goal of the guardian in that

[ intestinal and organoid ]

There is no doubt that the intent in this narration is fixed, and the objectivity is negated, and the objectivity necessitates the plurality. With him because it does not accompany existence and how it accompanies it, and the necessity for this existence is subjective and there is no taste for the possible eye in the subjective obligation, so it requires it, so it is correct to be with it and it does not require it, so it is not correct to be with him. It is void of the existential necessity for its own sake, for the thing is not with the thing except by virtue of a threat or a promise of good, and this cannot be imagined from the lowest to the highest.

(Question twenty-four) What is the beginning of the names?

The answer to release this expression on the way requires two things, one is a question about the beginning of the names, and the second is a question about what the names begin with from the traces. Only existence or non-existence can accept this description

[ The Self, Names, Lineage, and Appearances ]

Know that these divine names that are in our hands are the names of God by which He named Himself as a speaker, so we place the explanation with which we were explaining the meaning of those names on these names that are in our hands and He is named by them in terms of appearance and in terms of His words and His His knowledge and His knowledge of Himself, so He is called by them in terms of His essence. The lineage does not make sense for the one who is described as singular from