And that issuing cannot be without a will or not, and if it is not, then there is nothing upon him, and if it has a will, then it is not without being forced in its passage between his hands, whether it is his choice or not. It is only a choice, so the one who chooses is a sin, and the one who is forced is not a sin.

Some people disliked it, some people made it obligatory for it to repeat, and some people made a distinction between listening or not listening. So know if that is due to it being speech or not speech and it is not good, without disagreement.

Jesus, peace be upon him, is present with his Lord in every situation, and his breathing of the spirit into the bird did not interrupt his presence with his Lord, and his breathing occurred with His permission. How can he be given permission to do what veils him from his presence with his Lord, when he and every creature is required for the truth to remain between their eyes and in their secrets? It also remains the same, which is the observation in both extremes. Whoever considers the blowing instead of “kun” makes it speech, and whoever considers it not in the sense of “kun” but rather considers it a reason, does not make it speech and makes his saying, “By my permission,” an action of his statement, so it becomes.

They agreed that it interrupts the prayer, but they disagreed about smiling. Some say it is like laughing, so he says it interrupts the prayer, and someone says it does not accompany laughter, so he does not interrupt the prayer.

Laughter for a soliloquy slanders prestige and politeness, and a non-literate person does not solemnise. If he smiles, he is always smiling because of his Lord’s laughter in a calamity that occurs like the old woman of Moses, peace be upon him, and the story of Hanad. It is polite for the servant to smile in such calamities to laugh at the truth. If he is in a calamity that makes him smile, and he smiles, then he is ill-mannered and not fit to attend. He is prevented from attending, so he resumes repentance and work. He is in the same position as someone who says that smiling interrupts prayer.

Who says that his prayer is invalidated and should be repeated, and who says that it is disliked? What I believe is that the prohibition does not indicate the corruption of the forbidden, but rather indicates the sin of the one who does it, so the prayer of the one who commits it is permissible, and he is sinful, like one who prays in a usurped house.

The evil, secret person in the state of prayer, the one who thinks about an evil that he will do or inflict on someone, if he finishes his prayer even though he is a believer, then the prayer is valid, and he is one of those who tells himself something bad and has pardoned it as long as he does not do it or speak of it .

>

So a group approved of it, and I say that it is the remembrance of God, and it is one of the legitimate remembrances in the tashahhud in prayer, so it has a basis that can be traced back to it, and supplication in prayer is permissible, and in it remembrance of people is like the saying of the praying person, “Forgive me.” And if the one who prevented that by saying, some people permitted it by pointing, and others prohibited it according to Absolutely, and some people allowed him to return it to himself, and some people said he returned it when he finished praying.

God Almighty said, “And when you are greeted with a greeting, then they greeted, then he came with a fa,” so it is not permissible to delay, and it does not apply to any other prayer. So every remembrance of God is permissible with a supplication or something else specific, such as the sneezing person’s name and the return of the greeting. It is permissible to pronounce it in prayer and other times if it is not obligatory, so how, when the obligation is coupled with a response. Peace and blessings be upon the sneezer if he praises God. End of Part Forty-Three

The Muslims agreed that it is obligatory for the forgetful and the sleeping person, but they differed regarding the baptized person and the unconscious person. What I believe is that the forgetful and the sleeping person must each perform the prayer that he fell asleep about or forgot. If the jurists wanted to make up for it, it is obligatory to pray for him as they wanted to perform it, I say, and if they intended it, the difference between Whoever performs it at the known time is addressed to the wakeful person who disobeys the person intending it by leaving it at that time, and between performing it at a time when the forgetful person remembers and the sleeper wakes up by making up for it, there is nothing wrong with it, even if they want to make it up contrary to what we have mentioned, and that he is not performing the prayer, and that he prayed it at a different time than in the form of what we mentioned, so I do not say so, for the forgetful and the sleeping person do. This