The cut off is because it is greater in concealment. And whoever takes care to make what the truth has revealed visible, because the truth is more knowledgeable about himself than the one who worships it, and exalts himself in another position, he does not want to control the truth with his mind, and he says returning to it is better than being jealous of it, for the truth gives. If he is jealous, he does not have to do it according to Islamic law, and he did not legislate wearing socks except for those who cannot find sandals, and the sandals are protective and not covering, so he said that cutting off the socks is better.

When the shoe and the sandal combined to protect against the harm of the lower world, and the shoe increased protection from the harm of the higher world insofar as they are a world of common connotation, the connotation accepts resemblance, which is the harm that is related to it. Therefore, knowing God through information is higher than knowing God through sight, for the way The information regarding the knowledge of God only comes from what God Almighty Himself is not in the knowledge of the beholder. Knowledge through rational evidence is negative, and with declarative evidence, it is affirmative, negative is affirmative, and negative is proven. So since it was more revealing, the aspect of concealment was not preferred, so he made the sandal in the state of ihram the basic principle, for the wearing of the sandal was only for adornment and protection from harm. If there is no justice on the ground, then it is lighter .

If the name “shoes” is removed by cutting, and it does not join the step of the shoe to cover the outer part of the leg, then it is neither a shoe nor a sandal, then it is silent about it, just like someone who walks barefoot, for there is no dispute about the validity of his ihram, and it is silent about it, and everything that the Sharia is silent about is well-being, and the command to cut it came, so it joins what was spoken of with such and such. It is an additional and correct ruling that gives what does not give in general, so it is necessary to adopt it, because he only cut them to join them to the level of the shoe, except that it covered the foot, so it separated from the shoe and did not cover the leg, so it separated from the shoe, so it is neither a shoe nor a shoe, and it is close to the shoe and close to the shoe, and we made it a protection at the top for the presence of wiping. On the top of the sock, if there was no consideration of harm in that in any way, he wo

In this matter, if a person knows according to where he will be held and what his scene will be, if his witnesses give him that he should wear shoes with shoes on, being careful of the trace of rising on the outside of his foot, he will be protected by his clothing from that trace, even if he has divine power to repel that trace before it comes down. It is not permissible for him to wear sandals, since the basic principle in using that is the absence of sandals, so revelation and revelation prevail over concealment and secrets in knowing God in the highest assembly, which is the knowledge of legitimate and reasonable purity .

For transcendence has degrees in the mind, the lowest of which is transcendence through analogy, and the highest in the mind is transcendence without analogy, and there is no way for a created being to attain it except by returning knowledge of it to God Almighty, and transcendence without analogy is also mentioned in the Sharia and what is found in the mind. The goal of rational consideration is in transcending the truth, for example, from istiwaa. He moved away from explaining the physical leveling of the spatial throne by transcending it to the analogy of the sultanic leveling that occurred, which is the seizure of the greatest enveloping place or of the kingdom. However, in his exaltation of the simile, he moved from the analogy of a certain originator to the analogy of another originator who is above him in rank, so the mind in transcendence did not reach the level of the Sharia. In his saying, there is nothing like him. Do you not see that they were cited in rational exaltat

Perfume is for the ihram, according to us, and I mean perfume, not the presence of perfume with him, which he uses before entering into ihram and accompanying it is not permissible unless he wants to enter ihram and before it is ihram. It is Sunnah for him to perfume himself, and I do not say in the first and second that his perfume, peace be upon him, was for his ihram and for his ihram, for that was not reported from the Messenger of God. God, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him, but it was reported from the words of Aisha, so the possibility reached it, between it being from something she understood from the Messenger of God, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him, regarding that, as required by her consideration and understanding, or from an explicit text from him to her regarding that, and we saw that he forbade perfume for a period of time.