The meaning of the command on obligatory and its angel

The meaning of the command on obligatory and its angel

The third aspect: that the word command, after it has been established that it is in the sense of demand, is spoken about whether it denotes the whole of the demand, or the specificity of the obligatory demand.

The speech here falls into two places:

The first: On the origin of the meaning of the word command to be obligatory.

And the second: after the emptiness of the origin of its significance that what is the angel of this indication and its point?

The origin of the meaning of the command is obligatory As for the first place: some fundamentalists have tried to infer this with a number of verses and narrations, such as the Almighty’s saying: What is the subject of caution is an obligatory command rather than a mustahabb command. It is replied to him: that the matter - in fact - revolves between specialization and specialization, but this verse and what was in its narrations are inferred based on the specificity of specialization, by saying: It must be assumed that the exclusion of the recommended command from it is a specialization and not a specialization, while there is no way to prove that. As for the building of the non-flow of originality of non-allocation building when circulating between allocation and specialization, as it is the building of the owner   (1) Surat Al-Noor, Verse: 63. Sufficiency and well-known among the investigators, is clear. As for the assertion that the originality of non-specialization and the definiteness of specialization is in the process of reversing between them, because this is only if there was not - according to the assessment of the specification - a continuous presumption indicating it, otherwise the specification at that time would not be contrary to the original, and the specialization and specialization at that time were the same, and the origin does not require the absence of either of them. Defining the other, and what we are in this way, is based on the assessment that the desirable request is something that is the same as the word of caution with the obvious lack of caution in the desirability of a presumption connected to the specification. In any case, we are in need of such an inference as to the significance of the matter; Since no reasonable problem has arisen as to its evidence of obligation, and a jurist has not been confused by the wording of an order received from the Legislator in understanding the obligation from him when there is no presumption on the recommendation, and it suffices us to initiate. And this is only to indicate custom and conscience to that. Yes, it is reasonable to research it is the joke of this indication, and it is the research in the second place.

Angel signifies the command to be obligatory As for the second point: which is the research on the point of the matter indicating that it is obligatory, here the door of three possibilities opens: 1 to be in the situation. 2 to be wise. 3- To be the premise of wisdom. The first possibility is for the well-known, and the second is for the investigator Naini (may God have mercy on him) (1), and the master followed him, his blessings lasted (2), and the third is what the Iraqi investigator (may God have mercy on him) chose (3). With the difference of these three possibilities, fruits arise in the place of combining the opposing evidence, and these three paths themselves run in the formula as well. The research we are looking at here is applicable to the formula. In any case, the origin of the signification of the matter of the command on the obligation is dispensed with, and it is sufficient to prove it by initiative and conscience, but to speak that its angel is the situation, or the mind, or the premise of wisdom? As for the first possibility: its determination depends on the nullification of the other two possibilities. As the evidence for the situation is the customary and rational understanding of the obligation of the matter, and this only indicates the situation if there was no other source for this understanding from launch or intellect, so let us talk about these two possibilities. As for the second possibility: the summary of the words of al-Muhaqiq al-Naini (may God have mercy on him) in it: that when the Lord addresses the request with the substance of the order, its formula, or otherwise: sometimes this is accompanied by the issuance of a statement on the permission in the dispute connected or separate, and at other times no, in the first there is no such response. The request accompanied by the authorization of the dispute is subject to the judgment of reason that it must be complied with; It is for the slave to take the license. In the second, it is the same response   (1) See the best reports, vol. 1, p. 87 and 95-96, according to the edition that includes the footnote of Sayyid al-Khoei (may God have mercy on him), and Fawa`at al-Usool, vol. 1, p. 129 and 135-137 according to the edition of the teachers’ group in Qom. (2) See the lectures, part 2, p. 14 and 131-132. (3) See the articles, vol. 1, p. 206 and 222, according to the edition of the Islamic Thought Academy in Qom.

To request without issuing a license subject to the rule of reason that it is necessary to move from the door of the law of slavery and lordship, so they address this matter with the title of obligation, as the word does not indicate obligation, but obligation is an issue of the rule of reason resulting from the request of the Lord (1). However, this statement is not true, and further elaboration gives that al-Muhaqiq al-Naini (may God have mercy on him) and those who followed him if they wanted to walk in this way, they must have another approach in jurisprudence. The clarification of the speech in this regard is: it is answered: First: the solution; For clarity: that if a request was issued by the Lord and he did not issue a permission to violate it, but we knew that it was true with knowledge that was not based on the Lord’s statement that he pleased himself by abandoning and was satisfied with it; Because the angel of the request is not severe in the soul of the lord, for example, the mind does not judge the necessity of compliance, so what is the subject of the rational rule of the necessity of compliance is the issuance of a request from the lord and that he is not satisfied in reality and in himself by abandoning; Because of the intensity of the angel and the strength of the will in himself, and this is a demand that inevitably needs to be revealed, and the mere issuance of the request without knowing the severity of his angel and his dissatisfaction with leaving is not sufficient to prove the obligation, so it is necessary to assume a verbal indication of the order that the request is on the basis of a severe angel and lack of self-satisfaction The one who ordered to leave, and not, as the investigator al-Naini (may God have mercy on him) says, from the sufficiency of the non-issuance of a license; Because the subject of the rationale for the necessity of compliance is the request, with no permission to be issued in the dispute so that we do not need a verbal indication. Secondly: The refutation that this path has requirements in jurisprudence that the owners of this path do not abide by: (1) See the best reports, vol. 1, p. 95-56, according to the edition containing the commentary of Sayyid Al-Khoei (may God have mercy on him), and Fawa`at al-Usool, vol. 1, p. 135-137.

To request without issuing a license subject to the rule of reason that it is necessary to move from the door of the law of slavery and lordship, so they address this matter with the title of obligation, as the word does not indicate obligation, but obligation is an issue of the rule of reason resulting from the request of the Lord (1). However, this statement is not true, and further elaboration gives that al-Muhaqiq al-Naini (may God have mercy on him) and those who followed him if they wanted to walk in this way, they must have another approach in jurisprudence. The clarification of the speech in this regard is: it is answered: First: the solution; For clarity: that if a request was issued by the Lord and he did not issue a permission to violate it, but we knew that it was true with knowledge that was not based on the Lord’s statement that he pleased himself by abandoning and was satisfied with it; Because the angel of the request is not severe in the soul of the lord, for example, the mind does not judge the necessity of compliance, so what is the subject of the rational rule of the necessity of compliance is the issuance of a request from the lord and that he is not satisfied in reality and in himself by abandoning; Because of the intensity of the angel and the strength of the will in himself, and this is a demand that inevitably needs to be revealed, and the mere issuance of the request without knowing the severity of his angel and his dissatisfaction with leaving is not sufficient to prove the obligation, so it is necessary to assume a verbal indication of the order that the request is on the basis of a severe angel and lack of self-satisfaction The one who ordered to leave, and not, as the investigator al-Naini (may God have mercy on him) says, from the sufficiency of the non-issuance of a license; Because the subject of the rationale for the necessity of compliance is the request, with no permission to be issued in the dispute so that we do not need a verbal indication. Secondly: The refutation that this path has requirements in jurisprudence that the owners of this path do not abide by: (1) See the best reports, vol. 1, p. 95-56, according to the edition containing the commentary of Sayyid Al-Khoei (may God have mercy on him), and Fawa`at al-Usool, vol. 1, p. 135-137.

To request without issuing a license subject to the rule of reason that it is necessary to move from the door of the law of slavery and lordship, so they address this matter with the title of obligation, as the word does not indicate obligation, but obligation is an issue of the rule of reason resulting from the request of the Lord (1). However, this statement is not true, and further elaboration gives that al-Muhaqiq al-Naini (may God have mercy on him) and those who followed him if they wanted to walk in this way, they must have another approach in jurisprudence. The clarification of the speech in this regard is: it is answered: First: the solution; For clarity: that if a request was issued by the Lord and he did not issue a permission to violate it, but we knew that it was true with knowledge that was not based on the Lord’s statement that he pleased himself by abandoning and was satisfied with it; Because the angel of the request is not severe in the soul of the lord, for example, the mind does not judge the necessity of compliance, so what is the subject of the rational rule of the necessity of compliance is the issuance of a request from the lord and that he is not satisfied in reality and in himself by abandoning; Because of the intensity of the angel and the strength of the will in himself, and this is a demand that inevitably needs to be revealed, and the mere issuance of the request without knowing the severity of his angel and his dissatisfaction with leaving is not sufficient to prove the obligation, so it is necessary to assume a verbal indication of the order that the request is on the basis of a severe angel and lack of self-satisfaction The one who ordered to leave, and not, as the investigator al-Naini (may God have mercy on him) says, from the sufficiency of the non-issuance of a license; Because the subject of the rationale for the necessity of compliance is the request, with no permission to be issued in the dispute so that we do not need a verbal indication. Secondly: The refutation that this path has requirements in jurisprudence that the owners of this path do not abide by: (1) See the best reports, vol. 1, p. 95-56, according to the edition containing the commentary of Sayyid Al-Khoei (may God have mercy on him), and Fawa`at al-Usool, vol. 1, p. 135-137.

To request without issuing a license subject to the rule of reason that it is necessary to move from the door of the law of slavery and lordship, so they address this matter with the title of obligation, as the word does not indicate obligation, but obligation is an issue of the rule of reason resulting from the request of the Lord (1). However, this statement is not true, and further elaboration gives that al-Muhaqiq al-Naini (may God have mercy on him) and those who followed him if they wanted to walk in this way, they must have another approach in jurisprudence. The clarification of the speech in this regard is: it is answered: First: the solution; For clarity: that if a request was issued by the Lord and he did not issue a permission to violate it, but we knew that it was true with knowledge that was not based on the Lord’s statement that he pleased himself by abandoning and was satisfied with it; Because the angel of the request is not severe in the soul of the lord, for example, the mind does not judge the necessity of compliance, so what is the subject of the rational rule of the necessity of compliance is the issuance of a request from the lord and that he is not satisfied in reality and in himself by abandoning; Because of the intensity of the angel and the strength of the will in himself, and this is a demand that inevitably needs to be revealed, and the mere issuance of the request without knowing the severity of his angel and his dissatisfaction with leaving is not sufficient to prove the obligation, so it is necessary to assume a verbal indication of the order that the request is on the basis of a severe angel and lack of self-satisfaction The one who ordered to leave, and not, as the investigator al-Naini (may God have mercy on him) says, from the sufficiency of the non-issuance of a license; Because the subject of the rationale for the necessity of compliance is the request, with no permission to be issued in the dispute so that we do not need a verbal indication. Secondly: The refutation that this path has requirements in jurisprudence that the owners of this path do not abide by: (1) See the best reports, vol. 1, p. 95-56, according to the edition containing the commentary of Sayyid Al-Khoei (may God have mercy on him), and Fawa`at al-Usool, vol. 1, p. 135-137.

To request without issuing a license subject to the rule of reason that it is necessary to move from the door of the law of slavery and lordship, so they address this matter with the title of obligation, as the word does not indicate obligation, but obligation is an issue of the rule of reason resulting from the request of the Lord (1). However, this statement is not true, and further elaboration gives that al-Muhaqiq al-Naini (may God have mercy on him) and those who followed him if they wanted to walk in this way, they must have another approach in jurisprudence. The clarification of the speech in this regard is: it is answered: First: the solution; For clarity: that if a request was issued by the Lord and he did not issue a permission to violate it, but we knew that it was true with knowledge that was not based on the Lord’s statement that he pleased himself by abandoning and was satisfied with it; Because the angel of the request is not severe in the soul of the lord, for example, the mind does not judge the necessity of compliance, so what is the subject of the rational rule of the necessity of compliance is the issuance of a request from the lord and that he is not satisfied in reality and in himself by abandoning; Because of the intensity of the angel and the strength of the will in himself, and this is a demand that inevitably needs to be revealed, and the mere issuance of the request without knowing the severity of his angel and his dissatisfaction with leaving is not sufficient to prove the obligation, so it is necessary to assume a verbal indication of the order that the request is on the basis of a severe angel and lack of self-satisfaction The one who ordered to leave, and not, as the investigator al-Naini (may God have mercy on him) says, from the sufficiency of the non-issuance of a license; Because the subject of the rationale for the necessity of compliance is the request, with no permission to be issued in the dispute so that we do not need a verbal indication. Secondly: The refutation that this path has requirements in jurisprudence that the owners of this path do not abide by: (1) See the best reports, vol. 1, p. 95-56, according to the edition containing the commentary of Sayyid Al-Khoei (may God have mercy on him), and Fawa`at al-Usool, vol. 1, p. 135-137.

To request without issuing a license subject to the rule of reason that it is necessary to move from the door of the law of slavery and lordship, so they address this matter with the title of obligation, as the word does not indicate obligation, but obligation is an issue of the rule of reason resulting from the request of the Lord (1). However, this statement is not true, and further elaboration gives that al-Muhaqiq al-Naini (may God have mercy on him) and those who followed him if they wanted to walk in this way, they must have another approach in jurisprudence. The clarification of the speech in this regard is: it is answered: First: the solution; For clarity: that if a request was issued by the Lord and he did not issue a permission to violate it, but we knew that it was true with knowledge that was not based on the Lord’s statement that he pleased himself by abandoning and was satisfied with it; Because the angel of the request is not severe in the soul of the lord, for example, the mind does not judge the necessity of compliance, so what is the subject of the rational rule of the necessity of compliance is the issuance of a request from the lord and that he is not satisfied in reality and in himself by abandoning; Because of the intensity of the angel and the strength of the will in himself, and this is a demand that inevitably needs to be revealed, and the mere issuance of the request without knowing the severity of his angel and his dissatisfaction with leaving is not sufficient to prove the obligation, so it is necessary to assume a verbal indication of the order that the request is on the basis of a severe angel and lack of self-satisfaction The one who ordered to leave, and not, as the investigator al-Naini (may God have mercy on him) says, from the sufficiency of the non-issuance of a license; Because the subject of the rationale for the necessity of compliance is the request, with no permission to be issued in the dispute so that we do not need a verbal indication. Secondly: The refutation that this path has requirements in jurisprudence that the owners of this path do not abide by: (1) See the best reports, vol. 1, p. 95-56, according to the edition containing the commentary of Sayyid Al-Khoei (may God have mercy on him), and Fawa`at al-Usool, vol. 1, p. 135-137.

To request without issuing a license subject to the rule of reason that it is necessary to move from the door of the law of slavery and lordship, so they address this matter with the title of obligation, as the word does not indicate obligation, but obligation is an issue of the rule of reason resulting from the request of the Lord (1). However, this statement is not true, and further elaboration gives that al-Muhaqiq al-Naini (may God have mercy on him) and those who followed him if they wanted to walk in this way, they must have another approach in jurisprudence. The clarification of the speech in this regard is: it is answered: First: the solution; For clarity: that if a request was issued by the Lord and he did not issue a permission to violate it, but we knew that it was true with knowledge that was not based on the Lord’s statement that he pleased himself by abandoning and was satisfied with it; Because the angel of the request is not severe in the soul of the lord, for example, the mind does not judge the necessity of compliance, so what is the subject of the rational rule of the necessity of compliance is the issuance of a request from the lord and that he is not satisfied in reality and in himself by abandoning; Because of the intensity of the angel and the strength of the will in himself, and this is a demand that inevitably needs to be revealed, and the mere issuance of the request without knowing the severity of his angel and his dissatisfaction with leaving is not sufficient to prove the obligation, so it is necessary to assume a verbal indication of the order that the request is on the basis of a severe angel and lack of self-satisfaction The one who ordered to leave, and not, as the investigator al-Naini (may God have mercy on him) says, from the sufficiency of the non-issuance of a license; Because the subject of the rationale for the necessity of compliance is the request, with no permission to be issued in the dispute so that we do not need a verbal indication. Secondly: The refutation that this path has requirements in jurisprudence that the owners of this path do not abide by: (1) See the best reports, vol. 1, p. 95-56, according to the edition containing the commentary of Sayyid Al-Khoei (may God have mercy on him), and Fawa`at al-Usool, vol. 1, p. 135-137.

Obligation, desirability, prohibition, and mental hatred: There is something left outside the sanctuary of fundamental research, which is: that it is obligatory and desirable, as well as prohibition and disapproval, as they exist in the field of Sharia, so they are found in the field of practical reason, or mental virtues and vices. Which is of good reason, but it is not obligatory, otherwise retribution would not have been true. The interpretation that we have implemented for the separation between obligatory and desirable in the field of Sharia does not come in the field of rational virtues and vices; As there is not here - as long as we are confined to the field of reason - a guardian behind ourselves who asks for something from us, but at the same time he may desire our permissiveness and our freedom, so we must have another explanation for the difference between obligatory and desirable in the field of rational judgments after imposing construction on the building of the realism of Hassan and mental ugliness. Shall we return to the interpretation according to the degree of difference and say: that the very good, the good is the obligatory, the very ugly and the ugly is the forbidden, and what is between them is average, and the true middle between them is permissible by reason, not considered a virtue or a vice. And in the highest, final stairway from it are the most obligatory virtues, and between them are averages, the ugliness or the goodness of which diminish by the extent of their distance from one of the poles, and the true middle of this ladder is the shelf of the permissible?! This interpretation contains some paradoxes, such as: 1 - We do not have a specific limit for separating duties from what is recommended. Do you think it is supposed?

Obligation, desirability, prohibition, and mental hatred: There is something left outside the sanctuary of fundamental research, which is: that it is obligatory and desirable, as well as prohibition and disapproval, as they exist in the field of Sharia, so they are found in the field of practical reason, or mental virtues and vices. Which is of good reason, but it is not obligatory, otherwise retribution would not have been true. The interpretation that we have implemented for the separation between obligatory and desirable in the field of Sharia does not come in the field of rational virtues and vices; As there is not here - as long as we are confined to the field of reason - a guardian behind ourselves who asks for something from us, but at the same time he may desire our permissiveness and our freedom, so we must have another explanation for the difference between obligatory and desirable in the field of rational judgments after imposing construction on the building of the realism of Hassan and mental ugliness. Shall we return to the interpretation according to the degree of difference and say: that the very good, the good is the obligatory, the very ugly and the ugly is the forbidden, and what is between them is average, and the true middle between them is permissible by reason, not considered a virtue or a vice. And in the highest, final stairway from it are the most obligatory virtues, and between them are averages, the ugliness or the goodness of which diminish by the extent of their distance from one of the poles, and the true middle of this ladder is the shelf of the permissible?! This interpretation contains some paradoxes, such as: 1 - We do not have a specific limit for separating duties from what is recommended. Do you think it is supposed?

Obligation, desirability, prohibition, and mental hatred: There is something left outside the sanctuary of fundamental research, which is: that it is obligatory and desirable, as well as prohibition and disapproval, as they exist in the field of Sharia, so they are found in the field of practical reason, or mental virtues and vices. Which is of good reason, but it is not obligatory, otherwise retribution would not have been true. The interpretation that we have implemented for the separation between obligatory and desirable in the field of Sharia does not come in the field of rational virtues and vices; As there is not here - as long as we are confined to the field of reason - a guardian behind ourselves who asks for something from us, but at the same time he may desire our permissiveness and our freedom, so we must have another explanation for the difference between obligatory and desirable in the field of rational judgments after imposing construction on the building of the realism of Hassan and mental ugliness. Shall we return to the interpretation according to the degree of difference and say: that the very good, the good is the obligatory, the very ugly and the ugly is the forbidden, and what is between them is average, and the true middle between them is permissible by reason, not considered a virtue or a vice. And in the highest, final stairway from it are the most obligatory virtues, and between them are averages, the ugliness or the goodness of which diminish by the extent of their distance from one of the poles, and the true middle of this ladder is the shelf of the permissible?! This interpretation contains some paradoxes, such as: 1 - We do not have a specific limit for separating duties from what is recommended. Do you think it is supposed?

The Angel of Resurrection from Recruitment in Mystical Reflection: There is something left outside the sanctuary of fundamental research, which is: that it is obligatory and desirable, as well as prohibition and disapproval, as they exist in the field of Sharia, so they are found in the field of practical reason, or mental virtues and vices. Which is of good reason, but it is not obligatory, otherwise retribution would not have been true. The interpretation that we have implemented for the separation between obligatory and desirable in the field of Sharia does not come in the field of rational virtues and vices; As there is not here - as long as we are confined to the field of reason - a guardian behind ourselves who asks for something from us, but at the same time he may desire our permissiveness and our freedom, so we must have another explanation for the difference between obligatory and desirable in the field of rational judgments after imposing construction on the building of the realism of Hassan and mental ugliness. Shall we return to the interpretation according to the degree of difference and say: that the very good, the good is the obligatory, the very ugly and the ugly is the forbidden, and what is between them is average, and the true middle between them is permissible by reason, not considered a virtue or a vice. And in the highest, final stairway from it are the most obligatory virtues, and between them are averages, the ugliness or the goodness of which diminish by the extent of their distance from one of the poles, and the true middle of this ladder is the shelf of the permissible?! This interpretation contains some paradoxes, such as: 1 - We do not have a specific limit for separating duties from what is recommended. Do you think it is supposed?

The Angel of Resurrection from Recruitment in Mystical Reflection: There is something left outside the sanctuary of fundamental research, which is: that it is obligatory and desirable, as well as prohibition and disapproval, as they exist in the field of Sharia, so they are found in the field of practical reason, or mental virtues and vices. Which is of good reason, but it is not obligatory, otherwise retribution would not have been true. The interpretation that we have implemented for the separation between obligatory and desirable in the field of Sharia does not come in the field of rational virtues and vices; As there is not here - as long as we are confined to the field of reason - a guardian behind ourselves who asks for something from us, but at the same time he may desire our permissiveness and our freedom, so we must have another explanation for the difference between obligatory and desirable in the field of rational judgments after imposing construction on the building of the realism of Hassan and mental ugliness. Shall we return to the interpretation according to the degree of difference and say: that the very good, the good is the obligatory, the very ugly and the ugly is the forbidden, and what is between them is average, and the true middle between them is permissible by reason, not considered a virtue or a vice. And in the highest, final stairway from it are the most obligatory virtues, and between them are averages, the ugliness or the goodness of which diminish by the extent of their distance from one of the poles, and the true middle of this ladder is the shelf of the permissible?! This interpretation contains some paradoxes, such as: 1 - We do not have a specific limit for separating duties from what is recommended. Do you think it is supposed?

The Angel of Resurrection from Recruitment in Mystical Reflection: There is something left outside the sanctuary of fundamental research, which is: that it is obligatory and desirable, as well as prohibition and disapproval, as they exist in the field of Sharia, so they are found in the field of practical reason, or mental virtues and vices. Which is of good reason, but it is not obligatory, otherwise retribution would not have been true. The interpretation that we have implemented for the separation between obligatory and desirable in the field of Sharia does not come in the field of rational virtues and vices; As there is not here - as long as we are confined to the field of reason - a guardian behind ourselves who asks for something from us, but at the same time he may desire our permissiveness and our freedom, so we must have another explanation for the difference between obligatory and desirable in the field of rational judgments after imposing construction on the building of the realism of Hassan and mental ugliness. Shall we return to the interpretation according to the degree of difference and say: that the very good, the good is the obligatory, the very ugly and the ugly is the forbidden, and what is between them is average, and the true middle between them is permissible by reason, not considered a virtue or a vice. And in the highest, final stairway from it are the most obligatory virtues, and between them are averages, the ugliness or the goodness of which diminish by the extent of their distance from one of the poles, and the true middle of this ladder is the shelf of the permissible?! This interpretation contains some paradoxes, such as: 1 - We do not have a specific limit for separating duties from what is recommended. Do you think it is supposed?

The Angel of Resurrection from Recruitment in Mystical Reflection: There is something left outside the sanctuary of fundamental research, which is: that it is obligatory and desirable, as well as prohibition and disapproval, as they exist in the field of Sharia, so they are found in the field of practical reason, or mental virtues and vices. Which is of good reason, but it is not obligatory, otherwise retribution would not have been true. The interpretation that we have implemented for the separation between obligatory and desirable in the field of Sharia does not come in the field of rational virtues and vices; As there is not here - as long as we are confined to the field of reason - a guardian behind ourselves who asks for something from us, but at the same time he may desire our permissiveness and our freedom, so we must have another explanation for the difference between obligatory and desirable in the field of rational judgments after imposing construction on the building of the realism of Hassan and mental ugliness. Shall we return to the interpretation according to the degree of difference and say: that the very good, the good is the obligatory, the very ugly and the ugly is the forbidden, and what is between them is average, and the true middle between them is permissible by reason, not considered a virtue or a vice. And in the highest, final stairway from it are the most obligatory virtues, and between them are averages, the ugliness or the goodness of which diminish by the extent of their distance from one of the poles, and the true middle of this ladder is the shelf of the permissible?! This interpretation contains some paradoxes, such as: 1 - We do not have a specific limit for separating duties from what is recommended. Do you think it is supposed?

The Angel of Resurrection from Recruitment in Mystical Reflection: There is something left outside the sanctuary of fundamental research, which is: that it is obligatory and desirable, as well as prohibition and disapproval, as they exist in the field of Sharia, so they are found in the field of practical reason, or mental virtues and vices. Which is of good reason, but it is not obligatory, otherwise retribution would not have been true. The interpretation that we have implemented for the separation between obligatory and desirable in the field of Sharia does not come in the field of rational virtues and vices; As there is not here - as long as we are confined to the field of reason - a guardian behind ourselves who asks for something from us, but at the same time he may desire our permissiveness and our freedom, so we must have another explanation for the difference between obligatory and desirable in the field of rational judgments after imposing construction on the building of the realism of Hassan and mental ugliness. Shall we return to the interpretation according to the degree of difference and say: that the very good, the good is the obligatory, the very ugly and the ugly is the forbidden, and what is between them is average, and the true middle between them is permissible by reason, not considered a virtue or a vice. And in the highest, final stairway from it are the most obligatory virtues, and between them are averages, the ugliness or the goodness of which diminish by the extent of their distance from one of the poles, and the true middle of this ladder is the shelf of the permissible?! This interpretation contains some paradoxes, such as: 1 - We do not have a specific limit for separating duties from what is recommended. Do you think it is supposed?