And he did not know God who did not disobey Him, for if he knew God, he would know that he only disobeyed the form of the command, not the divine command, for it came to him on the tongue of one of the people of the race, and his speech to him, in the way he addressed him, was divided into what is supported by theoretical evidence that truth had commanded him and the rule of reason. By following it and what the theoretical evidence narrates, even if you rule with the Sharia to follow what it narrates out of belief in that and ratification. Rational consideration has ruled, based on its evidence, on the truth of this informant and that he only speaks on behalf of God, and that God is the one who says on his tongue to this listener what he addressed him with, so if he disobeys him, then insofar as it is an example of him, and the two examples are opposite each other. The rule of contrast and contrast must be ruled, so there must be opposition, even if he obeys and agrees, since the