So the judge has the right to decide the matter for him because of its generality so that the ruling can be based on the appointment, so he says to him when you gave him this gift, what did you seek with it? Did you seek with it a reward from Paradise or compensation in this world or did you seek with it the Face of God? If the opponent says, did you seek with it the reward in the Hereafter from Paradise? Or compensation in this world, the one who gave it to him is ruled to return the item he took from him if the item remains, and if the item is gone, a ruling is given to him for the value. There is disagreement about whether the value in the thing is considered at the time of giving or at the time of decree, and if he says, “I gave it to seek the face of God.” He did not rule anything against him in that matter, and he said, “Your companion does not have the control of what you intended with your gift.” From one perspective, he confirmed it as a substitute for it, as appears, for

If the sun had a ray*** then that light from me came to it

We have been blessed by the winds for what they contain*** of the perfume contained in their fragrance

And if the stars in the sky of *** are obliterated, then that obliteration brings them splendor.

And if souls enter into souls of ***, then their entry into them causes them

And Ammar Al-Qafar has wandered*** from the hunt that consumes her soul

And if the Messenger were to see souls that would reject his messages when he came to them.

And if I were offered to block what the disputer brings, he would not refuse it.