This chapter contains great detail, with chapters of detail amounting to one hundred thousand details and twenty-four thousand details according to the number of prophets, peace be upon them, because it requires the identification of each prophet and knowledge of the share of Muhammad, may God bless him and grant him peace .

And from this, the greatest of his scandals is the one whose limbs bear witness to him .

The person is confined to himself *** and there is nothing about him that he can hide < /p

He shows it for a while and then hides it from him, and this amount is enough for him

He said, “The most loser is a witness who testifies against himself, just as the happiest of the happy is the one who bears witness.” For himself, in both extremes, he takes precedence in happiness and misery, and they bear witness against themselves that they were disbelievers, so they are the ones who made themselves miserable with their testimony. As for the one whose limbs bear witness against him, his scandal is not great in terms of the testimony of his limbs - against him. Rather, his scandal is great in terms of his inability and ignorance to defend himself in the event of testimony, for he is what is called

As for meanings, it is to know that things are of two types: singulars and composites, and that knowledge of the singular takes precedence over knowledge of the composite, and knowledge of the singular is limited to definition, and knowledge of the composite is limited to proof. If you want to know the existence of the world, whether it is due to a cause or not, then turn to singulars or what is in a ruling. Singulars are like the conditional premise, then you make one of the singulars a subject as a subject and assign the other singular to it in the way of reporting it about it, so you say every event, this noun is a subject, because it is the one you started with, and a first subject, because it is the first subject that you placed on it to predicate what you tell about it, and it is singular, so the genitive noun is in the singular ruling. You must know, by definition, the meaning of occurrence and the meaning of all that you added to it and made it like a wall for what surroun

As for our saying that knowledge is only a subject of singularity, like knowledge, and that is why we called knowledge knowledge, because if we say, “I knew Zayd standing,” then we were not asking for Zaid for himself, nor were we asking for him to stand up for his own sake. Rather, what we were asking for was the ratio of Zaid’s standing up, and he is required to be one, for it is one specific relationship, and we taught Zaid alone by knowing and standing alone. By knowledge, we say, “I knew Zaid and I knew standing,” and this extent was absent from the grammarians. Imagine that attaching knowledge to Zaid in relation to standing is the same as his connection to Zaid and standing, and this is a mistake, for if Zaid had not been known to him, and standing also had been known to him before that, it would not have been valid to attribute what he did not know to what he did not know. Because it is not known whether this ratio is correct or not, and this type of knowledge is called, a