The definition is composed of a kind and a separation. Rather, I say that the question is what seeks knowledge of the reality of what is being asked about, and every thing known or mentioned must have a fact that it has within itself, whether it is on a reality in which it is possible for it to participate or it is on a reality in which it is not possible for it to participate, so the question is based on what is imagined, but What the Sharia stated, preventing us from asking about the truth by it, due to His Almighty’s saying, “There is nothing like Him.” As for their prohibition of how, which is asking about how, they were also divided into two parts. Whoever says that He, Glory be to Him, does not have how, because the condition is an intelligible matter in addition to His being an entity, and if it arises by itself, it is an existential matter in addition to itself. To the existence of the two necessary existences for their own sake eternally, and the evidence has been established to suggest that, and that there is no obligation except Him for His own sake, so the method becomes impossible in reason, and whoever says that he has a method but we do not know, then it is forbidden by law, not by reason, because it is outside of the rational methods that are intelligible to us, so you do not know, and he said, “There is nothing like Him,” meaning In everything attributed to him that he attributed to himself, he says it is what you attribute to the truth, and if the word is shared, the meaning is different. As for asking why, it is also forbidden because the actions of God Almighty cannot be explained because the cause necessitates the action, so the truth is included under a reason that necessitated this action in addition to itself. Others invalidated the release of the word