Divine jogging is not interpreted as weakening and emphasizing the Divine turn toward the servant, or any other kind of noble interpretations. Rather, it has been interpreted by rational people as doubling the Divine turn for the servant to be greatly rewarded if he comes to his Lord, striving with acts of worship that involve walking, such as striving to the mosques, striving in tawaf, and Circumambulation, and Hajj, and visiting the sick, and fulfilling people’s needs, and attending funerals, and every act of worship therein should be done near its place or after .

So the purification of ablution is the description of the Truth as running, and the purification that is cleanliness is the purification of the Truth by not removing from it what he described himself with, and as for what he did not describe himself with, which is of the attributes of possible things, then his purification from being described with any of that is for the mind, so the mind is under the rule of Sharia. If the Sharia pronounces what it says about the attributes of the truth, then he has no right to reject that if he is a believer, and what is spoken and what is described with that characteristic is acceptable, that is, permissible to accept or unknown to accept, so the mind is obliged to accept the legitimate description, even if it is ignorant of the acceptability of what is described to it. This is why we went in the purification of the two men to linguistic purity, which is cleanliness and purity from Impurity, we are not obligated to do anything that stems from t

There is agreement that what invalidates it is all invalidating ablution, and it will be covered in this section later. The scholars differed regarding removing the socks. Whether it invalidates purity or not. Some say that purity is invalidated and ablution is resumed, and some say that the purity of the feet is invalidated in particular by washing them, and based on the above there must be disagreement in Loyalty and who says that removing the sandals does not affect the purity of the feet? This is what I say, but if he resumes ablution, it is more prudent and does not affect his entire purity unless something happens that invalidates it, as will follow.

As for the internal ruling regarding the one who says that all purity is invalidated, it is that purification applies to what is described, so if it accepts its specific purification before everything else in which it is conceivable to be purified. Likewise, if the purification is invalidated in relation to the described person, the invalidity applies to all the attributes, the attributes of purification .

Whoever says that a man’s purity is invalidated, especially if he removes the law from the truth and some specific description, then it is not necessary for him to remove every description that requires resemblance, for God Almighty has absolved Himself from giving birth, and He has not abstained from hesitating about a matter that He intends to do. He freed himself from anger .

And whoever says that he is in his purity, even if he removes the socks, there is no ruling or effect on the purity with which he was described when he wore his socks. He says that if God removed himself from giving birth, then the description for him remains, for he said, “If God had wanted to take a son, He would have chosen from among what He created.” He wills, so He kept the matter in His ruling by saying, “If He had willed,” and this is like His saying, “If there had been no book from God.” He has already said, “It does not change the statement I have,” and this is a response to those who say that God for Himself created the possible, not because of a relationship of will or prior knowledge. What is correct is what the lawgiver said, even if that relationship is not a matter. Existentially plus, know that

We have already discussed at the beginning of the chapter the difference between rain water and spring water, and we have explained what is rich in it. Let us mention in these chapters the ruling on what the scholars of Sharia have tended towards in the apparent, with what suits it in terms of internal purity .

Scientists have unanimously agreed that all water is pure in itself and purifies anything else, except sea water, for which there is disagreement. Likewise, they also agreed that what changes water is something that is often inviolable. It does not take away its quality of purification, except for pure water. Ibn Sirin disagreed about it and the one I went to. Everything that is called water in general is pure and purified, whether it is sea water or tanks. They also agreed that water in which impurity has changed its color, taste, smell, or all of these descriptions is not permissible for purification. If the water has not changed and not one of its characteristics remains as it was originally. Of purity and purification, and it did not affect the impurity that occurred in it, except that I know in this issue a disagreement regarding a little water in which a little impurity occurs, such that nothing of its characteristics is changed.