the other attributed it to disobedience and there is no way to either of them according to them. and if you claim that it is permissible to disclose the covenant when there is a testimony of intuition regarding the one whose covenant is taken that it does not decrease it based on evidence then in this there is a refutation of the origin of their doctrine because they claimed that it is not permissible to follow the evidence of reason and its consideration because rational people differ in consideration so in it there is the danger of error. so how did they rule by intuition and indication in which error is more prevalent than correctness and in that there is the disclosure of the secret of religion which is the most dangerous of things and they have forbidden adherence to it? by conjecture and diligence in jurisprudence which is a rule between people by way of mediation in disputes. then they referred the disclosure of the secret of religion to imaginations and intuitions. this is a solid path that the intelligent person will realize and the one who is engaged in the sciences of the shariah will boast about it since he will be absolutely certain that the speaker has two opinions. one says that there is no inner meaning to these outward appearances and no interpretation for them so the interpretation is absolutely false. another speaker thinks that this could be euphemisms for inner meanings that god did not permit the messenger of god may god bless him and grant him peace to state explicitly but rather he obliged him to speak. by appearances speaking about what is hidden has become forbidden and false and forbidden immorality and opposition to the one who established the law. this foundation is unanimously agreed upon. the people of our time with the distance between the covenant and the owner of the law the spread of corruption the dominance of desires over creation and the general turning away from matters of religion are not more obedient to the truth nor more accepting of secrets nor more trustworthy of them nor more deserving of understanding them and benefiting from them than the people of the time of the messenger of god may god bless him and grant him peace. these secrets and interpretations if they have any truth have…
الاخر نسبته الى المعصية ولا سبيل الى واحد منهما عندهم وان زعمتم أنه يحل الإفشاء بالعهد عند شهادة الفراسة في المأخوذ عليه عهده انه لا ينقصه استدلالا بالأمارات ففي هذا نقض اصل مذهبهم لانهم زعموا انه لا يجوز اتباع أدلة العقل ونظره لان العقلاء مختلفون في النظر ففيه خطر الخظأ فكيف حكموا بالفراسة والامارة التي الخطأ أغلب عليها من الصواب وفي ذلك إفشاء سر الدين وهو أعظم الاشياء خطرا وقد منعوا التمسك بالظن والاجتهاد في الفقهيات التي هي حكم بين الخلق على سبيل التوسط في الخصومات ثم ردوا افشاء سر الدين الى الخيالات والفراسات وهذا مسلك متين يتفطن له الذكي ويتبجح به المشتغل بعلوم الشرع إذ يتيقن قطعا ان القائل قائلان قائل يقول لا باطن لهذه الظواهر ولا تأويل لها فالتأويل باطل قطعا وقائل ينقدح له ان ذلك يمكن ان يكون كنايات عن بواطن لم يأذن الله لرسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بان يصرح بالبواطن بل ألزمه النطق بالظواهر فصار النطق بالباطن حراما باطلا وفجورا محظورا ومراغمة لواضع الشرع وهذه التأسيسة بالاتفاق فليس اهل عصرنا مع بعد العهد بصاحب الشرع وانتشار الفساد واستيلاء الشهوات على الخلق وإعراض الكافة عن امور الدين أطوع للحق ولا اقبل للسر ولا آمن عليه ولا أحرى بفهمه والانتفاع به من أهل عصر رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وهذه الأسرار والتأويلات ان كان لها حقيقة فقد