,the ,gaekwad ,studies in ,religion and ,philosophy3 ,,xi4 ,,the ,,philosophy ,,and ,,theology ,,of ,,averroes ,printed by ,manibhai ,mathurbhai ,gupta at the 8,arya ,sudharak0 ,printing ,press1 ,raopura1 ,baroda1 and ,published by ,a4 ,g4 ,widgery1 the ,college1 ,baroda #a-a-aiba ,,the ,,philosophy ,,and ,,theology ,,of ,,averroes ,tractata translated from the ,arabic ,by ,,mohammad ,,jamil-,,ur-,,rehman ,m4 ,a4 ,professor of ,islamic ,history1 ,hyderabad ,formerly ,fellow of the ,seminar for the ,comparative ,study of ,religions1 ,baroda4 ,,baroda ,,dedication to ,dr4 ,,azimuddin ,,ahmad ,,sir1 ,it was at your feet that ,i first learned to appreciate historical and literary research1 and the following pages constitute the earliest fruits of that literary labour of mine the impetus for which ,i am proud to have received from you4 ,i crave your indulgence for my taking the liberty of dedicating the same to your revered name1 with the hope that it will not fail to attract the same generous sympathy from you as you have always shown to your pupil4 ,,mohammad ,,jamil ,,ur ,,rehman ,,preface ,it was as a ,fellow of the ,seminar for the ,comparative ,study of ,religions at the ,college1 ,baroda1 that the present work was begun4 ,the subject was taken up in the first place as a parallel study to that contained in a paper in the ,indian ,philosophical ,review1 ,volume ,,ii1 ,july #aiah1 pp4 #bd-cb entitled 8,maimonides and the ,attainment of ,religious ,truth40 ,but as ,i proceeded with my investigation ,i thought it might be best to let ,averroes speak for himself4 ,for this reason ,i have here translated certain treatises of ,averroes1 as edited in the ,arabic text by ,d4 ,h4 ,muller in 8,philosophie und ,theologie von ,averroes40 ,munich #ahei4 ,i am confident that the book will prove an interesting one and will explain itself to the reader without any introduction on my part4 ,though owing to my appointment at ,hyderabad ,i resigned my position at ,baroda soon after commencing this work ,i wish here to express my thanks to ,professor ,alban ,g4 ,widgery of ,baroda for his constant sympathy with and encouragement for my work in and out of the ,seminar4 ,he has also kindly accepted the book for inclusion in the ,gaekwad ,studies in ,religion and ,philosophy4 ,i am indebted to him for a complete revision of the manuscript and for the onerous work of seeing the book through the press4 ,i am also indebted to my brother ,mutazid ,wali ur ,rehman1 ,b4,a4 for valuable help in rendering many obscure passages4 ,,mohammad ,,jamil ,,ur ,,rehman ,osmania ,university1 ,hyderabad4 ,,contents ,i4 ,a ,decisive ,discourse on the ,delineation of the ,relation between ,religion and ,philosophy4 ,i a4 ,appendix3 ,on the ,problem of ,eternal ,knowledge which ,averroes has mentioned in his ,decisive ,discourse4 ,,ii4 ,an ,exposition of the ,methods of ,argument concerning the ,doctrines of the ,faith1 and a ,determination of ,doubts and misleading ,innovation brought into the ,faith through ,interpretations4 ,i ,a ,,decisive ,,discourse ,,on ,,the ,,delineation ,,of ,,the ,,relation ,,between ,,religion ,,and ,,philosophy ,a ,,decisive ,,discourse ,,on ,,the ,,delineation ,,of ,,the ,,relation ,,between ,,religion ,,and ,,philosophy4#a ,and after3 ,praise be to ,god for all ,his praiseworthy acts1 and blessings on ,mohammad1 ,his slave1 the ,pure1 the ,chosen ,one and ,his ,apostle4 ,the purpose of the following treatise is to inquire through sacred ,law#b whether the learning of philosophy and other sciences appertaining thereto is permitted1 or called dangerous1 or commended by the ,law1 and if commended1 is it only approved or made obligatory4 ,we maintain that the business of philosophy is nothing other than to look into creation and to ponder over it in order to be guided to the ,creator1--in other words1 to look into the meaning of existence4 ,for the knowledge of creation leads to the cognisance of the ,creator1 through the knowledge of the created4 ,the more perfect becomes the knowledge of creation1 the more perfect becomes the knowledge of the ,creator4 ,the ,law encourages and exhorts us to observe creation4 ,thus1 it is clear that this is to be taken either as a religious injunction or as something approved by the ,law4 ,but the ,law urges us to observe creation by means of reason and demands the knowledge thereof through reason4 ,this is evident from different verses of the ,quran4 ,for example the ,quran says3 8,wherefore take example from them1 ye who have eyes40#c ,that is a clear indication of the necessity of using the reasoning faculty1 or rather both reason and religion1 in the interpretation of things4 ,again it says3 8,or do they not contemplate the kingdom of heaven and earth and the things which ,god hath created40#d ,this is a plain exhortation to encourage the use of observation of creation4 ,and remember that one whom ,god especially distinguishes in this respect1 ,abraham1 the prophet4 ,for ,he says3 8,and this did we show unto ,abraham3 the kingdom of heaven and earth40#e ,further ,he says3 8,do they not consider the camels1 how they are created2 and the heaven1 how it is raised40#f ,or still again3 8,and 7who7 meditate on the creation of heaven and earth1 saying1 ,o ,lord thou hast not created this in vain40#g ,there are many other verses on this subject3 too numerous to be enumerated4 ,now1 it being established that the ,law makes the observation and consideration of creation by reason obligatory--and consideration is nothing but to make explicit the implicit--this can only be done through reason4 ,thus we must look into creation with the reason4 ,moreover1 it is obvious that the observation which the ,law approves and encourages must be of the most perfect type1 performed with the most perfect kind of reasoning4 ,as the ,law emphasises the knowledge of ,god and ,his creation by inference1 it is incumbent on any who wish to know ,god and ,his whole creation by inference1 to learn the kinds of inference1 their conditions and that which distinguishes philosophy from dialectic and exhortation from syllogism4 ,this is impossible unless one possesses knowledge beforehand of the various kinds of reasoning and learns to distinguish between reasoning and what is not reasoning4 ,this cannot be done except one knows its different parts1 that is1 the different kinds of premises4 ,hence1 for a believer in the ,law and a follower of it1 it is necessary to know these things before he begins to look into creation1 for they are like instruments for observation4 ,for1 just as a student discovers by the study of the law1 the necessity of knowledge of legal reasoning with all its kinds and distinctions1 a student will find out by observing the creation the necessity of metaphysical reasoning4 ,indeed1 he has a greater claim on it than the jurist4 ,for if a jurist argues the necessity of legal reasoning from the saying of ,god3 8,wherefore take example from them ,o ye who have eyes10#h a student of divinity has a better right to establish the same from it on behalf of metaphysical reasoning4 ,one cannot maintain that this kind of reasoning is an innovation in religion because it did not exist in the early days of ,islam4 ,for legal reasoning and its kinds are things which were invented also in later ages1 and no one thinks they are innovations4 ,such should also be our attitude towards philosophical reasoning4 ,there is another reason why it should be so1 but this is not the proper place to mention it4 ,a large number of the followers of this religion confirm philosophical reasoning1 all except a small worthless minority1 who argue from religious ordinances4 ,now1 as it is established that the ,law makes the consideration of philosophical reasoning and its kinds as necessary as legal reasoning1 if none of our predecessors has made an effort to enquire into it1 we should begin to do it1 and so help them1 until the knowledge is complete4 ,for if it is difficult or rather impossible for one person to acquaint himself single-handed with all things which it is necessary to know in legal matters1 it is still more difficult in the case of philosophical reasoning4 ,and1 if before us1 somebody has enquired into it1 we should derive help from what he has said4 ,it is quite immaterial whether that man is our co-religionist or not2 for the instrument by which purification is perfected is not made uncertain in its usefulness1 by its being in the hands of one of our own party1 or of a foreigner1 if it possesses the attributes of truth4 ,by these latter we mean those ,ancients who investigated these things before the advent of ,islam4 ,now1 such is the case4 ,all that is wanted in an enquiry into philosophical reasoning has already been perfectly examined by the ,ancients4 ,all that is required of us is that we should go back to their books and see what they have said in this connection4 ,if all that they say be true1 we should accept it and if there be something wrong1 we should be warned by it4 ,thus1 when we have finished this kind of research we shall have acquired instruments by which we can observe the universe1 and consider its general character4 ,for so long as one does not know its general character one cannot know the created1 and so long as he does not know the created1 he can have no knowledge of the ,creator4 ,thus we must begin an inquiry into the universe systematically1 such as we have learned from the trend of rational inference4 ,it is also evident that this aim is to be attained by the investigation of one part of the universe after another1 and that help must be derived from predecessors1 as is the case in other sciences4 ,imagine that the science of geometry and astronomy had become extinct in our day1 and a single individual desired to find out by himself the magnitude of the heavenly bodies1 their forms1 and their distances from one another4 ,even though he were the most sagacious of men1 it would be as impossible for him as to ascertain the proportion of the sun and the earth and the magnitude of the other stars4 ,it would only be attainable by aid of divine revelation1 or something like it4 ,if it be said to him that the sun is a hundred and fifty or sixty times as big as the earth1 he would take it to be sheer madness on the part of the speaker1 though it is an established fact in the science of astronomy1 so that no one learned in that science will have any doubt about it4 ,the science which needs most examples from other sciences is that of ,law4 ,for the study of jurisprudence cannot be completed except in a very long time4 ,if a man today would himself learn of all the arguments discovered by the different disputants of diverse sects1 in problems which have always excited contentions in all the big cities1 except those of ,al-,maghrib1 he would be a proper object to be laughed at on account of the impossibility of the task1 in spite of the existence of every favourable circumstance4 ,this is similar not only in the sciences but also in the arts4 ,for no one is capable of discovering by himself alone everything which is required4 ,and if this is so in other sciences and arts1 how is it possible in the art of arts--philosophy8 ,this being so1 it becomes us to go back to the ,ancients1 and to see what observations and considerations they have made into the universe1 according to the tests of inference4 ,we should consider what they have said in this connection and proved in their books1 so that whatever may be true in them we may accept and1 while thanking them1 be glad to know it1 and whatever be wrong1 we should be warned by it1 be cautioned1 and hold them excused for their mistake4 ,from what has been said1 it may be taken that a search into the books of the ,ancients is enjoined by the ,law1 when their meaning and purpose be the same as that to which the ,law exhorts us4 ,anyone who prevents a man from pondering over these things1 that is1 a man who has the double quality of natural sagacity and rectitude in the ,law1 with the merit of learning and disposition--turns away the people from the door by which the ,law invites them to enter into the knowledge of ,god1 and that is the door of observation which leads to the perfect knowledge of ,god4 ,such an action is the extreme limit of ignorance and of remoteness from ,god4 ,if1 by studying these books1 a man has been led astray and gone wrong on account of some natural defect1 bad training of the mind1 inordinate passion1 or the want of a teacher who might explain to him the true significance of things1 by all or some of these causes1 we ought not on this account to prevent one fit to study these things from doing so4 ,for such harm is not innate in man1 but is only an accident of training4 ,it is not right that a drug which is medically useful by its nature should be discarded because it may prove harmful by accident4 ,the ,prophet told a man whose brother was suffering with diarrhea to treat him with honey4 ,but this only increased the ailment4 ,on his complaining1 the ,prophet said3 8,god was right and thy brother's stomach was wrong40 ,we would even say that a man who prevents another fit for it1 from studying the books of philosophy1 because certain worthless people have been misled by them1 is like a man who refused a thirsty man cold and sweet water1 till he died1 because some people under the same circumstances have been suffocated by it and have died4 ,for death by suffocation through drinking cold water is accidental1 while by thirst it is natural and inevitable4 ,this state of things is not peculiar to this science only1 but is common to all4 ,how many jurists there are in whom jurisprudence has become the cause of worldliness and lack of piety8 ,we should say that a large majority of jurists are of this kind1 although their science should result in better action than other sciences which only lead to better knowledge4 ,so far1 then1 the position is established4 ,now1 we ,muslims firmly believe that our ,law is divine and true4 ,this very ,law urges us and brings us to that blessing which is known as the knowledge of ,god1 and ,his creation4 ,this is a fact to which every ,muslim will bear testimony by his very nature and temperament4 ,we say this1 because temperaments differ in believing3 one will believe through philosophy2 while another will believe through dogmatic discourse1 just as firmly as the former1 as no other method appeals to his nature4 ,there are others who believe by exhortation alone1 just as others believe through inferences4 ,for this reason our divine ,law invites people by all the three methods1 which every man has to satisfy1 except those who stubbornly refuse to believe1 or those1 according to whom these divine methods have not been established on account of the waywardness of their hearts4 ,this is why the mission of the ,prophet has been declared common to the whole world1 for his ,law comprises all the three methods leading men towards ,god4 ,what we say is quite clear from the following saying of ,god3 8,invite men unto the way of the ,lord1 by wisdom and mild exhortation1 and dispute with them in the most condescending manner40#i ,as this ,law is true and leads to the consideration of the knowledge of ,god1 we ,muslims should believe that rational investigation is not contrary to ,law1 for truth cannot contradict truth1 but verifies it and bears testimony to it4 ,and if that is so1 and rational observation is directed to the knowledge of any existent objects1 then the ,law may be found to be silent about it1 or concerned with it4 ,in the former case no dispute arises1 as it would be equivalent to the absence of its mention in the ,law as injunctory1 and hence the jurist derives it from legal conjecture4 ,but if the ,law speaks of it1 either it will agree with that which has been proved by inference1 or else it will disagree with it4 ,if it is in agreement it needs no comment1 and if it is opposed to the ,law1 an interpretation is to be sought4 ,interpretation means to carry the meaning of a word from its original sense to a metaphorical one4 ,but this should be done in such a manner as will not conflict with the custom of the ,arabian tongue4 ,it is to avoid the naming of an object1 by simply mentioning its like1 its cause1 its attribute1 or associate1 etc4 which are commonly quoted in the definition of the different kinds of metaphorical utterances4 ,and if the jurist does so in many of the legal injunctions1 how very befitting would it be for a learned man to do the same with his arguments4 ,for the jurist has only his fanciful conjectures to depend upon1 while a learned man possesses positive ones4 ,we hold it to be an established truth that if the ,law is apparently opposed to a truth proved by philosophy it admits of an interpretation according to the canons of the ,arabic language4 ,this is a proposition which a ,muslim cannot doubt and a believer cannot mistrust4 ,one who is accustomed to these things divine can experience for himself what we have said4 ,the aim of this discourse is to bring together intellectual and traditional science4 ,indeed1 we would even say that no logical conclusion will be found to be opposed to the ,law1 which when sifted and investigated in its different parts will be found in accordance1 or almost so1 with it4 99 99 99 99 99 ,that is why all ,muslims are agreed that all the words of the ,law are not to be taken literally1 nor all of them given an interpretation4 ,but they vary in verses1 which are or are not to be interpreted4 ,for example1 the ,asharites put an interpretation upon the verse of ,equalisation#aj and on the ,tradition of ,descent1#aa while the ,hanbalites take them literally4 ,the ,law has made two sides of these--exoteric and esoteric--because of the differences of human nature and minds in verifying a thing4 ,the existence of an opposed esoteric meaning is in order to call the attention of the learned to find out a comprehensive interpretation4 ,to this the following verse of the ,quran refers3 8,it is he who hath sent down unto thee the book1 wherein are some verses clear to be understood--they are the foundation of the book--and others are parabolical4 ,but they whose hearts are perverse will follow that which is parabolical therein1 out of love of schism1 and a desire of the interpretation thereof2 yet none knoweth the interpretation thereof except ,god4 ,but they who are well grounded in knowledge say3 ,we believe therein1 the whole is from our ,lord1 and none will consider except the prudent40#ab ,here it may be objected that in the ,law there are things which all ,muslims have agreed to take esoterically1 while there are others on which they have agreed to put an interpretation1 while there are some about which they disagree4 ,is it justifiable to use logic in the interpretation of those which have been taken literally1 or otherwise8 ,we would say that if the agreement is positive there is no need to apply logic2 but if it be conjectural there is4 ,for this very reason ,abu ,hamid 7,al ,ghazzali7 and ,abu ,ma'ali and other learned doctors have ordained that a man does not become an unbeliever by forsaking the common agreement and applying the principle of interpretation in such things4 ,it will certainly be agreed that complete consensus of opinion is not possible in metaphysical questions1 in the manner in which it is possible to establish it in practical things4 ,for it is not possible to establish unanimity of opinion at any time1 unless we confine ourselves to a small period and know perfectly all the learned doctors living in it1 that is1 their personalities1 their number and their views about any question to be quoted to us directly from them without a break in the chain4 ,with all this we should know for certain that the doctors living at that time are agreed that there is no distinction of exoteric and esoteric meanings in the ,law1 that the knowledge of no proposition should be concealed from anybody1 and that the method of teaching the ,law should be the same with all men4 ,but we know that a large number of people in the early days of ,islam believed in exoteric and esoteric meanings of the ,law1 and thought that the esoteric meanings should not be disclosed to an ignorant person who cannot understand them4 ,for example1 ,bukhari has related on the authority of ,ali that he said 8,talk to men what they can understand4 ,do you intend to give the lie to ,god and ,his ,apostle80 ,there are many ,traditions to the same effect related from other people4 ,so1 how is it possible to conceive of any consensus of opinion coming down to us in metaphysical questions when we definitely know that in every age there have been doctors who take the ,law to contain things the real significance of which should not be disclosed to all men8 ,but in practical affairs it is quite different4 ,for all persons are of opinion that they should be revealed to all men alike4 ,in these things unanimity of opinion can be easily obtained if the proposition is published1 and no disagreement is reported4 ,that may be sufficient to obtain unanimity of opinion in practical things as distinct from the sciences4 ,if it be maintained that one does not become an unbeliever by ignoring consensus of opinion in interpretation1 as no unanimity is possible in it1 what shall we say of such ,muslim philosophers as ,abu ,nasr 7,al ,farabi7 and ,ibn ,sina 7,avicenna78 ,for ,abu ,hamid 7,al ,ghazzali7 has charged them with positive infidelity in his book3 ,the ,refutation of the ,philosophers1 in regard to three things3 ,the eternity of the world2 ,god's ignorance of particulars2 and the interpretation concerning the resurrection of bodies and the state of the ,day of ,judgment4 ,to this we should reply that from what he has said it is not clear that he has charged them positively with infidelity4 ,for in his book ,al ,tafriqah bain'al ,islami w'al ,zindiqah he has explained that the infidelity of a man who ignores the consensus of opinion is doubtful4 ,moreover we have definitely pointed out that it is not possible to establish a consensus of opinion in such matters1 especially when there are many people of the early times who have held that there are interpretations which should not be disclosed to all but only to those who are fit for them and those are men who are 8well grounded in knowledge0#ac1 a divine injunction which cannot be overlooked4 ,for if such people do not know the interpretation in these matters they will have no special criterion of truth for their faith1 which the common people have not1 while ,god has described them as believing in ,him4 ,this kind of faith is always produced by the acceptance of the arguments1 and that is not possible without a knowledge of interpretation4 ,otherwise1 even the common people believe in the words of ,god without any philosophy whatever4 ,the faith which the ,quran has especially ascribed to the learned must be a faith strengthened with full arguments1 which cannot be without a knowledge of the canons of interpretation4 ,for ,god has said that the ,law admits of interpretation which is its real significance1 and this is what is established by arguments4 ,yet though this is so1 it is impossible to establish any well grounded consensus of opinion in the interpretations which ,god has ascribed to the learned men4 ,that is quite evident to anyone with insight4 ,but with this we see that ,abu ,hamid 7,al ,ghazzali7 has made a mistake in ascribing to the ,peripatetic ,philosophers the opinion that ,god has no knowledge of particulars4 ,they are only of opinion that the knowledge of ,god about particulars is quite different from ours4 ,for our knowledge is the effect of the existence of a thing4 ,such knowledge is produced by the existence of a thing1 and changes with changes in the thing4 ,on the other hand the knowledge of ,god is the cause of an existent thing4 ,thus one who compares these two kinds of knowledge ascribes the same characteristics to two quite different things--and that is extreme ignorance4 ,when applied both to eternal and to transitory things the word knowledge is used only in a formal fashion1 just as we use many other words for objects essentially different4 ,for instance the word ,jalal is applied both to great and small2 and sarim to light and darkness4 ,we have no definition which can embrace both these kinds of knowledge1 as some of the ,mutakallimun of our times have thought4 ,we have treated this question separately at the request of some of our friends4 ,how can it be supposed that the ,peripatetic ,philosophers say that ,god has no knowledge of particulars when they are of opinion that man is sometimes warned of the coming vicissitudes of the future through visions1 and that he gets these admonitions in sleep1 through a great and powerful ,director1 who directs everything8 ,these philosophers are not only of opinion that ,god has no knowledge of details such as we have but they also believe that ,he is ignorant of universals4 ,for all known universals with us are also the effect of the existence of a thing1 while ,god's knowledge is quite other than this4 ,from these arguments it is concluded that ,god's knowledge is far higher than that it should be called universal or particular4 ,there is therefore no difference of opinion concerning the proposition1 that is1 whether they are called infidel or not4 ,as to the eternal or transitory nature of the world3 ,i think that in this matter the difference of opinion between the ,asharite ,mutakallimun and the ,ancient ,philosophers is for the most part a verbal difference1 at least so far as the opinion of some of the ,ancients is concerned4 ,for they are agreed on the fact that there are three kinds of creation--the two extremes and a medial one4 ,they again agree on the nomenclature of the two extremes1 but they disagree as to the medial one4 ,as to the one extreme1 it has come into existence from something other than itself1 or from anything else--that is from a generative cause or matter--while time existed before it4 ,all those things whose existence is perceived by the senses1 as water1 animals1 vegetation1 etc41 are included in this4 ,all ,ancient and ,asharite philosophers are agreed in denominating this creation ,originated4 ,the other extreme is that which came into existence from nothing1 not out of anything1 and time did not precede it4 ,the two parties are agreed in calling this ,eternal4 ,this extreme can be reached by logic4 ,this is ,god1 the ,creator1 ,inventor1 and ,preserver of all4 ,the medial kind of creation is that which has neither been made from nothing1 8matter10 nor has time preceded it1 but it has been created by some generative cause4 ,in this is included the whole world4 ,again they all agree on the existence of all the three categories of the universe4 ,the ,mutakallimun admit1 or they ought to admit1 that before the universe there was no time1 for according to them time is contemporaneous with motion and body4 ,they are also agreed with the ,ancients that future time and creation have no end1 but they differ as to past time and its creation4 ,the ,mutakallimun are of opinion that it had a beginning4 ,this is the belief of ,plato and his disciples1 while ,aristotle and his followers are of opinion that it had no beginning1 just as the future has no end4 ,it is clear that the last mentioned kind of creation resembles both the originated and the eternal creation4 ,so one who thinks that in the past creation there are more characteristics of the eternal than the originated takes it to be eternal and vice versa4 ,but in reality it is neither truly originated nor eternal4 ,for the originated creation is necessarily subject to destruction while the eternal is without a cause4 ,there are some1 for example1 ,plato and his followers1 who have called it infinitely originated1 for according to them time has no end4 ,there is not here so great a difference about the universe1 for it to be made the basis of a charge of infidelity4 ,in fact1 they should not be so charged at all1 for opinions which are worthy of this are far removed from ours1 those quite contrary to them1 as the ,mutakallimun have thought them to be in this proposition4 ,i mean that they take the words originated and eternal to be contrary expressions1 which our investigation has shown not to be the case4 ,the strange thing about all these opinions is that they are not in agreement with the literal sense of the ,law4 ,for if we look closely we shall find many verses which tell us of the creation of the universe--that is1 of its originated nature4 ,creation and time are said to be without end4 ,for according to the verse3 8,it is ,he who hath created the heavens and the earth in six days1 but ,his ,throne was above the waters before the creation thereof0#ad it is clear that there was a universe before this one1 and that is the throne and the water1 and a time which existed before that water4 ,then again the verse 8,the day will come when the earth shall be changed into another earth and the heavens into other heavens0#ae shows equally when taken literally that there will be a universe after this one4 ,again1 the verse3 8,then ,he set his mind to the creation of heaven and it was smoke0#af shows that the heavens were created from something4 ,whatever the ,mutakallimun say about the universe is not based on a literal sense of the ,law1 but is an interpretation of it4 ,for the ,law does not tell us that ,god was even before mere non-existence1 and moreover1 this is not found as an ordinance in it4 ,how can we suppose that there could be any consensus of opinion about the interpretation of verses by the ,mutakallimun8 ,in fact1 there is much in the sayings of some philosophers which supports what we have quoted from the ,law1 taken literally4 ,those who differ concerning these obscure questions have either reached the truth and have been rewarded2 or have fallen into error and have to be excused4 ,for it is compulsory rather than voluntary to believe a thing to be true1 the proof of which has already been established2 that is1 we cannot believe or disbelieve it as we like1 as it depends upon our will to stand or not to do so4 ,so1 if one of the conditions of verification be freedom of choice1 a learned man1 and he alone1 should be held excused1 if he makes a mistake on account of some doubt4 ,hence the ,prophet has said that if a magistrate judges rightly he receives two rewards1 and if he makes a mistake he deserves only one4 ,but what magistrate is greater than one who judges the universe1 whether it is so or not4 ,these are the judges--the learned men--whom ,god has distinguished with the knowledge of interpretation4 ,it is this kind of mistake of insight which learned people are quite apt to make when they look into those obscure questions the investigation of which the ,law has imposed upon them4 ,but the mistake the common people make in these matters is sin pure and simple1 whether in theoretical or in practical things4 ,as a magistrate1 ignorant of ,tradition1 when he makes mistakes in judgment1 cannot be held excused1 so likewise a judge of the universe when not having the qualities of a judge is also not excusable1 but is either a sinner or an unbeliever4 ,if it be a condition that a magistrate shall have capacity of arbitration concerning the lawful and the forbidden1 that is1 knowledge of the principles of ,law and their application through analogy--how much more befitting it is for an arbitrator of the universe to be armed with fundamental knowledge of the mental sciences1 and the way of deducing results from them4 ,mistake in the interpretation of the ,law is thus of two kinds--a mistake which can be excused in one fit to look into the thing in which it has been committed1 just as an expert physician is excused if he commits an error in the application of his science2 or a magistrate when he misjudges1 and a mistake which is inexcusable in one not fit to investigate a thing4 ,but the error which cannot be excused for anybody1 and which1 if it happens to show itself in relation to the very principles of the ,law1 is infidelity1 and if in universals is an innovation1 is that error which is committed in those things which have been settled by all arguments and so the knowledge of them is possible for everybody1 for instance1 the acknowledgement of the existence of ,god1 of ,prophecy1 and of the happiness or the misery of the next world4 ,this is so1 because all these three principles are proved by those three methods1 the justification of which a man cannot deny by any means1 that is exhortative controversial and argumentative proofs4 ,a denier of such things1 which are the very root of the principle of the ,law1 is an unbeliever1 a retrograde with his tongue and his heart1 or through negligence1 on account of his denying them in spite of proofs4 ,for if he be a man believing in arguments1 he can verify them through these or if he believes in controversy1 he can verify through that2 and if he believes in religions admonitions he can well justify them through these4 ,and hence the ,prophet has said3 8,i have been commanded to fight with men till they say3 #8,there is no ,god but ,allah' and believe in me0 that is1 by any of these three means of attaining the ,faith4 ,but there are things which1 on account of their obscurity1 cannot be understood by inference4 ,so1 ,god has favoured such of his creatures as cannot understand logic1 either on account of their nature1 habit1 or lack of mental training1 by quoting examples and parables of such things and has urged them to testify as to their truth through them4 ,for everyone has mental capacity enough to understand them by the help of dogmatic and exhortatory argument which are common to all men4 ,this is why the ,law has been divided into two kinds3 exoteric and esoteric4 ,the exoteric part consists of those examples which have been coined to express certain meanings2 while the esoteric is the meanings themselves1 which are not manifested except to the learned in philosophy4 ,these are the very four or five kinds of methods of knowing reality mentioned by ,abu ,hamid 7,al ,ghazzali7 in his book called ,al ,tafriqah bain al ,islam wal ,zindiqah4 ,if it so happens as we have said that we can know of a thing by any of the above mentioned three methods1 then we do not stand in need of any examples for understanding them4 ,such things should be taken literally and interpretation should find no place with regard to them4 ,if these things form a part of the principles of the ,law1 one who puts an interpretation upon them is an infidel4 ,for instance1 if a man believes that there is no happiness or misery in the next world1 and that the teaching is only an artifice to safeguard the life and property of the people from one another and that there is no goal for men other than this life1 then he is certainly an unbeliever4 ,when this has once been established it will become clear to you that interpretation is not lawful in the exoteric part of the ,law4 ,if the canon of interpretation be used in the principles of the ,law1 it is infidelity1 and if used in general things it is an innovation4 ,but there is also a certain exoteric law which requires an interpretation from learned men4 ,it is not misbelief for them to take it exoterically1 but it is so or is at least an innovation in religion if ignorant men try to interpret or explain it4 ,among these is the verse of ,equalisation and the ,tradition of ,descent4 ,for the ,prophet said of a ,negro slave girl who told him that ,god was in heaven3 8,emancipate her1 for she is a believer40 ,for there are persons who cannot believe a thing except through their imagination1 that is1 it is difficult for them to believe a thing which they cannot imagine4 ,among these may be classed men who cannot understand a thing except with a reference to space1 and hence believe in ,god as though physical1 notwithstanding that these are the very persons who have dealt very harshly with those mentioned above4 ,they ought to be told that things of his character are parabolical1 and that we should pause and consider the saying of ,god3 8,yet none knoweth the interpretation thereof except ,god40 ,although learned men agree that these are to be interpreted1 they differ in the interpretation according to their knowledge of principles of philosophy4 ,there is a third part of the ,law which occupies an intermediate position1 on account of some doubt about it4 ,some say that it should be taken exoterically1 and that no interpretation should be allowed in it2 while there are others who say that they have some esoteric meaning1 and should not be taken exoterically by the learned4 ,this is on account of the obscurity of their meaning4 ,a learned man may be excused if he makes a mistake about them4 ,if the ,law is divided into these three parts1 it may be asked3 to which of these does the description of the state of the ,day of ,judgment belong8 ,we would reply that it is quite clear1 on the very face of the question1 that it belongs to that part in which there is some difference of opinion4 ,for one group of men1 who class themselves among philosophers1 say that these things should be taken literally4 ,for1 according to them1 there is not a single argument which makes their literal sense absurd and unreasonable4 ,this is the method of the ,asharites4 ,but another group of philosophers interpret them2 but they differ very widely in the interpretation itself4 ,amongst these may be mentioned ,abu ,hamid 7,al ,ghazzali7 and a large number of ,sufis4 ,there are some who would amalgamate the two interpretations1 as ,abu ,hamid has done in some of his books4 ,these questions are among those in which1 if the learned men err they are to be excused2 otherwise1 they are to be thanked and rewarded4 ,for1 if one acknowledges the reality of the ,day of ,judgment1 and then begins to apply the principles of interpretation to the description1 and not its reality1 he does not in any way deny it4 ,a denial of its reality is infidelity1 for it is one of the fundamentals of the ,law1 and it can be easily verified by any of the three methods of argument common to all men4 ,but one who is not learned should take it exoterically1 an interpretation in his case is unbelief1 for it leads to infidelity4 ,we are thus of opinion that such people should accept the literal sense1 for interpretation will certainly lead them to infidelity4 ,a learned man who discloses the discussions of these things to the common people helps them towards unbelief and one who abets another in that direction is himself no better than an unbeliever4 ,it is therefore unsuitable that these interpretations should be published in any other than learned books1 for in this way they will reach none but the learned4 ,but it is a mistake both in religion and philosophy if they are put in other books1 with dogmatic and exhortative arguments1 as ,abu ,hamid has done4 ,although the author's intention was good1 the idea thus to increase the number of learned men1 he caused a good deal of mischief through it4 ,for1 on account of this method some people began to find fault with philosophy1 and others to blame religion1 and still others began to think of reconciling the two4 ,it seems that this was the very aim which ,abu ,hamid had in view in writing these books4 ,he has tried to awaken the nature of men1 for he never attached himself to any particular way of thinking in his books4 ,he was an ,asharite with the ,asharites1 a ,sufi with the ,sufis and a philosopher with the philosophers1 so much so that he was1 as has been said3 8,i am a ,yeminite when ,i meet a ,yeminite2 if ,i meet a ,ma'adi ,i am one of ,banu ,adnan40 ,hence1 it is necessary for the doctors of ,islam to prevent men1 except the learned1 from reading his books2 as it is incumbent upon them to hinder them from reading controversial writings which should not be studied except by those fit to do so4 ,as a rule the reading of these books is less harmful than those of the former4 ,for the majority cannot understand philosophical books1 only those endowed with superior natures4 ,people are on the whole destitute of learning and are aimless in their reading which they do without a teacher4 ,nevertheless they succeed in leading others away from religion4 ,it is an injustice to the best kind of men and the best kind of creation2 for in their case justice consists in the knowledge of the best things by the best people1 fit to know it4 ,it should be remembered that the greater the thing is the higher will be the injustice done to it on account of ignorance4 ,hence ,god says3 8,polytheism is a great injustice40#ag ,these things we have thought proper to mention here1 that is1 in a discussion of the relation between philosophy and religion and the canons of interpretation in ,law4 ,if these matters had not become commonly known among men1 we would not have said anything about them and would not have entered in a plea on behalf of the interpreters4 ,for these things are suitable only for mention in philosophical books4 ,you ought to be aware that the real purpose of the ,law is to impart the knowledge of truth and of right action4 ,the knowledge of truth consists in the cognisance of ,god and the whole universe with its inner significance1 especially that of religion1 and the knowledge of happiness or misery of the next world4 ,right action consists in following those actions which are useful for happiness and avoiding those which lead to misery4 ,the knowledge of these actions has been called practical knowledge4 ,this is divided into two kinds3 external actions1 the knowledge of which is called ,fiqh1 that is1 ,theology2 and actions pertaining to feelings1 such as gratitude1 patience1 and other points of character to which the ,law has urged us or from which it has prohibited us4 ,this is called the knowledge of continence and of the next world4 ,abu ,hamid in his book ,the ,revivification of the ,sciences of ,religion seems to be inclined to this kind1 and as the people have always turned away from the former kind of knowledge and have turned themselves to the second which leads them easily to piety1 the book attained its name4 ,but we have wandered from our own purpose and will now return to it4 ,if the purpose of the ,law is to impart the knowledge of truth and of right action1 this cannot be attained except by one of the two methods3 viz1 by conception or verification such as ,mutakallimun have maintained in their books4 ,there are three methods of verification open to people3 philosophy1 dogmatics and exhortation4 ,there are two methods of conception3 either by the thing itself1 or by its like4 ,as all people cannot by their nature understand and accept philosophical and dogmatic arguments1 together with the difficulty of learning the use of inferences and the long time it takes to learn them1 and the purpose of the ,law being to be quite common among men1 it is necessary that it should contain all kinds of verifications and conceptions4 ,among the methods of verification there are some which are meant for the common people3 that is1 exhortative and dogmatic1 the exhortative being more common than the other4 ,there is one method which is meant solely for the learned1 and that is the method of rational inference4 ,now1 it is the primary aim of the ,law to improve the condition of the many without neglecting the few1 and hence the method of conception and verification adopted are common to the majority4 ,these methods are of four kinds3 the first is that which1 while in particulars the same in both1 that is1 both exhortatively and dialectically1 is still true by conception and verification4 ,these are syllogisms of which the minor and the major premise are certain1 besides being easily imagined and well known4 ,these are set before the deductions which are drawn from them1 and not from their likes4 ,to this kind of religious injunction there is no interpretation1 and one who denies them or puts an interpretation upon them is an infidel4 ,the second kind is that the premises of which although well known or easily imagined are also positively established4 ,their conclusions are drawn by analogy4 ,upon these1 that is1 their conclusions1 an interpretation may be put4 ,the third kind is just the reverse of the second1 that is1 the conclusions are themselves intended and their premises are well known or easily imagined without being positively established4 ,upon these also--that is1 upon the conclusions1 no interpretation can be put1 but the premises may sometimes be interpreted4 ,the fourth kind is that the premises of which are well-known or conjectural without being positively established4 ,their deductions are by analogy when that is intended4 ,it is the duty of the learned men to interpret them and of the common people to take them exoterically4 ,in short1 all that should be interpreted can be grasped by philosophy alone4 ,so the duty of the learned person is to interpret1 and of the common people to take it literally1 both in conception and in verification4 ,the reason for the latter is that they cannot understand more4 ,a student of law sometimes finds interpretations which have a preference over others1 in a general way by verification3 that is1 the argument is more convincing with the interpretations than with the literal meanings4 ,these interpretations are common and it is possible for them to be admitted by any whose speculative faculties have been developed in controversy4 ,some of the interpretations of the ,asharites and the ,mutazilites are of this type1 though the arguments of the ,mutazilites are generally the more weighty4 ,but it is the duty of the common people who are not capable of understanding more than exhortation to take them exoterically4 ,indeed1 it is not proper for them to know the interpretations at all4 ,thus there are three groups into which men have been divided3 ,those who are not included amongst those who should know the interpretations4 ,these are common people who are guided by exhortation alone4 ,they form a vast majority3 for there is not a single rational being who cannot accept a result by this method4 ,the second are dogmatic interpreters4 ,these are so1 either by their nature only1 or both by nature and habit4 ,the third are those who can be definitely called interpreters4 ,these are the philosophers1 both by nature and by philosophical training4 ,this kind of interpretation should not be discussed with the dogmatists1 not to speak of the common people4 ,if any of these interpretations are disclosed to those not fit to receive them--especially philosophical interpretations--these being far higher than common knowledge1 they may be led to infidelity4 ,for he wishes to nullify the exoteric meaning and to prove his interpretation4 ,but if the exoteric meaning is shown to be false without the interpretation being established1 he falls into infidelity1 if this concerns the principles of the ,law4 ,so1 the interpretations should not be disclosed to the common people1 and ought not to be put into exhortative or doctrinal books--that is1 books written with an expository purpose in view--as ,abu ,hamid has done4 ,hence1 it is necessary that the common people should be told that those things which are exoteric1 and yet cannot be understood easily1 the interpretations of which it is impossible for them to understand1 are parabolical1 and that no one knows the interpretation thereof except ,god4 ,we should stop at the following words of ,god3 8,none knoweth the interpretation thereof except ,god40#ah ,this is also the answer to the question about some of those abstruse problems which the common people cannot understand3 8,they will ask thee concerning the spirit3 answer3 ,the spirit was created at the command of my ,lord1 but ye have no knowledge given to you1 except a little40#ai ,again1 one who interprets these to persons not fit to receive them is an infidel1 because he leads others to infidelity1 which is quite in opposition to the purpose of the ,law4 ,this is especially the case when corrupt interpretations are put on the principles of the ,law1 as some men of our own times do4 ,we have known many people who think they are philosophers and hence claim to find out strange things through philosophy1 which are in every way contrary to religion1 and they do not admit of any other interpretation4 ,they think they must disclose these things to the common people4 ,but by the disclosure of wrong notions they lead them to eternal destruction4 ,the difference between their aim and that of the jurists can be made clear by the following example4 ,since it is not possible to make every one an expert physician a certain physician laid down some principles for the preservation of health and the prevention of diseases1 and he allowed the use of some things but prohibited others4 ,now a man comes and tells the people that the principles laid down by that physician are not correct and declares them to be false1 and they become discredited in the eyes of the people2 or says that they are capable of interpretations which they cannot understand and cannot verify by practice4 ,do you think that people in these circumstances will ever act upon those things which are useful for their health and for the prevention of diseases or that the man himself will ever be capable of acting on them8 ,no1 he will be quite incapable of doing so and thus will lead them all to destruction4 ,this is the case when those interpretations which they cannot understand are correct1 to say nothing of those that are wrong4 ,for they will not believe in health to be preserved1 nor disease to be prevented1 to say nothing of the things which preserve health or prevent disease4 ,this is the condition of that man who discloses interpretations of the ,law to the common people and those not fit to receive them4 ,and hence he is an unbeliever4 ,the simile which we have described above is a real parallel1 and not merely fanciful 7as some may think7 as it is correct in every respect4 ,for the relation of the medicine to the body is the same as that of the ,law to the soul4 ,a physician is one who seeks to preserve the health when he finds it good and tries to restore it when it is missed4 ,in the same way a religious law-giver is one who takes care of the health of souls1 which is called piety4 ,the ,quran also makes clear its purpose1 through religious action1 by many verses4 ,for instance3 8,o true believers1 a fast is ordained unto you as it was ordained those before you1 that ye may fear ,god0#bj and 8,their flesh is not accepted of ,god1 neither their blood2 but your piety is accepted by ,him0#ba and3 8,for prayer preserveth a man from filthy crimes and from that which is blameable40#bb ,there are many other verses of the same nature in the ,quran4 ,thus1 we see1 a religious law-giver seeks to establish this kind of health by religious knowledge and practice4 ,this is the health upon which depends happiness and in the case of its absence the misery of the next world4 ,this should have made it clear to you not merely that one should not speak of the wrong interpretation4 ,but also that it is not proper to put even true ones in the books of the common people4 ,these correct interpretations are of the faith which man has and of which the whole creation was afraid to bear the burden4 ,by this we refer to the following verse of the ,quran3 8,we proposed the faith unto the heavens1 and the earth1 and the mountains1 and they refused to undertake the same1 and were afraid thereof1 but man undertook it3 verily he is unjust to himself and foolish40#bc ,these interpretations and the idea that their discussion is necessary in the ,law have given rise to many sects in ,islam1 so much so that they have denounced one another with infidelity and innovations4 ,this is especially the effect of wrong interpretations4 ,the ,mutazilites interpreted a large number of verses and ,traditions and disclosed them to the people4 ,so also did the ,asharites1 though their interpretations were less in number4 ,they only succeeded in creating hatred and wars among men1 destroying the ,law1 and disuniting the people completely4 ,to add to this1 the method which they have adopted in proving these interpretations is adapted neither to the common people nor to the learned4 ,for if you look closely into it1 you will find that it is not correct according to the norms of logic--this anyone who has had any training may see for himself without the least effort4 ,in fact1 many of the principles upon which the ,asharites build their conclusions are sophistical in their nature4 ,they deny many fundamentals1 like the proof of accidence1 the influence of one thing upon another1 the necessity of cause and effects1 abstract figures and the processes leading to them4 ,indeed1 ,asharite ,mutakallimun have been in this respects unjust to ,mohammadans1 for one of their sects has denounced as infidels all those who do not recognise the existence of ,god by methods which they have devised for the knowledge of ,him3 but in truth they themselves are in the wrong and are unbelievers4 ,it is upon this point that the difference of opinion arises4 ,some say that the first principle is of reason1 while others allege that it is of faith4 ,that is to say they have thought that faith1 even before knowing the methods common to all and to which the ,law has made a call on all1 is the only method of arriving at truth4 ,thus they have mistaken the real purpose of the ,law-giver1 and being themselves in the wrong they have led others astray4 ,if it be alleged that the method that the ,asharites and other ,mutakallimun have devised are not those general methods in the purpose of the ,law-giver for the instruction of the common people1 and that it is not possible without some method being adopted1 then the question arises3 ,what are those methods which are given in the ,law8 ,we maintain that these methods are to be found in the ,quran alone4 ,for1 if we look closely we shall find that in the ,quran all the three kinds of methods are laid down1 for the whole of mankind1 both for the majority and for the learned few4 ,if we reflect we shall come to see that no better methods can be discovered for the instruction of the common people than those mentioned in the ,quran4 ,anyone who changes them by interpretations which are neither clear in themselves nor clearer than others to the common people1 makes null and void their philosophy and their effect1 the goal of which is the happiness of mankind4 ,this is quite evident from the early and the later condition of ,islam1 for in the early days ,muslims sought perfect excellence and piety by acting on those principles without putting any interpretation upon them4 ,and those among them who knew any interpretation did not disclose it4 ,in the later days interpretations were used1 and piety decreased1 the love for others was lost1 and they became divided into schisms and parties4 ,hence one who cares to remove this innovation from the ,law1 should turn to the ,book1 and should pick up from it the existing arguments for things whose belief is inculcated upon us4 ,further he should deeply think over the esoteric meanings1 as far as possible1 without putting interpretations upon them1 except when they are not quite clear to all4 ,the assertions of the ,book for the instructions of the people1 when thought over are things1 with whose help we can reach a stage from which none but the learned in logic can differ about the esoteric meaning of that which is not clear4 ,this peculiarity cannot be found in any other assertions but that of the ,book4 ,there are three peculiarities in the assertions1 which have been explained in the ,quran1 for the common people4 ,first1 that nothing can be found more convincing and true than these4 ,secondly1 that they can be accepted by every nature2 and they are such that none can know their interpretations1 if there be any1 except the learned in logic4 ,thirdly1 that they possess a call to the righteous1 for correct interpretations4 ,this is neither to be found in the school of the ,asharites nor in that of the ,mutazalites i4 e4 their interpretations are neither generally acceptable1 nor do they make any call to the righteous1 nor are they right in themselves4 ,it is for this reason that innovation has increased1 and it is our desire to write about it1 as far as it is possible for us1 provided that we get leisure for it1 have power to do it1 and ,god gives us a respite in life4 ,it is just possible that this may be a beginning for the coming generation2 because the breach of ,law1 due to evil passions1 and changed beliefs is simply aggrieving and saddening4 ,this is still enhanced by those1 who ascribe themselves to philosophy1 because an injury from a friend is worse than the injury from an enemy4 ,philosophy is a companion and a foster-sister to the ,law4 ,hence an injury from this source is the worst kind of injury1 even if we neglect the enmity1 hatred1 and animosity which is created between the two1 although they are companions by nature and friends in reality4 ,it has also been injured by many ignorant friends who ascribe themselves to it4 ,these are the schisms which exist in ,islam4 ,may ,god set all aright1 help all to ,his love1 and bring together their hearts for piety1 and erase enmity and hatred by his favour and grace4 ,indeed ,god has removed much of evil1 ignorance and the misleading ways through this strong government1 and has led the many to good1 especially the people who have walked in the path of scholasticism1 and have a liking for the knowledge of the ,truth4 ,because it has called the people to the knowledge of ,god by mediate paths1 which are higher than the depressions of the blind followers3 and lower than that of the high-sounding ,mutakallimun2 and has called the learned to their duty of considering fully the principles of ,law4 ,,footnotes ,footnote #a3 ,a translation of ,averroes' ,kitab ,fasl a'l ,maqal wa ,taqrir ma bain'a'l ,shariata wa'l ,hikmati mina'l ,ittisal4 ,ed4 by ,d4 ,j4 ,muller1 ,philosophie und ,theologie von ,averroes1 ,munich #ahei4 ,footnote #b3 i4 e4 ,shariat4 ,compare ,jewish ,torah4 ,footnote #c3 ,quran lix1 #b4 ,footnote #d3 ,quran vii1 #ahd4 ,footnote #e3 ,quran vi1 #ge4 ,footnote #f3 ,quran lxxxviii1 #ag4 ,footnote #g3 ,quran iii1 #agf4 ,footnote #h3 ,quran lix1 #b4 ,footnote #i3 ,quran xvi1 #abf4 ,footnote #aj3 8,it is he who hath created you whatsoever is on earth1 and that set ,his mind to the creation of heaven and formed it into seven heavens2 he knoweth all thing40 ,quran ii1 #bi4 ,for an interpretation of this see ,raji's ,tafsiri ,kabir vol4 ,i4 p4 #bdi et seq4 ,cairo4 #acjg4 ,a4 ,h4 and ,tabari's ,commentary vol4 ,i4 p4 #adf et seq4 ,cairo4 #aijb ,a4 ,d4 ,footnote #aa3 8,verily ,god comes down every night to the earth0 7,nibayah fi ,gharibil ,hadith by ,ibu ,athir vol4 ,,iv4 p4 #ach ,cairo #acaa ,a4 ,h47 ,for an interpretation see the above and ,qustatain's ,commentary on ,bukari1 vol4 ,,ix p4 #agh4 ,cairo4 #acjg ,a4 ,h4 ,footnote #ab3 ,quran iii1 #e4 ,footnote #ac3 ,quran iii1 #e4 ,footnote #ad3 ,quran xi1 #i4 ,footnote #ae3 ,quran xiv1 #ai4 ,footnote #af3 ,quran xli1 #aj4 ,footnote #ag3 ,quran xxxi1 #ab4 ,footnote #ah3 ,quran iii1 #e4 ,footnote #ai3 ,quran xvii1 #hg4 ,footnote #bj3 ,quran ii1 #gi4 ,footnote #ba3 ,quran xxii1 #ch4 ,footnote #bb3 ,quran xxix1 #dd4 ,footnote #bc3 ,quran xxxiii1 #fg4 ,ia4 ,,appendix4 ,,on ,,the ,,problem ,,of ,,eternal ,,knowledge1 ,,which ,,averroes ,,has ,,mentioned ,,in ,,his ,,decisive ,,discourse4 ,may ,god perpetuate your honour and bless you1 and screen you always from the eyes of misfortune4 ,through your excellent intelligence and good understanding you have learned a great part of all these sciences1 till your insight informed you of the doubt which arises concerning the eternal knowledge of ,god1 with its being at the same time concerned with created things4 ,thus1 in the interests of truth1 it is now incumbent upon us to remove the doubt from your mind1 after we have stated it clearly4 ,for one who does not know the problem adequately cannot very well solve the doubt4 ,the question may be stated thus3 ,if all this universe was in the knowledge of ,god before its creation1 then1 was it in ,his knowledge after its creation as it was before it came into existence2 or was it in ,his knowledge before its creation quite different from that after its coming into being8 ,if we say that the knowledge of ,god about it after its creation is quite different from that which it was before its creation1 it becomes necessary for us to admit that the eternal knowledge is changeable2 or that when the universe came into existence out of non-existence1 then there is an addition to the eternal knowledge2 which is impossible4 ,again1 if we say that the knowledge of it was the same in both the conditions1 then it would be said3 ,was the created universe the same before its coming into existence as it was after its creation8 ,to this objection it will have to be answered that it was not the same before its creation as it was after it1 otherwise the existent and the non-existent thing would be the same4 ,when the opponent has admitted this much1 he may be asked whether the real knowledge does not consist in the cognizance of an existent thing as it is4 ,if he says3 8,yes10 then accordingly it becomes necessary that when a thing changes in itself the knowledge of it must also change1 otherwise it would be a knowledge of something other than the real object4 ,thus it would then be necessary to admit one of two things3 either the eternal knowledge itself will change1 or the created things would be unknown to ,god4 ,and both of these alternatives are impossible with regard to ,god4 ,this doubt is still further strengthened by the apparent condition of man1 that is1 the relation of his knowledge about non-existent things by the supposition of their existence and its relation when the thing in question is found4 ,it is self-evident that both kinds of knowledge are different1 otherwise ,god would have been ignorant of its existence at the time he found it4 ,the argument which the ,mutakallimun advance to meet this objection does not by any means deliver us from the doubt4 ,they say that ,god knows the things before their coming into being1 as they would be after they come into existence4 ,if they say that no change occurs1 they fall into mistake4 ,if on the other hand they admit a change1 they may be asked whether this change was known in the eternal knowledge or not4 ,thus the first doubt occurs again4 ,on the whole it is difficult to imagine that the knowledge of a thing before and after its existence can be one and the same4 ,this is the statement of the doubt in the briefest terms possible1 as we have put it for your sake4 ,a solution of this doubt requires a very long discussion1 but here we intend to state a point which might easily solve it4 ,abu ,hamid 7,al ,ghazzali7 has also tried to solve this doubt in his work3 ,the ,refutation of the ,philosophers1 but his method is by no means satisfactory4 ,for he says something to this effect3 he thinks the known and the knowledge are not connected with each other1 so that when a change takes place in the one the other does not change in itself4 ,so it is possible that it may happen in the case of ,divine knowledge and the things existent1 that is1 they may change in themselves while ,god's knowledge may remain the same4 ,for instance a pillar may be on the right hand of ,zaid1 it may be changed to his left without any change taking place in ,zaid himself4 ,but the illustration is not at all a correct one1 for the relation has changed1 that is1 that which was on the right side is now on the left4 ,that in which no change has taken place is the condition of that relation--,zaid4 ,it being so1 and the knowledge is only the relation itself1 it is necessary that it should change with a change in the thing known1 as the change in the relation of the pillar to ,zaid1 for it is now on the left after being on the right4 ,the view which might solve this question is that it should be maintained that the condition of eternal knowledge of existent things is quite other than the created knowledge with regard to them4 ,for the existence of a thing is the cause and means of our knowledge of it1 while the eternal knowledge is itself the cause and means of the existent thing4 ,so if a change takes place in the eternal knowledge after the coming into being of an existent thing1 as it does in the created knowledge then it is involved that the former cannot be the cause but only the effect of the existent things4 ,thus it is necessary that there should be no change in it1 as there is in the created knowledge4 ,this mistake always occurs by our taking eternal knowledge to be like the created one1 by an analogy from the seen to the unseen4 ,the error in this analogy has already been exposed4 ,just as no change takes place in any agent after the creation of his act--that is1 change of kind which was not found before--so no change in the eternal knowledge of ,god after the creation of the thing which was in ,his knowledge4 ,so this doubt is removed4 ,at the same time it is not necessary for us to say that as there is no change in eternal knowledge1 therefore1 ,he does not know an existent at the time of its creation1 as it is4 ,but we must believe that ,he knows not by a created but by ,his eternal knowledge4 ,for a change in knowledge with a change of the existent thing is a condition of the knowledge which depends upon the existent thing1 such a knowledge being created4 ,thus the relation of the eternal knowledge with the existent things is not the same as that of the created knowledge4 ,it is not that there is no connection between them at all as some philosophers are said to maintain1 who as the people think1 say1 at the time of doubt1 that ,god has no knowledge of particulars at all4 ,but this is not as is commonly supposed4 ,they only say that ,he does not know particulars by any created knowledge1 one of the conditions of which is its being created by them1 by which it is an effect and not a cause4 ,this is the last of the things about it which must be remembered4 ,for our reason leads us to the fact that ,god is the ,knower of things1 all of them emanating from ,him4 ,this is so because ,he is a knower1 not because of ,his existence1 nor of ,his existence in any form1 but only because of ,his being a ,knower4 ,god has said1 8,shall not ,he know all things who hath created them1 since ,he is the sagacious1 the knowing40#bd ,the arguments also tell us that ,he knows by a knowledge which may be akin to created knowledge4 ,so it is necessary that there should be some other knowledge for the existent things--and this is the eternal of ,god4 ,moreover1 how is it possible to suppose that the ,peripatetic ,philosophers think that the eternal knowledge does not include particulars1 while they say that these are a cause of admonition to us in our dreams1 divine revelations1 and other kinds of inspiration8 ,that is what we think about the solution of the problem--a solution in which there is no doubt or suspicion4 ,god is the only helper to right judgment1 and leader to truth4 ,peace be upon you1 and blessings of ,god and ,his beatitude4 ,god is the best knower of truth3 and to ,him is the return and the refuge4 ,,footnotes ,footnote #bd3 ,quran lxvi1 #ad4 ,,ii ,,an ,,exposition ,,of ,,the ,,methods ,,of ,,arguments ,,concerning ,,the ,,beliefs ,,of ,,the ,,faith1 ,,and ,a ,,determination ,,of ,,uncertain ,,doubts ,,and ,,misleading ,,innovations ,,in ,,interpretations4 ,,an ,,exposition ,,of ,,the ,,methods ,,of ,,arguments ,,concerning ,,the ,,beliefs ,,of ,,the ,,faith ,,and ,a ,,determination ,,of ,,uncertain ,,doubts ,,and ,,misleading ,,innovations ,,in ,,interpretations4#be ,and after--,praise be to ,god1 who sets apart anyone whom ,he will for ,his knowledge1 rendering him fit for understanding ,his ,law and following ,his path1 informing him of the hidden recesses of ,his knowledge1 the real meaning of ,his inspiration1 and the purpose of sending the ,apostle to creatures1 in spite of what has become clear about the doubt of the doubters among the ,prophet's own followers1 and changes of meanings introduced by the false among his own people4 ,he has disclosed to him that there are interpretations which ,god and ,his ,apostle have not ordered4 ,may there be the most perfect blessings upon the ,trusty of ,his inspiration1 and the ,seal of ,his prophets1 and upon his family and relations4 ,we have already described in the foregoing tractate the conformity of philosophy with the ,law1 and its other relations4 ,we have said there that the ,law is of two kinds3 exoteric and esoteric4 ,the duty of the common people is to follow the exoteric law2 while the duty of learned men is to follow the esoteric one4 ,so the duty of the common people is to follow the meanings of the ,law in their literal sense1 leaving aside every interpretation of it4 ,the learned men are not permitted to expose their interpretations to the common people1 as ,ali1 7upon whom be peace7 has said1 8,tell the people what they can understand4 ,do you wish to give the lie to ,god and ,his ,apostle80 ,so ,i thought that in the present book ,i should examine the exoteric meanings which the ,law intends the common people to follow1 and in those1 search the real purpose of the ,law-giver1 7on whom be peace7 according to my ability and knowledge4 ,for the people of ,his ,law have been extremely disturbed1 so much so that many misguided sects and different divisions1 have been produced1 every one of which thinks that it is following the best ,law1 and that he who disagrees is either an innovator or an infidel whose life and property is at stake4 ,all this is directly opposed to the purpose of the ,law-giver4 ,its cause lies in the misleading things about the ,law which have been put forward4 ,in our own times1 there are four of these sects which are famous4 ,in the first place1 there is the sect of the ,asharites1 and these are the people who are commonly taken to be men of ,sunna4 ,then there are ,mutazilites1 the sects of the ,batinites1 7,esoteric71 and the sect of the ,bombasts4 ,every one of these sects has its own peculiar beliefs about ,god1 and has turned many an exoteric word of the law to interpretations1 which they have applied to those beliefs4 ,they think that theirs was the original ,law which all the people are asked to follow1 and he who deviates from it is either an innovator or an infidel4 ,but when you look into all their views and then examine the purpose of the ,law1 it would appear that a great part of them are recent opinions and innovating interpretations4 ,of them ,i will mention here those indispensable beliefs in the ,law1 without which ,faith does not become complete1 and will search1 in every one of them1 the real purpose of the ,law-giver1 7peace be upon him17 beyond that which has been made the basis of the ,law1 and its beliefs before the coming into use of incorrect interpretations4 ,i will begin by explaining the intention of the ,law-giver as to the beliefs which should be held by the common people about ,god1 and the methods which ,he adopted towards them4 ,all this is contained in the ,divine ,book4 ,we will begin by an exposition of the methods which leads to the knowledge of the existence of the ,creator1 for this is the first thing which a student ought to know4 ,but before this1 it is necessary that we should mention the opinions of the well-known sects4 ,the ,bombasts hold that the method of obtaining knowledge of the existence of the ,creator is by hearing and not by reason1 that is1 the belief in ,his existence1 the verification of which is incumbent upon all men1 is enough to be taught by the ,law-giver1 and believed as an article of ,faith1 as is the case with his teachings about the condition of the ,day of ,judgment1 and others with which our reason has no power to deal4 ,this is obviously a misleading sect1 for it falls short of the purpose of the ,law1 as regards the method adopted towards all the people1 leading them to the knowledge of the existence of ,god1 and calling them to the confession of ,his belief4 ,it is quite evident from many verses of the ,divine ,book1 that in it the people have been called to verify the existence of the ,creator by arguments of reason which are mentioned in it4 ,for instance1 there are the following verses of the ,quran1 8,o men of ,mecca1 serve your ,lord who has created you and those before you10#bf and 8,is there any doubt concerning ,god1 the ,creator of heaven and earth80#bg and other verses on the subject found therein4 ,it is not fit for a man to say1 that if these arguments had been necessary for believing in ,god--that is1 had his faith been not completed without understanding them--the ,prophet would not have invited anybody to ,islam without presenting to him all these arguments1 for the ,arabs already knew the existence of the ,creator1 so that ,god has said1 8,if thou asketh them who has created the heavens and the earth1 they will surely answer1 ,god10#bh and hence there was no use giving arguments4 ,it is impossible to find a man so stupid and dull1 that he cannot understand the arguments advanced by ,law for the common people1 through the ,prophet4 ,this is to say the least4 ,if there be found such a man1 then it is his duty to believe in ,god by hearing alone4 ,so much for the ideas of the ,bombasts about the exoterics of the ,law4 ,the ,asharites are of opinion that the verification of the existence of ,god cannot be attained but by reason4 ,but about this they have adopted a method1 which is not among the methods adopted by ,law1 and is not mentioned in the ,quran1 nor the people invited through it to believe4 ,their well-known method is founded upon the fact that the universe is a created thing1 which is itself based upon the theory of the composition of atoms1 and that the atom is a created thing1 and that other bodies are created out of it4 ,the method which they adopt for the exposition of the creation of an atom1 which they call al-,jauharat u'l ,faridah 7sole ,essence71 is a misleading one even for many religious men in the business of controversy1 not to speak of the common people4 ,and despite this it is a method devoid of philosophy1 and does not lead to a belief in the existence of the ,creator4 ,for if we suppose the universe is a created thing1 it becomes necessary1 as they say1 that its ,creator must also be a 8,created0 object4 ,but a doubt presents itself about the existence of this created thing1 which is not in the power of scholastic theology to solve4 ,and that is this1 that we can take this thing to be neither eternal nor created4 ,for if we take it as created1 then it must require another created thing1 and this another1 and so on to infinity4 ,this is impossible4 ,on the other hand1 if we take ,him as eternal1 then it is necessary that his action in connection with the result must also be eternal4 ,in this way the results also become eternal4 ,it is necessary for a created thing that its existence be dependent upon a created action4 ,their hypothesis can only be proved if they admit that a created action can be performed by an eternal agent4 ,for the result of the action might be dependent on the action of the agent4 ,but they do not admit it1 for according to their principles what is coeval with created things is itself created4 ,moreover1 if the agent sometimes acts and at other times remains inactive1 it is necessary1 that there be a condition better applicable in one state of things than in the other4 ,then about this condition the same question will rise1 and so it will go on till infinity4 ,and what the ,mutakallimun say in answer to this objection that the created action is the result of eternal intention1 does not relieve us of our doubt or satisfy our mind4 ,for intention without action is dependent upon the act1 and if the act is a created thing1 then it is necessary that the intention in connection with it must also be a created thing4 ,it makes no difference whether we take the intention as eternal or created1 rising before the action or with it4 ,so we may take it as we like4 ,all the same it is necessary for them to admit either of the three things about the universe--either a created action1 with a created intention or a created action and an eternal intention1 or an eternal action with an eternal intention4 ,but a created thing is impossible from an eternal action without any expedient1 even if we admit for their sake1 that it comes into existence by eternal action2 and putting intention itself or the action1 connected with the act is a thing which cannot be understood4 ,this is supposing an act without an agent1 with a result1 without any intention4 ,intention is a condition of the action and not the action itself4 ,also it is necessary that this eternal intention1 should be connected with non-existence of a created thing1 for a period of time which is indefinite4 ,so if a created thing be non-existence for an unknown period of time1 then it does not become connected with the intention at the time of its creation1 except after the completion of a time of which there is no limit1 and that which has no limit has no end4 ,so it becomes necessary that the intention should never take the form of action1 or a time without limit should come to an end1 which is impossible4 ,this is the argument of the ,mutakallimun1 on which they rely in proving that the revolutions of the heavens are created4 ,moreover1 it is necessary that to the intention which precedes the object1 and is connected with it1 at a certain time1 there should be created in it at the time of creation of the object a determination for doing so4 ,for the determination for the creation of an object cannot be found before that time1 because if at the time of action there be found no additional quality in the agent1 than that he had at the time of intention1 then action from him at that time would not be quite as necessary from him as inactivity4 ,we may go on in this way1 finding all the obscure and intricate doubts1 from which1 not to speak of the common people1 even clever men1 learned in scholastic theology1 in philosophy1 cannot escape4 ,so if the common people be burdened with a knowledge of these things1 it would be an unbearable problem for them4 ,then again the methods adopted by the ,asharites in proving the creation of the universe are defective for all classes of men4 ,the common people1 by their very nature1 cannot understand them1 and they are at the same time in no way reasonable4 ,so they are neither fit for the learned1 nor for the masses4 ,we warn our readers of them and say3 ,the methods which they adopt are of two kinds4 ,one of them1 the more famous of the two and upon which a majority of them relies1 is based upon three premises1 from which they derive the proof for the creation of the universe4 ,they are3 7#a7 that essences cannot be separated from accidents1 that is1 they cannot be devoid of them2 7#b7 that the accidents are created things2 7#c7 that that which cannot be separated from a created thing is itself created1 that is1 that which cannot be severed from the created thing is itself created4 ,now1 if by the first premise which says that the essences cannot be separated from the accidents1 they mean the bodies which stand by themselves1 then the premise is correct4 ,but if by essence they mean the particle which cannot be divided1 which they call ,sole ,essence1 then there is doubt about it1 which is not easy to solve4 ,for the existence of an indivisible essence is not well established in itself1 and about it there are many opposite and highly contradictory opinions1 and it is not in the power of scholastic theology to bring truth out of them4 ,that is the business of philosophers who are very few in number4 ,the arguments which ,asharites use are for the most part exhortative4 ,for their famous argument on this is that they say that our first knowledge about a thing is1 for instance1 that an elephant is bigger than an ant1 for it is accepted that the former has more particles in it than the latter4 ,if it be so1 then it is made up of particles and is not a compact whole in itself4 ,so when the body is destroyed it changes into particles1 and when composed it is composed of them4 ,but this is wrong4 ,for they have taken a divisible quantity as a continuous one1 and then thought that that which is applicable to the divisible is also applicable to the continuous4 ,this is true about numbers1 that is1 we say that a certain number is more than the other1 by its containing more particles in it1 that is1 more units4 ,but it cannot be true of a continuous quantity1 of which we say that it is bigger or greater4 ,in this way everything may be enumerated without any reference to its bulk at all4 ,and the science of mathematics becomes the science of number only4 ,it is well-known that every bulk can be considered with regard to line1 surface and volume4 ,moreover1 a continuous quantity it is possible to cut in the middle and thus get two parts4 ,but this is impossible in the units of number1 nay1 it is opposed to it4 ,then1 again1 the body and other particles of a continuous quantity are capable of being divided4 ,but everything divisible is either divided into other divisible quantities1 or into indivisible ones4 ,if it is divided into indivisible ones then we have found particles which cannot be divided4 ,and if it is divided into other divisible parts1 then again the question arises whether these can be divided into divisible or indivisible parts4 ,so if it can be divided a limitless number of times1 there would be limitless particles in a limited thing4 ,but it is one of the primary principles of knowledge that particles in a limited thing are limited4 ,among the obscure doubts which can be attributed to the ,asharites is the question whether if an atom is brought into being1 this is different from creation itself1 for it is one of the accidents8 ,when the created thing exists the act of creation is non-existent for according to their principles1 the accidents cannot be separated from their essences4 ,so this has compelled them to regard creation as pertaining to the existent things and not for it4 ,then they may be asked2 if creation implies the non-existence of a thing1 with what is the act of the agent connected1 for1 according to them1 there is no mean between existence and non-existence4 ,if this be so1 and1 according to them1 the action of the agent is connected neither with non-existence1 nor with that which is and nevertheless brings about an existence1 it must be connected with a middle substance4 ,this doubt has compelled the ,mutazilites to say that there is a substance1 even in non-existence1 which they call ,matter or ,first ,element4 ,they should admit that that which is non-existent can be made existent by action4 ,both of these sects must also admit the existence of a void4 ,these are questions1 which as you see1 cannot be solved by dogmatics4 ,thus1 it is clear that such a method cannot be made a basis of the knowledge of ,god1 especially for the masses4 ,we will shortly describe a clearer method of knowing ,god4 ,now as to the second premise1 according to which it is said that all the accidents are created things3--,this is a premise concerning which there are doubts1 and its meaning is as hidden as the soul in a body4 ,for we have observed many bodies to be created and such is also the case with some accidents4 ,so there is no difference in transferring an observed object to the invisible1 in both the cases4 ,for if it is necessary1 with regard to accidents1 to apply what applies of the visible things to the invisible1 that is1 if we should suppose a thing which we have not seen1 so created1 by the analogy of that which we have observed1 then we should also apply it to the essences4 ,thus we can become quite careless of proving the creation of accidents1 as distinct from that of essences4 ,the creation of the accidents of the heavenly bodies is extremely doubtful to the observer just as there is doubt in their essential creation4 ,for the creation of their accidents is never perceived4 ,so it is necessary that we should clearly observe them4 ,this is the method which surely and certainly leads pious people to the knowledge of ,god4 ,this is the method of the chosen men1 and that with which ,god has particularly blessed the prophet ,abraham4 ,he says3 8,and thus did ,we show unto ,abraham the kingdom of heaven and earth1 that he might become of those who firmly believe40#bi ,for the whole doubt concerns the heavenly bodies themselves4 ,many controversialists have stopped here and believed that these are so many gods4 ,again1 time is one of the accidents1 the creation of which it is impossible to imagine1 for it is necessary that the non-existence of a thing be preceded by time4 ,but in this case it cannot be imagined that the non-existence of a thing can be preceded by itself1 except by accepting time as existent4 ,so also it is difficult to imagine the creation of the space in which the universe is1 for every existent thing occupies a former space4 ,for if it is a void1 as is the opinion of those who think that the void itself is space1 its creation also1 if we suppose it to be created1 must been have preceded by another void4 ,and if the space be a tangible body1 as is the opinion of another group1 then it should be contained in another body1 which would require another1 and so on without limit4 ,these are all obscure problems and the arguments which are brought to disprove the eternity of the accidents1 are necessary for one who believes in the eternity of those accidents which can be perceived2 that is1 one who asserts that not all the accidents are created4 ,for they say that the accidents which can be perceived by the senses are created things4 ,if they are not created1 then they will move from one place to another1 or will be latent in the place in which they are to appear1 before they make their appearance4 ,then they disprove both of these arguments1 and think that they have established that all the accidents are created things4 ,but it has become apparent from what they have said1 that the apparently created portions of the accidents are created1 not those whose creation is not apparent1 nor those in whose case there is doubt1 such as the accidents which are in the heavenly bodies1 in their movement1 in their shape1 etc41 etc4 ,so their arguments about the creation of all accidents1 can be interpreted by the analogy of the visible to the invisible4 ,this is an exhortative argument1 except in the suggestion of reasonable arguments which depend here on the certainty of the similarity of the character of the visible and the invisible4 ,the third premise which says1 that that which cannot be separated from a created thing is itself created1 is equivocal1 for it can be understood in two ways3 the thing which cannot be separated from the class of created things1 but can be removed from its units2 and that which cannot be separated from any one of the things in question1 as if one were to say1 8,that which cannot be separated from this blackness in question40 ,the second meaning is the correct one1 that is it cannot be separated from a certain accident1 which is created1 for it is absolutely necessary that it should also be a created thing4 ,for if it be eternal it becomes devoid of that accident1 from which we suppose that it cannot separate4 ,this separation is impossible4 ,the first explanation1 and that is which they mean1 does not necessarily involve the creation of place1 that is1 that which is not separated from the class of created things4 ,for it is possible to imagine a single place1 that is1 a body upon which follow accidents without limit1 either opposed to one another or otherwise1 as you were to say1 movements without limit4 ,such is the opinion of many ancient philosophers about the universe1 that it is made little by little4 ,this is why1 when the ,mutakallimun saw the weakness of this premise1 they resolved to make it strong and secure1 by making it clear1 that according to them1 limitless accidents cannot follow upon a single point4 ,for they maintain that on this occasion it is necessary that there cannot be found any other accident1 except that there be an unlimited number of accidents before it at the place in question4 ,this helps them to the impossibility of their presence1 for it is necessary that it should not be there1 except after the completion of an unlimited number4 ,as the limitless never ends1 it follows that the thing which we have supposed should not be there4 ,for instance1 consider the movement of the heavenly bodies1 as we know them today4 ,if there were before it limitless movements1 then it is inevitable that this particular movement should not occur4 ,they give the example of a man1 who said to another1 8,i will not give you this dinar1 till ,i have given you before it a limitless number of dinars40 ,by this it is not possible for him to give the dinar in question at all4 ,but this example is not a correct one4 ,for in it there is a primary object1 then a limit1 and then another object between them1 which is without limit4 ,for he has said it in a limited time4 ,so he has stipulated that he would give the dinar between the time in which he is1 and the time of which he speaks1 between which there is a time without limit4 ,this is the period in which he would give him the dinars without limit1 which is impossible4 ,so it is quite clear that this example does not illustrate the object for which it is given4 ,their opinion that the existence of a thing which is found after limitless things1 is impossible1 is not correct in all the cases4 ,for the things which happen one after another are of two kinds3 those which come to pass in cycles1 and those which occur in order and arrangement4 ,the things which occur in cycles are necessarily unlimited1 except that something may interfere to prevent them4 ,for instance if the sun rises there must be its setting2 if there is a setting then it must rise1 and if it rise it must have risen before4 ,in the same way1 if there are clouds there must be vapours rising from the earth2 if there rise vapours from the earth1 then it must be wet1 if the earth is wet1 there must have been rain1 and if there was rain there must have been clouds1 and if thus there were clouds there must similarly have been clouds before them4 ,again among those things which happen by order1 is1 for instance1 the creation of man from man1 and of that man from another4 ,if this happens by essence then it can be taken as limitless1 for which the first link is not found1 the last also cannot be ascertained4 ,if this is by accident1 as for instance1 if man be really made by some one other than man1 who must be his father1 then the position of his father would be the same as that of an instrument in the hands of a maker4 ,so it is not possible to find an agent doing limitless actions1 with countless different instruments4 ,all these views are not clear in this connection4 ,we have mentioned them here1 that it may become known1 that the arguments which these people advance are no arguments at all1 nor are they reasonings fit for the masses1 that is1 open and clear arguments which ,god has imposed upon all his creatures for the sake of belief4 ,it must now have become clear to you that this method is neither philosophical nor according to ,law4 ,the other method is that which ,abul ,maali has deduced and described in one of his tractates known as ,nizamiyyah4 ,he has based it upon two premises3 in the first place1 that the universe and all that it contains may be conceived as other than what it really is4 ,it may be quite consistent1 for instance1 if it may be imagined smaller than it is1 or bigger1 or of some other shape than it really has or having more bodies in number than it really contains or the movements which are made in it may go in the opposite direction from that which they take now4 ,this may be so much so that it may become possible that a stone should go upwards1 and fire downwards1 or that the movement starting in the east should start in the west1 or the western from the eastern4 ,the second premise is that every transient thing is created1 and for it there is a creator2 that is1 an agent who made it in this way better than in any other4 ,the first premise is exhortative and very elementary4 ,its fallacy is quite apparent with regard to some aspects of the universe--for instance1 the existence of man in some other form than he now possesses2 while in some others there is doubt--for instance1 whether the movement from the east might change to one from the west and vice versa1 for this is not known in itself4 ,it is possible that for this there may be a cause the existence of which is not evident1 or it may be one of those causes which are hidden from man4 ,it is possible that whatever of these things a man sees1 is like one seeing for the first time things of the manufacture of which he is ignorant4 ,for such a man may think that all or parts of the thing may possibly be made in just the opposite fashion from that in which they really are made2 and still in spite of this idea the same work may be obtained from them for which they were made4 ,in this case there would be no art in them4 ,but its maker1 and one who is associated with the maker in some of his knowledge1 know that the whole thing is just the opposite of what that man has seen2 and that there is nothing in it but that which is absolutely necessary1 or the existence of which makes it more perfect and complete1 though outwardly it may not seem quite necessary in it4 ,it is quite clear that this manufactured thing1 may in this connection1 be taken as an illustration of ,god's ,creation--praised be its ,great ,creator4 ,this premise in being exhortative might be fit for all1 but being untrue and falsifying the wisdom of the ,creator1 is not fit for any4 ,it falsifies philosophy1 because philosophy is nothing else but the knowledge of the causes of things4 ,if there be no necessary causes for a thing1 which make its existence necessary in the form in which it exists1 then there is no particular knowledge which may be attributed to the wise ,creator4 ,just as if there had not been some necessary causes for the existence of any manufactured thing1 there would have been no art at all1 and no wisdom by which its maker might be praised1 and which might not be found in any man other than the maker4 ,where would be found any wisdom in a man1 if he could perform all his actions by any member of his body1 or without any member at all1 so much so that he could see with his ears1 as he could see with his eyes1 or smell with his eyes as he could with his nose4 ,this is all only falsifying philosophy1 and the meaning for which ,god has called himself ,wise 7,hakim7--,high and ,holy be his name from such imputations4 ,we find that ,avicenna has also adopted this doctrine1 for many reasons4 ,he says that everything1 except the maker1 when taken by itself1 may either be possible or allowable4 ,of the latter--that is1 things allowable1 there are two kinds3 ,one is allowable as regards its maker1 the other is necessary as regards the maker2 and possible as regards its essence4 ,the only thing which is necessary1 according to all reasons1 is the first maker4 ,this opinion is extremely incorrect4 ,because that which is possible in itself and its essence1 will not possibly turn a necessity beyond its maker1 but by a change of the possible nature into a necessary one4 ,if it be said that by these words he means 8,possible with regard to itself01 that is1 when the maker arises it will rise also1 then we would say that this rising is impossible4 ,but this is not the place to discuss the matter with this man4 ,we ventured to talk of him1 because of the many views which he has invented4 ,now we would return to our former theme4 ,the second premise1 which says that every transient thing is created1 is not in itself obvious4 ,the philosophers have differed about it4 ,plato allows that the apparently transient thing may be eternal1 while ,aristotle denies it4 ,it is a very intricate matter1 and cannot be made clear except to the philosophers1 that is1 learned men1 whom ,god has set apart for ,his knowledge1 and has in ,his ,book1 coupled their witness with that of ,himself and ,his angels4 ,abul ,maali has tried to make the premise clear by some other premises4 ,first1 that there should be something unique in every transient thing1 which may make it more preferable by one of the two qualities4 ,second1 that this particular thing cannot be any other than that intended4 ,third1 that the thing which exists by intention is created4 ,then he says that a transient thing comes into existence by our intention1 that is it is produced by previous volition4 ,for all the actions are performed either by nature or by intention4 ,and nature is not one of the passing things which are alike1 that is1 it not only creates the dissimilar but does the both4 ,for instance1 sea-anemone will absorb the yellow lob in the right side of the body and not in the left4 ,but intention is the thing which is particularly applicable to a thing opposed to its like4 ,then he adds that the universe is like its creation and exists in the position in the atmosphere where it was made4 ,by the void he means another void in which the world was made4 ,so he concluded that the universe was made by intention4 ,the premise which says that it is intention which fixes the shape of a thing1 is correct1 but that universe is surrounded by a void is wrong1 or at least not clear4 ,then again according to their notions1 his act of placing the void is bad4 ,that is1 it must be eternal1 otherwise it would require another void for it4 ,the premise saying that in this connection intention is nothing but a created thing is not clear4 ,for the intention of an action is connected with the desired act itself1 for it is one of its adjuncts4 ,and it is clear that when one adjunct is found with the action the other must be there1 for example the father and the son4 ,if one be found potentially the other must also be so4 ,hence if the intention of the action is created1 then necessarily the desired act must also be created4 ,if the intention of the action be eternal1 then the thing desired by that action must also be eternal4 ,the intention which precedes the intended object1 is said to be a potential intention only2 that is1 the intention which has not yet brought its intended object into being4 ,this is quite clear1 for when the intended object has appeared1 then it becomes an existent thing1 which it was not before the appearance of the intended object in action4 ,when this becomes the cause of the creation of an intended thing1 only by means of action1 then1 if the ,mutakallimun assert that intention is created1 it becomes clear that the intended object must also be created4 ,from the ,law it is clear that there is no need to go so deeply into the problem as far as the masses are concerned4 ,so it has not mentioned any eternal or created intention1 but has only said that it exists and the things are created4 ,so ,god says3--8,verily1 ,our speech upon anything when ,we will the same is1 that ,we only say unto it1 ,be2 and it is40#cj ,this has been so because the masses cannot understand the idea of created things from an eternal intention4 ,but the fact is that the ,law has not mentioned whether the intention is created or eternal1 this being a doubtful thing for many people4 ,the ,mutakallimun have also no certain argument to advance for providing the possibility of a created intention for creation4 ,for the principle with which they maintain their position for negating the existence of intention as eternal1 is the premise which we have already mentioned1 that is1 the thing which cannot be separated from the created thing is itself created4 ,we will mention this again when talking of intention4 ,from the foregoing it has become clear that the well-known methods adopted by ,asharites for the knowledge of ,god are certain neither philosophical1 nor by ,law4 ,this would be quite clear to anyone who would look closely into the kind of arguments advanced in the ,divine ,book about the knowledge of the existence of the ,creator4 ,for if you look closely into this matter you will find that the arguments comprise both qualities1 those of being certain and at the same time clear1 without being complex1 that is1 they have few premises4 ,as to the ,sufis their method in theorising is not a philosophical method--that is1 made up of a number of premises1 and syllogisms4 ,they maintain that the knowledge of ,god1 or of anything existent1 is found in our own hearts1 after its detachment from all physical desires1 and concentration of mind upon the desired object4 ,in support of their principle they bring many an argument from the exoteric side of ,law4 ,for instance they quote the ,divine words1 8,and fear ,god1 and ,god will instruct you10#ca and1 8,whoever do their best endeavour to prompt our true religion1 ,we will direct them unto ,our ways20#cb and again1 8,if ye fear ,god1 ,he will grant you a distinction10#cc and many other verses of this kind which are considered to be helpful for their purpose4 ,we say that this method1 if we suppose it to be real1 is not meant for all people4 ,had this method been satisfactory for all people then the philosophical method would have been quite futile1 and its existence among the people would have been useless1 and with it the existence of the ,quran4 ,for that always invites us to theorising1 judging1 and admonishing by way of philosophy4 ,we of course do not deny that the control of physical desires is a condition for healthy thinking1 as physical health is one of its conditions4 ,for the control of desires is profitable in acquiring knowledge by itself1 if it be made a condition for it1 just as health is a condition for education1 though it is not very useful for it4 ,that is why our ,law has invited all of us to this method and has insisted upon it1 that is1 for work1 not that it is sufficient in itself1 as these people think1 but that it is useful for thinking as we have already described4 ,this would be quite clear to any one who cares to ponder and think over it4 ,as to the ,mutazilites--their books have not reached us in sufficient number in this ,peninsula 7,spain7 that we may be able to form a fair estimate of the method which they have adopted in this matter4 ,but it seems that their methods are like those of the ,asharites4 ,if now that it is clear that none of these methods are in accordance with that by which the ,law invites all the people1 according to the difference in their dispositions1 to a confession of the existence of ,god1 it may be asked3 ,what is that method which the ,law has laid down in the ,divine ,book1 and upon which the ,companions of the ,prophet depended8 ,we would say that the method which the ,divine ,book has adopted1 and by which it has invited all to believe1 is1 when thoroughly investigated from the ,quran1 dependent upon two principles4 ,the one is a knowledge of ,god's solicitude for man1 and the creation of everything for his sake4 ,we would call this the argument of solicitude4 ,the second is the creation of the essences of the existent things1 as for example1 the creation of life in the minerals1 and feeling and intelligence4 ,we would call this method the 8argument of creation40 ,the first method is founded upon two principles3 first that all the existent things suit man2 secondly1 that this suitability must have existed in the mind of the ,maker before ,he intended to make the object in question1 for it cannot be obtained by chance alone4 ,now their suitability for the existence of man can be easily ascertained by the suitability of day and night1 sun and moon1 for the existence of man4 ,such is also the case with the suitability of the four seasons1 and of the place in which he lives1 that is1 the earth4 ,it is also apparent with respect to animals1 vegetables1 and minerals2 and many other things1 such as rain1 rivers1 seas1 the whole of the earth1 water1 fire and air4 ,it is also evident from the different members of his body1 on account of their suitability for the preservation of his life and existence4 ,on the whole1 a knowledge of the benefit derived from all the existent things may be included in it4 ,so it is necessary for a man who wants to know ,god perfectly1 to investigate the benefits derived from existent things4 ,in the argument of creation is included the existence of the animal world1 the plant world1 and the heavens4 ,this method is again based upon two principles1 which can be found out by every man by his very nature4 ,the one is that all things have been made and created4 ,this is quite clear in itself1 in the case of animals and plants1 as ,god has said1 8,verily the idols which ye invoke1 beside ,god1 can never create a single fly1 though they may all assemble for that purpose40#cd ,we see an inorganic substance and then there is life in it4 ,so we know for certain1 that there is an inventor and bestower of life1 and ,he is ,god4 ,of the heavens we know by their movements1 which never become slackened1 that they work for our benefit by divine solicitude1 and are subordinate to our welfare4 ,such an appointed and subordinate object is always created for some purpose4 ,the second principle is that for every created thing there is a creator4 ,so it is right to say from the two foregoing principles that for every existent thing there is an inventor4 ,there are many arguments1 according to the number of the created things1 which can be advanced to prove this premise4 ,thus it is necessary for one who wants to know ,god as ,he ought to be known1 to acquaint himself with the essence of things1 so that he may get information about the creation of all things4 ,for who cannot understand the real substance and purpose of a thing1 cannot understand the minor meaning of its creation4 ,it is to this that ,god refers in the following verse1 8,or do they not contemplate the heaven and the earth1 and the things which ,god has created80#ce ,and so a man who would follow the purpose of philosophy in investigating the existence of things1 that is1 would try to know the cause which led to its creation1 and the purpose of it would know the argument of kindness most perfectly4 ,these two arguments are those adopted by ,law4 ,the verses of the ,quran leading to a knowledge of the existence of ,god are dependent only on the two foregoing arguments4 ,it will be quite clear to anyone who will examine closely the verses1 which occur in the ,divine ,book in this connection4 ,these1 when investigated1 will be found to be of three kinds3 either they are verses showing the 8arguments of kindness10 or those mentioning the 8arguments of creation10 or those which include both the kinds of arguments4 ,the following verses may be taken as illustrating the argument of kindness4 8,have we not made the earth for a bed1 and the mountains for stakes to find the same8 ,and have we not created you of two sexes2 and appointed your sleep for rest2 and made the night a garment to cover you2 and destined the day to the gaining of your livelihood and built over you seven solid heavens2 and placed therein a burning lamp8 ,and do we not send down from the clouds pressing forth rain1 water pouring down in abundance1 that we may thereby produce corn1 and herbs1 and gardens planted thick with trees80#cf and1 8,blessed be ,he ,who hath placed the twelve signs in the heavens2 hath placed therein a lamp by day1 and the moon which shineth by night20#cg and again1 8,let man consider his food40#ch ,the following verses refer to the argument of invention1 8,let man consider1 therefore of what he is created4 ,he is created of the seed poured forth1 issuing from the loins1 and the breast bones20#ci and1 8,do they not consider the camels1 how they are created2 the heaven1 how it is raised2 the mountains1 how they are fixed2 the earth how it is extended20#dj and again1 8,o man1 a parable is propounded unto you2 wherefore hearken unto it4 ,verily the idols which they invoke1 besides ,god1 can never create a single fly1 though they may all assemble for the purpose40#da ,then we may point to the story of ,abraham1 referred to in the following verse1 8,i direct my face unto ,him ,who hath created heaven and earth2 ,i am orthodox1 and not of the idolators40#db ,there may be quoted many verses referring to this argument4 ,the verses comprising both the arguments are also many1 for instance1 8,o men1 of ,mecca1 serve your ,lord1 ,who has created you1 and those who have been before you3 peradventure you will fear ,him2 ,who hath spread the earth as a bed for you1 and the heaven as a covering1 and hath caused water to descend from heaven1 and thereby produced fruits for your sustenance4 ,set not up1 therefore1 any equals unto ,god1 against your own knowledge40#dc ,his words1 8,who hath created you1 and those who have been before you10 lead us to the argument of creation2 while the words1 8who has spread the earth0 refer to the argument of divine solicitude for man4 ,of this kind also are the following verses of the ,quran1 8,one sign of the resurrection unto them is the dead earth2 ,we quicken the same by rain1 and produce therefrom1 various sorts of grain1 of which they eat20#dd and1 8,now in the creation of heaven and earth1 and the vicissitudes of night and day are signs unto those who are endowed with understanding1 who remember ,god standing1 and sitting1 and lying on their sides2 and meditate on the creation of heaven and earth1 saying ,o ,lord1 ,thou hast not created this in vain1 far be it from ,thee1 therefore deliver us from the torment of hell fire40#de ,many verses of this kind comprise both the kinds of arguments4 ,this method is the right path by which ,god has invited men to a knowledge of ,his existence1 and informed them of it through the intelligence which ,he has implanted in their nature4 ,the following verse refers to this fixed and innate nature of man1 8,and when the ,lord drew forth their posterity from the loins of the sons of ,adam1 and took them witness against themselves1 ,am ,i not your ,lord8 ,they answered1 ,yea1 we do bear witness40#df ,so it is incumbent for one who intends to obey ,god1 and follow the injunction of ,his ,prophet1 that he should adopt this method1 thus making himself one of those learned men who bear witness to the divinity of ,god1 with ,his own witness1 and that of ,his angels1 as ,he says1 8,god hath borne witness1 that there is no ,god but ,he1 and the angels1 and those who are endowed with wisdom profess the same2 who executeth righteousness2 there is no ,god but ,he2 the ,mighty1 the ,wise40#dg ,among the arguments for both of themselves is the praise which ,god refers to in the following verse1 8,neither is there any thing which doth not celebrate his praise2 but ye understand not their celebration thereof40#dh ,it is evident from the above arguments for the existence of ,god that they are dependent upon two categories of reasoning4 ,it is also clear that both of these methods are meant for particular people2 that is1 the learned4 ,now as to the method for the masses4 ,the difference between the two lies only in details4 ,the masses cannot understand the two above mentioned arguments but only what they can grasp by their senses2 while the learned men can go further1 and learn by reasoning also1 besides learning by sense4 ,they have gone so far that a learned man has said1 that the benefits the learned men derive from the knowledge of the members of human and animal body are a thousand and one4 ,if this be so1 then this is the method which is taught both by ,law and by ,nature4 ,it is the method which was preached by the ,prophet and the divine books4 ,the learned men do not mention these two lines of reasonings to the masses1 not because of their number1 but because of a want of depth of learning on their part about the knowledge of a single thing only4 ,the example of the common people1 considering and pondering over the universe1 is like a man who looks into a thing1 the manufacture of which he does not know4 ,for all that such a man can know about it is that it has been made1 and that there must be a maker of it4 ,but1 on the other hand the learned look into the universe1 just as a man knowing the art would do2 try to understand the real purpose of it4 ,so it is quite clear that their knowledge about the ,maker1 as the maker of the universe1 would be far better than that of the man who only knows it as made4 ,the atheists1 who deny the ,creator altogether1 are like men who can see and feel the created things1 but would not acknowledge any ,creator for them1 but would attribute all to chance alone1 and that they come into being by themselves4 ,,of ,,the ,,unity ,,of ,,god ,now then if this is the method adopted by the ,law1 it may be asked3 ,what is the way of proving the unity of ,god by means of the ,law2 that is1 the knowledge of the religious formula that 8there is no god1 but ,god40 ,the negation contained in it is an addition to the affirmative1 which the formula contains1 while the affirmative has already been proved4 ,what is the purpose of this negation8 ,we would say that the method1 adopted by the ,law1 of denying divinity to all but ,god is according to the ordinance of ,god in the ,quran1 contained in the following three verses4 ,first1 8,if there were either in heaven or on earth gods beside ,god1 verily both would be corrupted40#di ,secondly1 8,god has not begotten issue2 neither is there any other ,god with him2 otherwise every other ,god would surely take away that which he has created2 and some of them had enabled themselves over the others4 ,far be it that from ,god1 which they affirm of ,him40#ej ,thirdly1 8,say1 unto the idolators1 if there were gods with ,him1 as ye say1 they would surely seek an occasion of making some attempt against the possessor of the ,throne40#ea ,the argument contained in the first verse is implanted in our dispositions by our very nature4 ,for it is well-known that if there be two kings1 and the orders of the one be as effectual as those of the other1 it is not possible to have even a single city under their guidance4 ,it is impossible to have one action of a single kind from two actors4 ,so it is necessary that1 if both of them begin work at the same time1 the city would be ruined1 except in the case that one should work and the other remain inactive4 ,this is against our conception of divinity4 ,for when the two actions of the same kind are gathered upon a single object1 then that object must necessarily be destroyed4 ,this is the meaning of the verse1 8,if there were either in the heaven or on earth gods besides ,god1 both would be corrupted40 ,the verse1 8,every god has surely taken away that which he had created10 has been revealed in refutation of the argument of those who believe in many gods1 entrusted with different works4 ,for in this case it becomes incumbent that the gods doing different works be independent of one another1 and that they should not be existent at one and the same time4 ,but as the world is one it is necessary that there be not in it gods with different duties4 ,the third verse1 8,say unto the idolators if there were gods with him1 as ye say1 they would surely seek an occasion of making some attempt against the ,possessor of the ,throne10 is like the first1 an argument to prove the impossibility of the existence of two gods1 whose duties are the same4 ,this verse means that had there been in the world any other god1 but the present one1 able to create the world and those in it1 so that his relation to it be that of a creator1 then he must live with ,god on the ,throne4 ,thus there would be found two existent things of the same kind in a single place4 ,but this is impossible4 ,for when the relation is one1 the related must also be one1 that is1 they cannot be gathered in a single place as they cannot live in it4 ,the relation of ,god to the ,throne is just its opposite3 the ,throne exists for ,him1 and not ,he for the ,throne4 ,that is what ,god has said1 8,his ,throne is extended over heaven and earth1 and the preservation of them is no burden unto him40#eb ,this is the argument by nature or by ,law for proving the unity of ,god4 ,the difference between the learned and the masses is that the learned know more about the creation of the world1 and the purpose of its different parts1 like a single body1 than the common people4 ,it is to this that the latter part of the verse refers1 8,god forbid6 and far1 very far1 be that which they utter6 ,the seven heavens praise him1 and the earth1 and all who are therein3 neither is there anything which doth not celebrate ,his praise2 but ye understand not their celebration thereof3 ,he is gracious and merciful40#ec ,the argument which the ,asharites deduce from this verse1 calling it the 8argument of impossibility10 is neither in accordance with natural nor legal arguments4 ,it is not in accordance with nature1 because what they say is without any proof at all2 while it is insufficient by ,law1 because the common people cannot understand it1 not to speak of their being satisfied with it4 ,they say1 that if there be two gods1 then it is more probable that they would differ4 ,if this were to happen1 then there would be one of the following three cases1 there being no fourth alternative4 ,either the desire of both of them would be accomplished1 or the desire of neither would not4 ,they say that it is impossible that the desire of neither of them be accomplished1 but if it be so then the universe would neither be existent nor non-existent4 ,if the desire of both of them be accomplished1 then the universe would be both existent and non-existent at the same time4 ,so there remains no alternative but that the desire of one be accomplished1 the other's remaining unfulfilled4 ,so one whose desire remains unfulfilled is helpless1 and the helpless cannot be a ,god4 ,the weakness of this argument is that as it is possible to suppose that they differ1 it is just as possible to presume that they agree1 a fact more becoming to the gods than difference of opinion4 ,if they agree about the creation of the world1 they would be like two craftsmen agreed upon making something4 ,if it be so then it must be said that their actions help them to work and live in a single place1 except that some one may say1 that perhaps one would do one thing and the other quite another thing1 or perhaps they would work by turns4 ,but this is an objection which cannot be advanced by the masses4 ,but if any sceptic controversialist were to advance it1 he may be told that one who has power to create one thing has power to create the whole4 ,so now again it comes to the same thing1 whether they agree or not1 and how can they help each other in work8 ,as to working by turn1 it would be a defect in both of them4 ,it is more probable that if there be two gods1 there must be two universes4 ,but as the universe is one1 its ,maker must also be one1 for a single work can only be done by one maker4 ,so it is not necessary that we should understand the verse of ,god1 8and some of them had enabled themselves over the other10 as pointing to disagreement alone1 but it may be taken as true even in the case of argument1 for this also leads to the same result as disagreement would do4 ,here lies the difference between us and the ,mutakallimun1 about the meaning of this verse1 though ,abul ,maali has said something almost expressing our own views4 ,by the foregoing you would understand that the argument which the ,mutakallimun have deduced from this verse is not the one which it really contains4 ,the impossibility to which their argument leads is not one which should be deduced from the verse in question4 ,the impossibility which is deduced from the argument which they think is contained in the verse1 is more than one impossibility1 by their dividing it into three parts1 while there is no division in the verse itself4 ,so the argument which they use is the one which is known to the logicians as disjunctive syllogism1 and is known in their science as definition and division4 ,but the argument contained in the verse is one which is known in logic as hypothetical syllogism1 which is quite different from disjunctive syllogism4 ,any one who would look most cursorily into this science would know the difference between the two4 ,then1 again1 the impossibility which their argument points out is not that to which the argument of the ,book leads4 ,they say that universe will either be neither existent nor non-existent1 or it will be existent and non-existent at the same time1 or its god would be a helpless and weak god4 ,these are impossible for ever1 because of the impossibility of more than one4 ,the impossibility which the verse refers to1 is not so for ever1 for in it it depends upon a certain period of time1 that is when the universe is found corrupted at the time of its existence4 ,for he says 8,if there be any other god but ,god10 the universe would be found corrupted4 ,then he has made an exception that it is not corrupted1 and hence there must not be more than one ,god4 ,so now it has become quite clear that this is the method by which ,god has invited the people to believe in ,his existence1 and negate the divinity of all but ,him4 ,these are the two propositions which are contained in the article of ,faith1 8,there are no gods but ,he40 ,so one who thinks over these two propositions1 and believes in them by the method which we have pointed out1 is a ,muslim in reality1 with a belief which is truly ,islamic4 ,but he whose belief is not based upon these arguments1 though he confesses the article1 he is a ,muslim with the other ,muslims1 only on account of the similarity of names4 ,,on ,,divine ,,attributes ,the attributes which the ,divine ,book has assigned to the ,creator and ,maker of the universe1 are only the perfect forms of those which are found in man1 and these are seven in number3 ,knowledge1 life1 power1 volition1 hearing1 seeing and talking4 ,now as to knowledge1 ,god in his ,divine ,book has said the following 8,shall he not know all things who has created them80#ed ,the argument contained in this verse is that a created thing always shows1 by the arrangement which it possesses1--its different parts being made for the sake of one another for the benefit intended to be derived from that thing1--that its maker is not nature only1 but it must have been made by one who has arranged all for the end in view4 ,so he must have a knowledge of it4 ,for instance1 when a man looks at a house he knows that the foundation was laid for the sake of the walls1 and the walls have been raised for the roof4 ,so it becomes clear to him that the house must have been built by a man knowing the art of building4 ,this quality is eternal1 for it is not fitting that ,god should possess it for a time only4 ,but we should not go down deep into this matter1 and should not say1 like the ,mutakallimun1 that ,he knows the created things at the time of their creation1 by ,his eternal knowledge1 for then it becomes necessary that the knowledge of the created thing at the time of its non-existence be the same which is absurd1 when knowledge is said to be dependent upon the existent things4 ,as an existent thing is sometimes an action1 and sometimes only a potentiality1 it is necessary that the knowledge of the two existence be different1 as its time of being in potentiality is quite different from the time of its being in action4 ,but this the ,law does not explain4 ,on the other hand it maintains quite an opposite position3 that ,god knows the created thing at the time of its creation1 as ,he has said1 8,there falleth no leaf1 but ,he knoweth it2 neither is there a single grain in the dark parts of the earth2 neither a green thing1 nor a dry thing1 but it is written in the perspicuous book40#ee ,so it is necessary that we should lay down in ,law that ,he knows a thing before it comes into being2 knows a thing when it is1 and not when it should have been2 and knows when a thing has been destroyed at the time of its destruction4 ,this is what the injunctions of the ,law establish4 ,it has been so because the masses cannot understand the universe through visible things1 except in this way4 ,the ,mutakallimun have no argument to advance against it1 except that they say that the knowledge which changes with a change in the existent thing is itself created1 while with ,god nothing created can be attached4 ,they say so because they think that that which cannot be separated from the created thing is itself created4 ,but we have already exposed the fallacy of this argument4 ,so it is established by the rules described1 and it should not be said that he knows the creation of the created1 and the corruption of the corrupted things1 neither by created nor by eternal knowledge4 ,this is an innovation in ,islam1 8,and is thy ,lord forgetful of thee80#ef ,the attribute of life is quite evident from the attribute of ,knowledge4 ,for our observation shows that one of the conditions of knowledge is life4 ,according to the ,mutakallimun the conditions of an observed object can be applied to the unseen4 ,what they have said about this is quite true4 ,the attribute of volition needs no proof1 because it is one of the conditions of bringing forth a thing1 that its maker must intend it4 ,such is also the case with power3 ,he must possess power4 ,but to say that ,he intended created things by eternal intention is innovation in religion1 which was not known to the learned in ,law1 and cannot satisfy the masses who have reached the stage of dogmatics4 ,we should say that ,he intends making a thing at the time of its creation1 but does not intend at the time of its non-existence4 ,so ,god says3 8,verily our speech unto anything when we will the same is that we say unto it1 ,be2 and it is40#eg ,for1 as we have said1 the common people are never compelled to advance the argument that ,he intends doing a thing by eternal intention1 but1 as the ,mutakallimun have said1 that that by which the created things exist1 is itself created4 ,now if it be asked1 how the attribute of ,speech be assigned to and proved in ,god1 we would say that it can be ascribed to him on account of the attributes of ,knowledge and ,power of creation4 ,for speech is nothing more than act on the part of the speaker to show to the one addressed the knowledge which he has1 or to disclose to him the knowledge which is in him4 ,this is one of the actions of the maker4 ,and when that created thing1 which is really a creator1 man1 has power over this faculty1 because he knows and is powerful1 how befitting it is that it should be found in the real ,creator4 ,there is another condition for this action1 among the things which we can observe1 and that is that which must be the means of performing it3 words4 ,this being so1 it becomes necessary that that action should be performed by ,god in the heart of somebody1 ,his chosen servant4 ,it is not necessary that it should always be through the medium of words1 and so created4 ,but it may happen either through an angel2 or through divine inspiration1 that is without the medium of words which ,he may create1 but through an act to the hearer1 which discloses to him the true nature of the thing meant1 or through words which ,he may create in the ears of him who has been specialised to hear ,his words4 ,it is to these three methods that the verse of the ,quran refers1 8,it is not fit for a man that ,god should speak unto him otherwise than by private revelation1 or from behind a veil1 or by sending a messenger to reveal1 by ,his permission1 that which ,he pleaseth40#eh ,so revelation is the disclosure of the intended secrets to the inspired person without the medium of words which ,he created1 but through an action done on the mind of the one addressed4 ,so ,god says1 8,afterwards ,he approached the ,prophet and drew unto him2 until ,he was at the distance of two bows' length from him or yet nearer2 and ,he revealed unto ,his servant that which ,he revealed40#ei ,the speech from behind the veil is one which is performed through the medium of words4 ,this is the real speech1 and that is the one which ,god specially bestowed upon ,moses1 and so ,he has said1 8,and ,god spake unto ,moses1 discoursing with him40#fj ,now as to his words1 8or by sending a messenger to reveal10 this is the third kind mentioned above1 that is1 through the medium of some angels4 ,sometimes ,god speaks to the learned men1 who are the successors of the prophets1 by disclosing arguments to them4 ,on account of these causes it is true1 when the learned men say1 that the ,quran is the speech of ,god4 ,it has now become clear to you that the ,quran1 which is the speech of ,god1 is eternal1 but the words expressing it are created by him1 and are not human4 ,from it are excepted the ,quranic words which we commonly use in our speech1 that is1 these words are our own actions1 by the command of ,god1 while the words of the ,quran are those created by ,god4 ,he who does not understand these things by this method1 cannot understand this argument and cannot grasp as to how the ,quran is the word of ,god4 ,the alphabets used in the ,quran are our own invention1 by the command of ,god4 ,we have to respect them1 because of them are formed the words created by ,god1 for the purpose which is not itself created4 ,he who thought of words and not of meaning1 that is1 did not separate them1 said that the ,quran was created2 while he who thought of the meaning which these words express1 said the ,quran was not created4 ,but the truth lies in the middle of these two extreme views4 ,the ,asharites deny that the speaker is the maker of his own speech1 for they think that if they admit it1 they must also admit that ,god is the maker of ,his speech4 ,again1 when they believe1 that the speech can only exist with the speaker1 they think1 they must also believe1 taking in view the two foregoing principles1 that ,god is ,himself the creator of ,his words4 ,in this case ,he ,himself becomes the place of created things4 ,so they assert that ,god is the maker of speech1 but it is an eternal attribute in him1 like knowledge1 etc4 ,this is the time of the speech in our mind1 but not of the speech which expresses what we have in our mind1 that is1 the words4 ,as the ,mutazilites thought that speech is the action of the speaker1 they said that by speech is meant only the words uttered4 ,so they believed that the ,quran is 8,created40 ,since according to them the word is an action of the speaker1 so it is not one of its conditions that it should exist with the speaker4 ,the ,asharites on the other hand1 insist that it is one of its conditions that it should exist only with the speaker4 ,this is true in both the cases1 that is in the case of ideas in our minds1 and the words which express them4 ,but in the case of ,god1 it is the ideas which stand with ,him1 and not the words expressing them4 ,so when the ,asharites laid it down as a condition1 that the speech be absolutely dependent upon the speaker1 they deny that the speaker is the maker of his speech2 while on the other hand1 the ,mutazilites1 when they laid it down as a condition that the speaker is the maker of his speech1 ignored the existence of ideas in our minds4 ,in this way there is some truth1 and some falsehood1 in the opinions of both of these sects1 as must have become clear by what we have said4 ,now we come to the attributes of hearing and seeing4 ,the ,law has proved them to be possessed by ,god by saying that hearing and seeing are the two essential qualities for knowing the meaning of things1 which cannot be acquired by intellect4 ,so a maker must know everything about the object which he is making1 it is necessary that he should possess the two senses of hearing and seeing4 ,so ,he must have these two faculties4 ,all this proves their existence in ,god1 by means of the ,law1 through the teaching of the knowledge which is found in him4 ,moreover1 ,one on whom the name of ,god and the ,adorned is applied must necessarily possess all the senses4 ,for it is useless for man to worship him who cannot know that he is being worshipped1 as ,god has said1 8,o my father1 why dost thou worship that which heareth not1 neither seeth1 nor profiteth thee at all20#fa and1 8,do you therefore worship1 beside ,god1 that which cannot profit you at all1 nor can it hurt you80#fb ,this is the power which has been ascribed to ,god1 and which the ,law has commanded the common people to know and nothing else4 ,of the innovation which this question of attributes has given rise to1 one is whether they are the same as ,divine ,essence or something added to it1 that is1 whether they are found in the essence itself 7,nafsiyyah71 or are only applied to it1 7,maanawiyyah74 ,by ,nafsiyyah we mean those attributes which are found in the thing itself1 and are not attached to it for the purpose of adding something to the essence1 for existence1 we say one or eternal4 ,by ,maanawiyyah we mean the attributes which are applied to a thing for some purpose which is found in it4 ,the ,asharites say that these attributes are only ,maanawiyyah1 that is qualities which are only added to the ,divine ,essence4 ,so they say that he knows by a knowledge which has been added to ,his essence1 and lives by life attached to it and so on4 ,this has compelled them to admit that the ,creator has a body1 for there must be the quality and the qualified1 the bearer and the borne4 ,this is the condition of the body1 so they must say that the essence is existent by itself1 and the qualities exist through it1 or they must say that these attributes are independent of each other1 then there must be a number of gods4 ,this is the belief of the ,christians1 who say that the three personifications are those of ,existence1 ,life and ,knowledge4 ,god has said about it the following1 8,they are certainly infidels1 who say1 ,god is the third of the three40#fc ,one of them stands by itself1 the others being dependent upon the former4 ,so it becomes necessary that there should be essence1 existing in itself1 and the accidents depending on something else4 ,the place in which the essence and the accidents are found together must necessarily be a body4 ,such is also the case with the ,mutazilites about the question1 that the essence and the attributes are one and the same thing4 ,this they think1 is for the primary principles of knowledge or may be opposed to them4 ,for they think that according to the primary principles knowledge must be existent without the one knowing4 ,but knowledge and the one knowing cannot be the same1 except that it may be possible that the two may be very close to each other1 just as the father and the son4 ,this teaching is very remote for the understanding of the masses1 and to explain it to them in detail is innovation1 for it would more likely mislead than guide them to the right path4 ,the ,mutazilites have no argument to advance in proof of their proposition1 for they have none4 ,such is also the condition of the ,mutakallimun in the case of denying a body to ,god4 ,for when they have established it1 they are compelled to admit the creation of the body1 because it is a body4 ,we have already said that they have no argument for it4 ,those who have such are the learned people1 the philosophers4 ,it is at this point that the ,christians have erred4 ,they believe in the multiplicity of attributes that they are essences existing not by the help of another1 but by themselves1 like the self1 7,zat74 ,they also believe that the qualities with these attributes are two in number--knowledge and life4 ,so they say that ,god is one from the three causes4 ,that ,he is three they say because ,he exists1 lives and knows4 ,they say that ,he is one1 because ,he is a collection of all the three qualities4 ,and so there are three religious opinions among them4 ,one party believes that they are all the self 7,zat7 alone without any number2 the other only believes in numbers of qualities4 ,this is divided into two parties3 one which thinks that they exist by themselves1 and the other which makes them exist by something else4 ,all this is in contrast with the purpose of the ,law4 ,it being so1 it is necessary that one who wants to teach the knowledge of these things to the common people should tell them as much as the ,law orders him to do--and that is only a confession of their existence without entering into details4 ,for it is not possible for the common people to believe and understand them at all4 ,by common people here ,i mean all those who are unacquainted with the laws of reasoning1 though they may or may not know the science of scholastic theology4 ,it is not in the power of scholastic theology to know of these things even when it is said that it is not a science of reasoning but of dogmatics1 for these things can never be clearly understood by dogmatics alone4 ,so1 by now1 the extent of these questions which should be disclosed to the common people1 and the method adopted for this purpose must have become clear to you by what we have said4 ,,of ,,divine ,,perfection ,we have already described the way which the ,law pursues in teaching the common people the existence of ,god1 the denial of ,his having any associates1 and thereby the knowledge of ,his attributes1 and the extent to which they have been explained in details in it1 one after another4 ,it is really an addition to1 and deduction from1 and change and interpretation of this very limit and extent which has not been productive of good to any and all the people4 ,now it remains for us to know the method which the ,law has adopted in explaining to the common people the perfection of ,god and freedom from all defects1 and the length to which it has gone in detailing it1 and the cause of restricting its knowledge to them4 ,then we should mention the methods which it adopts in teaching the people the knowledge of ,his actions1 and the latitude which it has allowed in this respect4 ,having done so1 we shall have accomplished the purpose for which we began this book4 ,so we say that the knowledge of things known as perfection and holiness are found in many verses of the ,quran1 the most clear and definite of them being the following1 8,there is nothing like ,him1 and it is ,he who heareth and seeth20#fd and1 8,shall ,god1 therefore1 ,who createth1 be as he who createth not40#fe ,the second verse is an argument for the verse 8there is nothing like ,him40 ,for it is one of the characteristics of the dispositions of all the people to think that the ,creator must either be unlike the things which ,he has created1 or having qualities which may be different from these which ,he has given to the created2 otherwise he who is himself created cannot be a ,creator4 ,when we have admitted that the created cannot be the creator then it becomes incumbent upon us to say that the qualities of the created should either be not found in the ,creator1 or found in ,him in some different way than they are in the created4 ,we say1 8in some different way10 because we have proved the divine qualities to be those which are found in the noblest of ,god's creatures1 man1 as knowledge1 life1 power1 volition and so on4 ,this is the meaning of the ,tradition of the ,prophet1 8,god created ,adam after ,his own image40 ,so it has been established that the ,law has denied the similarity between the ,creator and the created with fitting arguments4 ,the denial of similarity is of two kinds1 first1 that there may not be found in the ,creator many qualities of the created2 and secondly2 there may be found in him the qualities of the created in so perfect and excellent a form as could not be imagined4 ,of these two kinds it should be seen which one the ,law has explained1 and about which it is reticent4 ,we would also try to find out the cause for this reticence4 ,we would say that the qualities of the created which have been denied by ,law as pertaining to ,god are those which show some defects2 for example1 death1 as ,god says1 8,and do ye not trust in him who liveth1 and dieth not10#ff or sleep and things which lead to negligence and carelessness1 as regards senses and the protection of the existent things1 as ,he says1 8,neither slumber nor sleep seizeth ,him40#fg ,of such qualities are error and forgetfulness1 as ,god has said1 8,the knowledge thereof is with my ,lord1 in the book of ,his decrees3 my ,lord erreth not1 neither doth ,he forget40#fh ,a knowledge of those qualities the existence of which has been denied in ,god is one of the necessary things of common education and is why the ,law has been very explicit about them4 ,it only warns us not to meddle with those things which are far from the primary principles of knowledge1 because it knows the small limits of human knowledge1 as ,god has said in many different verses of the ,quran1 8,but the greater part of men do not understand40 ,for example ,he says1 8,verily the creation of heaven and earth is more considerable1 than the creation of man2 but the greater part of men do not understand10#fi and 8,the institution of ,god to which ,he has created mankind disposed2 there is no change in what ,god hath created4 ,this is the right religion2 but the greater part of men know it not40#gj ,now it may be said1 what is the proof--that is1 the proof advanced by the ,law--of the fact that these defects are not found in ,god4 ,we would say that it is apparent from the universe itself4 ,it is quite safe4 ,no confusion or corruption overtakes it4 ,had the ,creator been subject to negligence1 carelessness1 error or forgetfulness the whole of the universe would have been destroyed4 ,god has made this clear in many verses of the ,quran4 ,he says1 8,verily ,god sustaineth the heaven and the earth1 lest they fail3 and if they should fail1 none could support the same besides him20#ga and1 8,the preservation of both is not burden unto him1 ,he is the high1 the mighty40#gb ,if our opinion be asked about the anthropomorphic attributes of ,god1 whether the ,law has denied them as attributes to the ,creator or is only silent about them1 we would say1 that it is evident that the ,law is quite silent about them1 and their mention in it is quite near to their denial altogether4 ,it has come to be so because the ,quran in many verses speaks of ,his hands and face1 and these verses are taken as showing physical attributes which the ,creator has bestowed upon the created1 just as ,he has given him the qualities of power1 volition and so on--qualities which are common between the ,creator and created1 except that they are more perfect in the former4 ,on account of this many ,muslims believed that the ,creator has a body different from all other bodies4 ,such is the case with the ,hanbalites and their many followers4 ,but in my opinion we should follow the path of the ,law2 and this should neither deny nor try to prove them1 and whenever asked by the common people to do so1 we should answer with words of ,god1 8,there is nothing like him2 and it is ,he who heareth and seeth10#gc in this way preventing them from questioning4 ,it is so because of three reasons4 ,it is neither near to the first1 nor to the second1 nor to the third grade4 ,this would be quite clear to you from the method adopted by the ,mutakallimun4 ,they say that the proof of the fact that ,he is not a body is that it has been proved that all bodies are created things4 ,if they are asked to point out the method of proving the latter proposition1 they adopt the method1 which we have already pointed out1 concerning the creation of accidents1 that that which cannot be separated from created things is itself created4 ,you have already seen1 from what we have said1 that this method is not a philosophical one1 and had it been so1 even then a majority of the common people would not have grasped it4 ,moreover1 whatever these people have said about ,god1 that ,he is a ,self 7,zat7 and divine attributes added to it1 proves by itself that ,he has a body1 on account of the denial of creation1 rather an argument denying anthropomorphism4 ,this is the first reason why the ,law does not speak of these things in clear terms4 ,the second reason is that common people think that all that is existent they can imagine and feel1 all else being non-existent to them4 ,so when they are told that there exists ,one who has no body1 their imagination does not work and ,he becomes almost non-existent to them1 particularly so when they are told that ,he is neither outside our knowledge nor in it1 neither above nor below4 ,that is why the sect which believes in anthropomorphism thinks of those who deny it1 that they also believe in it2 while1 on the other hand1 the party thinks its opponents to be believing in a number of gods4 ,the third reason is that had the ,law denied anthropomorphism altogether there would have arisen many a misgiving about what has been said concerning the ,day of ,judgment1 and other beliefs4 ,of these one is the problem of ,divine ,vision which we find stated in authentic ,traditions4 ,those who have been very explicit in denying it are the two sects of the ,asharites and the ,mutazilites4 ,the belief of the latter has driven them to deny the vision altogether2 while the ,asharites have tried to make the two things agree1 but this was impossible for them to do4 ,so they have taken refuge in many sophistic arguments1 the weakness of which we would show when talking of the ,divine ,vision4 ,another problem which rises out of this is that it evidently gives rise to a denial of the direction in which ,god is4 ,for if ,he has no body then the ,law becomes an allegory4 ,for the advent of the prophets is founded upon the fact that ,divine ,revelation is sent to them from the heaven4 ,upon this very principle is also based our religion1 for the ,divine ,book has come down from the heavens1 as ,god says1 8,verily we have sent down the same 7the ,quran7 on a blessed night40#gd ,the descending of the divine revelation from heaven is based upon the fact of ,god's being there4 ,so also is the descending and ascending of angels from heaven1 as ,god says1 8,unto him ascendeth the good speech2 and the righteous work will ,he exalt20#ge and says ,he1 8,the angels ascend up unto and the spirit40#gf ,we would mention all the things which the deniers of direction bring to prove their proposition when we come to talk of this problem4 ,another difficulty which arises is that with the denial of anthropomorphism we shall have to deny movement to ,god1 after which it would be difficult to explain with regard to the ,day of ,judgment1 that ,he would appear to the people at that moment1 and would himself superintend their judgment1 as ,he says1 8,thy ,lord shall come and the angels rank by rank40#gg ,it would also be difficult to explain the famous ,tradition of ,descent1 though its explanation would be1 on the whole easier than that of the former in spite of all that has been said about it in the ,law4 ,so it is necessary that there should be disclosed to the common people nothing which might lead them to a disbelief in the literal meanings of these things4 ,this would be its effect upon the mind of the people if taken exoterically4 ,but when it is interpreted it would come to either of two interpretations4 ,either interpretation would overcome the exoteric side of it and of other things like it1 thus destroying the ,law altogether1 and falsifying their purpose2 or it will be said about all of them that they are only allegories1 which would destroy the ,law1 and efface it from the mind of the people1 while the man doing it would not know the sin he has committed with regard to ,law4 ,with all this1 if you were to look into the arguments which the interpreters advance about these things1 you would find all of them unreasonable1 while the exoteric meanings are much more satisfactory1 that is1 verification through them is more common and much better4 ,this should become clearer to you when we begin to review the arguments which they advance for a denial of anthropomorphism1 and discuss the question of direction1 as we may shortly do4 ,you should also know that the ,law never intended to disclose the question of the denial of this attribute completely to the common people1 since it can be done by an explanation of the soul1 and the ,law has not explained to the masses what the soul was4 ,god says in the ,quran1 8,they will ask thee concerning the ,soul2 answer1 ,the ,soul was created at the command of my ,lord2 but ye have no knowledge given unto you except a little40#gh ,this is so1 because it is difficult to establish reasons for the common people for the existence of a thing existing by itself1 without a body4 ,had the denial of this attribute been understood by the masses then it would not have been enough for prophet ,abraham to say in his discussion with the infidel1 8,when ,abraham said1 ,my ,lord is ,he who giveth life and killeth3 he answered1 ,i give life and ,i kill40#gi ,on the other hand he would have said1 8,thou art a body1 and ,god has not one1 for every body is created10 as the ,asharites would argue4 ,so also it would have sufficed for ,moses in his discussion with ,pharoah about his divinity2 and for the ,holy ,prophet in case of the anti-christ1 telling the ,faithful of the falsehood of his claims for divinity1 because he would have a body while ,god has none4 ,on the other hand he told them that our ,god was not one-eyed4 ,an argument proving the physical defect in him was enough to falsify him4 ,so you see that all these are innovations in ,islam1 and have become the cause of its being split up into sects1 into which the ,prophet tells us that his people would be divided4 ,now some one may object that the ,law has not made it clear to the common people that ,god has or has not a body1 then what should they believe about him4 ,this is a question which will naturally arise in the mind of every man1 and cannot be put away from him4 ,so it would not satisfy the common people to let them know of a thing1 the existence of which they should believe1 that it is not made of matter4 ,we should say that they should be answered with the answer given by ,law--,that ,he is the ,light1 for this is the quality which ,god has assigned to himself in ,his ,book1 for describing himself1 ,he says1 8,god is the light of heaven and earth40#hj ,the prophet has also assigned to him the game quality in an authentic ,tradition4 ,it says that he was asked whether he had seen ,god1 and he answered1 8,he was ,light1 and ,i saw him40 ,the ,tradition of the ,night ,journey says that when the ,prophet neared the lote-tree1#ha it was completely covered with light1 which did not hide it from his sight4 ,there is also a ,tradition in the book of ,muslim which says that ,god is a curtain of light1 which1 if opened1 would burn the opener1 and yet ,god would not be seen4 ,in some other readings of this very ,tradition it is said that ,he is seventy curtains of light4 ,it should be known that this illustration is especially fit for ,god1 for it comprises the two things1 that ,he can be felt1 our eyes and intellect being powerless to see or comprehend him1 and in spite of this ,he is not a body too4 ,now according to the common people the existent thing is one which can be felt1 while the non-existent thing is that which they cannot feel4 ,so light being the best of the things felt1 it is but fitting that the best existing thing should be likened unto it4 ,there is another cause for it which should be noticed4 ,the condition of ,his existence to the learned people1 when they begin to ponder over him1 is like the condition of the eyes when they look towards the sun4 ,but such is not the condition of the eyes of the bat4 ,so this quality fittingly describes the condition of the two classes of people4 ,moreover1 ,god is the cause of the existence of things1 and of our knowledge of them4 ,this is also the quality of the light in showing colours1 and of our seeing them4 ,so ,god has very fittingly named himself ,light4 ,when it is said that ,he is ,light then there remains no doubt as to ,his ,vision on the ,day of ,judgment4 ,from these it must have become clear to you what the primary belief of the ,law was about this attribute1 and what are the innovations which rose in it afterwards4 ,the ,law is silent about it because there is not found in the universe anything unseen without a body1 except that which is found by arguments among things seen as existent with this quality1 and that is the soul4 ,as the belief of the soul was impossible for the masses1 it was also impossible for them to understand the existence of a ,being who exists without a body4 ,hence they cannot understand it about ,god4 ,,of ,,direction ,this is a quality which all the people learned in ,law have tried to prove1 until the ,mutazilites denied it1 and were followed by the later ,asharites1 like ,abul ,maali and those who follow him4 ,all the exoterics of the ,law go to prove it4 ,for ,god says1 8,and eight shall bear the ,throne of thy ,lord on that ,day20#hb and 8,he governeth all the things from heaven even to the earth3 hereafter shall they return unto him1 on the ,day whose length shall be a thousand years1 of those which ye compute40#hc ,again1 ,he says1 8,the angels ascend unto him and the spirit20#hd and1 8,are ,ye secure that ,he who dwelleth in heaven will not cause the earth to swallow you up8 and behold1 it shall shake40#he ,there are many other verses of this kind which1 if interpreted1 would turn the whole of the ,law into interpretation2 and if taken allegorically1 would make it an allegory4 ,all the religious laws are based upon the principle that ,god is in heaven1 from whence he sends down angels to ,his ,prophets with revelations1 that from the heaven1 the religious books used to descend1 and that towards it was the ,night ,journey of the ,prophet1 till he reached near the lote-tree4 ,all the philosophers are1 moreover1 agreed that ,god and ,his ,angels are in heaven1 as is the case with all the religions4 ,the doubt which led them to deny this idea of direction was that they thought that by believing in direction it would be necessary to believe in space1 which in its turn leads to a belief in anthropomorphism4 ,but we say that this is not necessarily the case1 for direction can exist without space4 ,it is nothing but the surfaces of the body surrounding it1 which are six in number4 ,that is why we say that there is an above and a below1 right and left and before and behind for an animal4 ,or they are the surfaces of a body surrounded by another body having the above-mentioned six directions4 ,so the directions1 which are the surfaces of the body itself1 are not the spaces of the body in any respect4 ,but the surfaces of the surrounding bodies are space for it4 ,the atmosphere surrounding man1 and the surfaces of the sky surrounding the surfaces of the atmosphere1 for they are the spaces for it4 ,such is also the case with different surrounding and forming spaces for one another4 ,as to the last sky it is evident that beyond it there must be no body4 ,for had it been so1 it would be necessary that beyond it be another body and so on to infinity4 ,so there is no space at all for the last body of the universe1 for it is not possible that in it be found any body1 it being necessary that there be found a body in every space4 ,so when there is an argument for the existence of a thing in that direction1 it is necessary that it be not a body4 ,so one who denies ,his existence there goes against his own ideas4 ,he is existent1 has a body1 is not existent without a body4 ,they cannot say that beyond the universe is a void4 ,for the impossibility of a void has been made quite certain in the philosophical sciences4 ,for that upon which the name void is commonly applied1 are nothing but dimensions 7,abad71 in which there are no bodies4 ,for when these dimensions are once removed1 there remains nothing but non-existence4 ,but if the void be supposed as existent1 it is necessary to admit the existence of accidents in something not a body1 for dimensions are accidents by their having a quality4 ,but it is said by the ,ancients and established by past religions that that place is the dwelling place of the spirits1 ,god and angels4 ,this place has no space1 and is not governed by time1 because everything governed by time and space can be corrupted4 ,and it is necessary that the things there be uncorrupted and uncreated4 ,this has been made quite clear by what ,i have said1 for there cannot be found in that place anything but one which is existent and at the same time can be felt1 or is altogether non-existent4 ,it is self-evident that an existent object is always referred to by its existence2 that is1 it is said that it exists1 that is1 it has an existence4 ,so if anything exists there1 it must be the noblest of all1 and it is necessary that that existent thing should be referred to by the best portion of the universe1 which are the heavens4 ,god has said concerning the nobility of the heavens1 8,verily the creation of heaven and earth is more considerable than the creation of man3 but the greater part of men do not understand40#hf ,all this is perfectly clear to the learned men 8,well grounded in knowledge40#hg ,now it has become clear to you that belief in direction is necessary by religion and reason1 and that it forms a part of the ,law1 which is based upon it4 ,a denial of the principles is a denial of all the religions4 ,the cause of the difficulty in their understanding this1 and in their denial of anthropomorphism is1 that there cannot be found in the visible world an illustration of such a thing4 ,this was just the reason why the ,law did not expressly deny an anthropomorphism4 ,for to the common people verification of an invisible object can only come when its existence be known in the visible world1 as knowledge1 which being a condition for their own existence as visible1 could to them become a condition for the existence of an invisible ,maker4 ,now as the case of the visible was unknown in the visible on the part of the many1 and none knew it but those who were well-grounded in knowledge1 the ,law-giver forbade an inquiry into it1 as for example knowledge of the ,soul4 ,if it be needful for the common people to know anything1 then the ,law gives examples from the visible world4 ,and if one example did not suffice for the understanding of the problem in view1 then many examples are given1 as in the case of an account of the ,day of ,judgment4 ,the doubt which arises out of a denial of direction1 on the part of those denying it1 is that the common people cannot comprehend it1 particularly so1 because they have not been given before hand to understand that ,god has no body4 ,so it is necessary to take the action of the ,law as our example1 otherwise we will have to interpret that which the ,law itself has not expressly said4 ,with regard to these problems of the ,law1 the people may be divided into three classes4 ,in the first place there are people who cannot notice any doubt arising out of them1 especially in things which the ,law has left to be taken exoterically4 ,these people are the greatest in number1 and may be described as the masses4 ,then the second group of men is one which has doubts2 but has not power to solve them4 ,these are above the masses and below the learned people4 ,it is for them that there are found in the ,law allegorical sayings1 and it is they whom ,god has censured4 ,for there is no allegory in the ,law for the learned or the common people1 and it is in this light that all the allegorical sayings of the ,quran should be understood4 ,their example as regards the ,law is like the example of the bread of wheat which though a useful cereal for the large number of human beings1 may prove harmful to some4 ,such is also the case with religious teaching3 it is useful for the many but sometimes becomes harmful to some4 ,the following words of ,god point to the same thing4 8,he will not thereby mislead any except the transgressors40#hh ,but this is found only in a few verses of the ,quran about a few people4 ,most of the verses are1 however1 those which speak of things invisible for which there is no example in the visible world4 ,so they are expressed by the things nearest to them in the visible world1 on account of their similarity4 ,some people take the illustration as the thing illustrated1 and hence they fall into confusion and doubt4 ,this is what is called allegorical in the ,law1 and is not meant for the learned or the common people1 which in reality form two groups of men4 ,for these are the people who are really healthy1 and delicate food is only fit for them4 ,the other group is a group of sick men who are always few in number4 ,so ,god has said1 8,but they whose hearts are perverse will follow that which is parabolical therein1 out of love of schism40#hi ,these are the dogmatic and the scholastic theologians4 ,the worst which these people have done in respect to the ,law is that they have interpreted much which they thought was not to be taken literally1 and then said that their interpretation was the thing intended1 and that ,god had mentioned it parabolically only to test and try ,his creatures4 ,god forbid that we should ever have such an idea about ,him4 ,the ,divine ,book is a miracle of clearness and lucidity4 ,so it is far from the real purpose of the ,law for one to say about a thing which is not parabolical1 that it is so1 and then set about interpreting it according to his own ideas1 telling the people that their duty lies in believing his interpretations4 ,they have done so in the case of the verse of ,equalisation on the ,throne1 and others1 saying that their exoteric meaning is only parabolical4 ,on the whole many interpretations1 which these people maintain to be the real purpose of the ,law1 when intently looked into and deciphered1 are found wanting in arguments1 and not serving the purpose which the exoteric meaning would have with regard to the common people4 ,the primary purpose of knowledge for the common people is action1 so that which is most useful in action is most suitable for them4 ,but for the learned men1 the purpose of knowledge is both knowledge and action4 ,the man who interprets anything of the ,law1 thinking that his interpretation is the real purpose of it1 and then discloses it to the common people1 is like a man1 who finds a medicine which an expert physician had compounded to preserve the health of all1 or of a majority of the people2 then there came a man with whom that medicine did not agree on account of the coarseness of his disposition4 ,he presented it to some people1 and then thought that by some drug1 which the first physician had clearly specified1 as composing that universally useful medicine1 he did not mean the drug commonly known by that name--but another which he really meant1 but used this name for it by a far-fetched metaphor4 ,so he took out the first drug from the compound1 and placed another in its stead1 which he thought to be the one intended by the first physician4 ,then he told the people that this was the medicine intended4 ,the people began to use that 8improved0 medicine1 and many of them got injured by it4 ,then there came another group of men1 who1 seeing the people sick on account of that medicine1 thought of curing them4 ,so they changed some of its drugs with some other than the first one1 then presented it to the people for quite another disease than that intended by the first physician4 ,then there appeared another group which interpreted the medicine in quite another way than the two preceding groups had done4 ,the fourth group gave a new interpretation to the drug and prescribed it for a fourth kind of disease4 ,so as time went on with that great medicine1 the interpretations of it took hold of the people instead of the drugs1 and they changed and transformed it altogether4 ,as a result the people were attacked by many different kinds of diseases1 till the usefulness of the medicine was altogether lost4 ,such is the condition of those sects which have risen in ,islam4 ,for every one of them has made interpretations quite different from the others1 and maintained that its interpretation shows the real purpose of the ,law1 which was at last rent to piece1 and lost its primary purpose altogether4 ,the ,prophet1 knowing that a thing like this would necessarily happen among his people1 said1 8,my people will shortly be divided into seventytwo sects4 ,all of them will be in hell1 except one40 ,by this one he meant the sect which followed the exoteric meanings of the ,law1 without making any interpretations which may be disclosed to the people4 ,if you were to look into the ,law and see the corruption which it has suffered up to this time1 through interpretations1 the truth of this example would become clear to you4 ,the first to make a change in the religion--the great medicine--were the ,kharijites1 who were followed by the ,mutazilites4 ,they were succeeded by the ,asharites1 after whom came the ,sufis4 ,last of all came ,al-,ghazzali1 who went to the extreme and corrupted everything4 ,he it is who explained philosophy to the common people1 and disclosed to them the opinions of the philosophers as he understood them to be4 ,this he did in a book called ,al-,maqasid1 in which he thought he was refuting them4 ,he planned his ,refutation of the ,philosophers1 and charged them with infidelity in respect to three questions1 tearing them to pieces1 as he thought1 in regard to consensus of opinion2 and calling them innovators as regards other opinions4 ,in this book he has advanced many specious arguments and confused reasonings1 which have led astray many people both from religion and philosophy4 ,then he said in his book ,jawahir al-,quran that the arguments which he had mentioned in his ,refutation were controversial in their nature1 while in fact they were mentioned in his ,al ,maznun ala ,ghairi ,ahlihi4 ,then in his ,mishkat ul ,anwar he mentions grades of men really knowing ,god4 ,he says that all but those who believe that ,god is not the mover of the first heaven1 and that it is not ,he from whom this movement originates1 are precluded from it4 ,this is an explanation from him of men learned in divine science4 ,he has said in many places that divine science exists only by guesses1 as opposed to certainties in other science4 ,in his book ,munqidh min al ,dalal he has gone against the philosophers and maintained that knowledge can only be acquired by privacy and meditation1 and that those in this rank are all very near to the rank of the prophets4 ,he has mentioned this very fact in his ,kimiya i ,saadat4 ,men have become divided into parties on account of this confusion4 ,one party chose to censure the philosophers1 while the other agreed to interpret the ,law1 and make it conform to philosophy4 ,all this is wrong4 ,the ,law should be taken literally2 and the conformity of religion to philosophy should not be told to the common people4 ,for by an exposition of it we should be exposing the results of philosophy to them1 without their having intelligence enough to understand them4 ,it is neither permitted nor desirable to expose anything of the result of philosophy to a man who has no arguments to advance1 for there are no arguments either with the learned people who have a mastery over both the subjects1 or with the common people who follow the exoteric of the ,law4 ,so his action brought disorder in respect to both of these things1 religion and philosophy1 in the mind of the common people1 while he saved them for the others4 ,the disorder in religion came through his exposing those interpretations which should not be exposed2 and so also the disorder in philosophy was the result of his mentioning those things in his books which should not be put in the works on philosophy4 ,now it was the result of his treatment of the subjects that many people do not know the difference between the two1 because of his bringing both of them together4 ,he has also insisted upon the fact that he knew the cause of doing so1 as he did in his ,al ,tafriqa bain al ,islami wa-z ,zindiqah4 ,in it he has noted down many kinds of interpretations and has decided that their interpreters were not infidels though they may go against the consensus of opinion4 ,since he has done so1 he is dangerous to the ,law for some reasons1 to philosophy for others1 and to both for some other reasons4 ,so this man1 by disclosing them1 has shown that he is dangerous for both the things in reality and profitable to them only by accident4 ,for teaching philosophy to one who is not fit for it1 will either falsify philosophy or religion absolutely or will show conformity between them by accident only4 ,the right thing would have been not to disclose philosophy to the common people at all4 ,but if teaching of it was absolutely necessary1 then only that section of the people should have been taught who saw that religion was opposed to philosophy1 in order to show them that it was not so4 ,and also it might have been taught to those people who thought that philosophy is opposed to religion4 ,this may have been shown to either of these sections1 that in reality they did not possess a knowledge of their substance and truth1 that is1 of religion and philosophy4 ,moreover1 they would know that the opinion about religion1 that it was opposed to philosophy was one which was either about some innovation in religion1 and not about its principles1 or is an error in understanding that is1 a wrong interpretation of it1 as was shown in the case of knowledge about particulars and other things4 ,that is why we were compelled in this book to explain the principles of religion4 ,these principles1 when intently looked into will be found in perfect agreement with philosophy4 ,such is also the case with the opinion which says this philosophy is opposed to religion4 ,it only shows that the man has not had a sufficient training in either philosophy or religion4 ,this is the reason that we were compelled to explain it in our tractate entitled ,fasl al ,maqal fi ,muwafiqat il ,hikmat lil ,sharia4 ,now that this has become clear we would return to our former theme4 ,the only problem which remains for us to solve1 out of those which we proposed is that of ,divine ,vision4 ,it is thought for some reasons1 that it forms a part of the problem which we have just discussed1 on account of the words of ,god1 8,the sight comprehendeth him not1 but ,he comprehendeth the sight40#ij ,and hence the ,mutazilites have denied it1 setting aside the arguments found in the ,law1 in spite of their greatness in number and fame1 a very shameful act on their part4 ,the cause of this doubt of the ,law that since the ,mutazilites denied physical attributes1 and believed in exposing their ideas to every one1 it became necessary for them to deny direction also4 ,and having once denied direction they must also deny the ,vision1 for the thing seen must be in some direction to one who sees it4 ,to prove their point they are constrained to set aside the traditional religion4 ,they neglected the ,traditions because they were only isolated things which should not be believed1 if found opposed to the teachings of the ,quran1 that is1 opposed to the verse1 8,the sight comprehendeth ,him not40 ,the ,asharites tried to mix together the two beliefs1 that is1 the denial of physical attributes1 and the possibility of vision of ,one having no body1 by means of our senses4 ,it became difficult for them to prove it1 and they took refuge in many sophistical and conjectural arguments1 that is arguments which are thought to be correct but are in reality wrong4 ,it is so because it is possible to have the same grades in arguments as there are among men4 ,just as there may be found men with perfect excellence and those below them1 till we may have a man who thinks himself learned and yet he is not1 being only a pedant1 so there are arguments which are extremely certain1 and those below them1 then1 there are specious arguments1 and those which though really false seem to be true4 ,the statements of the ,asharites in regard to this question are of two kinds3 those refuting the arguments of the ,mutazilites1 and those proving the possibility of the ,vision of ,one having no body1 and that there is no difficulty in our believing it4 ,the statements by which they have opposed the ,mutazilites in their argument1 that the thing seen must have a direction for one who sees it1 is that some of them say that it is applied only to the visible1 and not to the invisible1 world2 and that it is not one of those cases in which the condition of the one can be applied to the other4 ,according to them it is possible for a man to see an object having no direction1 for he sees by his power of sight only that which comes before his eyes4 ,in this they have mixed together the senses of sight with intelligence1 for the latter can perceive that which has no direction1 that is1 no space2 but for the perception of the eye there is a condition1 that the thing to be perceived be in a direction1 not only that but a particular direction too4 ,so if we take the eye to be endowed with the power of seeing1 then it is not possible except under very limited conditions4 ,these are three in number-light1 the intervention of a transparent body between the eye and the object seen1 and the possession of necessary colours by the object4 ,a refutation of these conditions in the eyes is also a refutation of those primary principles of knowledge which are known to all4 ,it would be a refutation of the sciences of philosophy and mathematics4 ,the ,asharites also maintain that one of the conditions as we have said1 for example1 is that every rational being has a life1 it being apparent in the visible world as a condition for knowledge4 ,hence we say to them that these are also conditions for seeing things in the visible world4 ,so according to their own principle is the case of the visible and the invisible4 ,in his book ,al ,maqasid ,abu ,hamid 7,al ,ghazzali7 intended to oppose the premise that every object perceivable must be in some direction to the one seeing it4 ,he says that a man sees himself reflected in a mirror and sees himself not in any other direction but the opposite one4 ,hence he can see his self in an opposite direction too4 ,but this is a mistake1 because what he sees is not his self but only an image of it4 ,this image is in the opposite direction1 being in the mirror1 placed there4 ,of the arguments which they advance to prove the vision of an object having no body1 two are famous ones4 ,of these the more famous is one which says that an object seen is either because it has some colour1 or because it has a body1 or it is a colour1 or because it is existent4 ,sometimes they mention many other causes than really do exist4 ,they say that it is wrong to suppose that it must be a body1 otherwise1 no colour would be visible1 it being also incorrect to suppose the space to be the colour4 ,now when all the kinds of suppositions in the premise have been refuted we shall have to believe that only an existent object will be seen4 ,the mistake in this statement is quite clear4 ,for an object is visible because of itself4 ,this is the case with the colour and the body3 the colour being visible by itself1 and the body through the colour4 ,that is why a thing which has no colour cannot be seen4 ,had the existence of a thing been the only condition of visibility1 it would have been possible to see the sound and the senses4 ,in that case seeing1 hearing1 in fact all the five senses would have been only one1 which is quite contrary to our reason4 ,this problem and others like it have obliged the ,mutakallimun to admit that it is possible to hear the colour1 and see the sounds4 ,but this is against nature1 as man has understood it to be4 ,for it is absolutely evident that the sense of seeing is quite different from that of hearing4 ,their actions are quite distinct from one another1 and the organ of the one cannot work as the organ of the other4 ,it is just as impossible to turn hearing as to turn colour into sound4 ,those who say that sometimes sound can be seen1 should be asked to define the sense of seeing4 ,they would necessarily answer that it is a faculty which perceives those things which can be seen1 such as colour and so on4 ,then they should be asked to define the sense of hearing4 ,they would surely say that it is one sense by which sounds can be heard4 ,then they should be asked whether at the time of sound it is the sense of hearing only or seeing too4 ,if they say that it is hearing only1 they admit that it cannot perceive colours4 ,if they say that it is seeing only1 then it cannot hear sounds4 ,if it is neither alone1 for it perceives colours1 then it is seeing and hearing both4 ,but in this way everything can be proved to be one1 even in the case of contradictory things4 ,this is a thing which our ,mutakallimun admit or they are compelled to do so4 ,but it is clear that it is a philosophical opinion which is only fit for those ancient people famous for it4 ,now the second method which ,mutakallimun have adopted for proving the possibility of ,divine ,vision is that which has been mentioned by ,abul ,maali in his book1 ,al ,irshad4 ,it says that the senses can only feel the substance 7,zat7 of things1 but that which separates the existent thing from one another is not to be found in the substance only4 ,so the senses cannot perceive the substance1 which is common to all the existent things4 ,they can only perceive a thing because it exists4 ,but all this is absurd1 which is quite clear from the fact that if sight were only able to perceive things then it would not have been possible for it to differentiate between white and black1 for there is no difference between things about those qualities which are common to all4 ,this also becomes impossible as regards all the other senses4 ,the sense of seeing could not perceive different kinds of colours2 the sense of hearing cannot differentiate between tastes4 ,it would be necessary that the objects perceived by the senses be all of a kind1 and there should be no difference between objects perceived by seeing and apprehended by hearing4 ,this is contrary to that which man commonly understands4 ,in reality the senses perceive the substance of things by the power which is vouchsafed to them4 ,the cause of this mistake lies in the fact that that which perceives a substance1 is thought to be the thing perceived4 ,had there not been said so much about these things1 and so much respect for those who said it1 it would not have satisfied anybody with a strong common sense4 ,the cause of such a perplexing situation in the ,law1 which has compelled its votaries to take refuge in such worthless arguments1 as would bring a smile to the lips of anybody who has made the least effort to distinguish between different kinds of arguments1 is the exposition of anthropomorphic qualities of ,god to the common people1 a fact which has been prohibited by ,god and ,his ,prophet4 ,it is so because it is very difficult for a man to believe at the same time that there exists ,one without a body1 who can be seen with our eyes4 ,for the things which the senses comprehend are in the bodies or the bodies themselves4 ,hence the ,mutakallimun have tried to prove that the ,divine ,vision will be an addition to our existing qualities at that moment4 ,this also should not have been disclosed to the common people4 ,for since their intellect cannot go beyond their imagination that which they cannot imagine is non-existent for them4 ,to imagine a thing which has no body is not possible1 and hence a belief in the existence of an object which they cannot imagine1 is impossible for them4 ,it was for this reason that the ,law refused to disclose this secret to them1 and described ,god1 for their sake1 in terms which they can imagine1 ascribing to him the attributes of hearing1 seeing1 having a face1 c4 c41 at the same time telling them that ,he is not like anything which can be imagined4 ,had the intention of the ,law been to make clear to the masses the fact of ,his having no body1 it would not have mentioned these things in detail4 ,but as light was the highest of imaginable things1 it was given to them as an illustration of ,god1 for it is the best known of the things both to the senses and to the imagination4 ,such is also the case in respect to the possibility of their understanding the things of the ,day of ,judgment4 ,these have also been mentioned in terms which they can imagine4 ,so now when the ,law has adopted this course about the apparent description of ,god1 there arises no doubt about him4 ,for when it is said that ,he is ,light or that there is a curtain of light upon ,him1 as is mentioned in the ,quran and authentic ,traditions1 and when it is said that the ,faithful will see ,him on the ,day of ,judgement as they see the sun1 there arises no doubt or suspicion out of it for the common or the learned people4 ,it is so because to the learned it is quite clear that that condition will be an addition to our former knowledge4 ,but when this is disclosed to the common people1 they cannot understand it1 and hence they either disbelieve the whole of the ,law1 or consider its exponent to be an infidel4 ,so one who adopts a method other than that laid down by the ,law in this respect1 certainly goes astray4 ,if you look a little intently it will become clear to you1 that in spite of the fact that the ,law has not given illustration of those things for the common people1 beyond which their imagination cannot go1 it has also informed the learned men of the underlying meanings of those illustrations4 ,so it is necessary to bear in mind the limits which the ,law has set about the instruction of every class of men1 and not to mix them together4 ,for in this manner the purpose of the ,law is multiplied4 ,hence it is that the ,prophet has said1 8,we1 the prophets1 have been commanded to adapt ourselves to the conditions of the people1 and address them according to their intelligence40 ,he who tries to instruct all the people in the matter of religion1 in one and the same way1 is like a man who wants to make them alike in actions too1 which is quite against apparent laws and reason4 ,from the foregoing it must have become clear to you that the divine vision has an exoteric meaning in which there is no doubt1 if we take the words of the ,quran about ,god as they stand1 that is1 without proving or disproving the anthropomorphic attribute of ,god4 ,now since the first part of the ,law has been made quite clear as to ,god's purity1 and the quantity of the teaching fit for the common people1 it is time to begin the discussion about the actions of ,god1 after which our purpose in writing this tractate will be over4 ,,of ,,the ,,actions ,,of ,,god ,in this section we will take up five questions1 around which all others in this connection revolve4 ,in the first place a proof of the creation of the universe2 secondly1 the advent of the prophets2 thirdly1 predestination and fate2 fourthly1 ,divine justice and injustice2 and fifthly1 the ,day of ,judgment4 ,first ,problem3 the ,creation of the ,universe3--,the ,law teaches that the universe was invented and created by ,god1 and that it did not come into being by chance or by itself4 ,the method adopted by the ,law for proving this is not the one upon which the ,asharites have depended4 ,for we have already shown that those methods are not specially certain for the learned1 nor common enough to satisfy all the classes of men4 ,the methods which are really serviceable are those which have a very few premises1 and the results of which fall very near to the commonly known ideas4 ,but in instructing the common people the ,law does not favour statements composed of long and complete reasonings1 based upon different problems1 ,so everyone who1 in teaching them1 adopts a different course1 and interprets the ,law according to it1 has lost sight of its purpose and gone astray from the true path4 ,and so also1 the ,law in giving illustrations for its reasonings uses only those which are present before us4 ,whatever has been thought necessary for the common people to know1 has been explained to them by the nearest available examples1 as in the case of the ,day of ,judgment4 ,but whatever was unnecessary for them to know1 they have been told that it was beyond their knowledge1 as the words of ,god about the ,soul4#ia ,now that we have established this1 it is necessary that the method adopted by the ,law for teaching the creation of the universe to the common people be such as would be acknowledged by all4 ,it is also necessary that since there cannot be found anything present to illustrate the creation of the universe the ,law must have used the examples of the creation of things in the visible world4 ,so the method adopted by ,law is that the universe was made by ,god4 ,if we look intently into the verse pertaining to this subject we shall see that the method adopted is that of divine solicitude1 which we know to be one of those which prove the existence of ,god4 ,when a man sees a thing made in a certain shape1 proportion and fashion1 for a particular advantage is derived from it1 and purpose which is to be attained1 so that it becomes clear to him1 that had it not been found in that shape1 and proportion1 then that advantage would have been wanting in it1 he comes to know for certain that there is a maker of that thing1 and that he had made it in that shape and proportion1 for a set purpose4 ,for it is not possible that all those qualities serving that purpose be collected in that thing by chance alone4 ,for instance1 if a man sees a stone on the ground in a shape fit for sitting1 and finds its proportions and fashion of the same kind1 then he would come to know that it was made by a maker1 and that he had made it and placed it there4 ,but when he sees nothing in it1 which may have made it fit for sitting then he becomes certain that its existence in the place was by chance only1 without its being fashioned by any maker4 ,such is also the case with the whole of the universe4 ,for when a man sees the sun1 the moon1 and all the stars1 which are the cause of the four seasons1 of days and nights1 of rain1 water and winds1 of the inhabitation of the parts of the earth1 of the existence of man1 and of the being of all the animals and the plants and of the earth being fit for the habitation of a man1 and other animals living on it2 and the water fit for the animals living in it2 and the air fit for birds1 and if there be anything amiss in this creation and edifice1 the whole world would come to confusion and disorder1 then he would come to know with certainty that it is not possible that this harmony in it for the different members of the universe--man1 animals1 and plants--be found by chance only4 ,he will know that there is one who determined it1 and so one who made it by intention1 and that is ,god1 exalted and magnified may ,he be4 ,he would know with certainty that the universe is a created thing1 for he would necessarily think that it is not possible that in it should be found all this harmony1 if it be not made by some one1 and had come into existence by chance alone4 ,this kind of argument is quite definite and at the same time clear1 and some have mentioned it here4 ,it is based upon two principles which are acknowledged by all4 ,one of them being1 that the universe1 with all its component parts1 is found fit for the existence of man and things2 secondly1 that which is found suitable in all its parts1 for a single purpose1 leading to a single goal1 is necessarily a created thing4 ,so those two principles lead us naturally to admit that the universe is a created thing1 and that there is a maker of it4 ,hence 8the argument of analogy0 leads to two things at one and the same time1 and that is why it is the best argument for proving the existence of ,god4 ,this kind of reasoning is also found in the ,quran in many verses in which the creation of the universe is mentioned4 ,for instance1 8,have ,we not made the earth a bed1 and the mountains for shelter to fix the same8 ,and have ,we not created you of two sexes2 and appointed your sleep for rest and made the night a garment to cover you1 and destined the day to a gaining of a livelihood2 and built over you seven heavens1 and placed therein a burning lamp8 ,and do ,we not send down from the clouds pressing forth rain1 water pouring down in abundance1 that ,we may hereby produce corn and herbs1 and gardens planted thick with trees40#ib ,if we ponder over this verse it would be found that our attention has been called to the suitability of the different parts of the universe for the existence of man4 ,in the very beginning we are informed of a fact well-known to all--and that is that the earth has been created in a way which has made it suitable for our existence4 ,had it been unstable1 or of any other shape1 or in any other place1 or not of the present proportion1 it would not have been possible to be here1 or at all created on it4 ,all this is included in the words1 8,have ,we not made the earth a bed for you80 for in a bed are collected together all the qualities of shape1 tranquility1 and peace1 to which may be added those of smoothness and softness4 ,so how strange is this wonderful work and how excellent this blessedness1 and how wonderful this collection of all the qualities6 ,this is so because in the word mihad 7bed7 are brought together all those qualities1 which are found in the earth1 rendering it suitable for the existence of man4 ,it is a thing which becomes clear to the learned after much learning and a long time1 8,but ,god will appropriate ,his mercy unto whom ,he pleaseth40#ic ,then as to the divine words1 8,and the mountains for stakes10--they tell us of the advantage to be found in the tranquility of the earth on account of the mountains4 ,for had the earth been created smaller than it is now1 that is1 without mountains it would have been quivered by the motion of other elements1 the water and the air1 and would have been shaken and thus displaced4 ,this would naturally have been the cause of the destruction of the animal world4 ,so when its tranquility is in harmony with those living on it1 it did not come into being by chance alone1 but was made by some one's intention1 and determination4 ,certainly it was made by ,one who intended it1 and determined it1 for the sake of those living on it4 ,then ,he calls our attention to the suitability of the existence of night and day for animals4 ,he says1 8,and made the night a garment to cover you2 and destined the day to a gaining of your livelihood40 ,he means to say that ,he has made the night like a covering and clothing for all the things1 from the heat of the sun4 ,for had there been no setting of the sun at night1 all the things1 whose life has been made dependent upon the sun1 would have perished--that is1 the animals and the plants4 ,as clothing protects the people from the heat of the sun1 in addition to its being a covering1 so ,god likened the night to it4 ,this is one of the most beautiful of the metaphors4 ,there is also another advantage in the night for the animals3 their sleep in it is very deep1 after the setting of the sun1 which keeps faculties in motion1 that is1 wide awake4 ,so ,god has said1 8,and appointed your sleep for rest10 on account of the darkness of the night4 ,then ,he says1 8,and built over you seven heavens1 and placed therein a burning lamp40 ,here by the word building ,he means their creation1 and their harmony with the created things1 and their arrangement and system4 ,by strength ,he means that power of revolution and motion which is never slackened1 and never overtaken by fatigue2 and they never fall like other roofs and high edifices4 ,to this refer the words of ,god1 8,and made the heaven a roof well-supported40#id ,by all this ,he shows their fitness in number1 shape1 fashion1 and movement1 for the existence of those who live on the earth round it4 ,were one of the heavenly bodies1 not to speak of all1 to stop for a moment all would be chaos on the face of the earth4 ,some people think the blast of the last trumpet1 which will be the cause of the thunderbolt1 will be nothing but a stop in the revolution of the heavenly bodies4 ,then ,he tells us of the advantage of the sun for those living on the earth and says1 8,and placed therein a burning lamp40 ,he calls it a lamp because in reality it is all darkness1 and light covers the darkness of the night1 and if there be no lamp1 man can get no advantage out of his sense of sight at night time2 and in the same way if there were no sun the animals can have no benefit of their sense of seeing4 ,he calls our attention to this advantage of the sun1 ignoring others because it is the noblest of all the advantages and the most apparent of all4 ,then ,he tells us of ,his kindness in sending down rain1 for the sake of the plants and the animals4 ,the coming down of rain in an appointed proportion1 and at an appointed season1 for the cultivated fields cannot be by chance alone1 but is the result of divine solicitude for us all4 ,so ,he says1 8,and do ,we not send down from the clouds pressing forth rain1 water pouring down in abundance that ,we may hereby produce corn and herbs1 and gardens planted thick with trees40 ,there are many verses of the ,quran on this subject4 ,for instance1 ,he says1 8,do ye not see how ,god hath created the seven heavens1 one above another1 and hath placed the moon therein for a light1 and hath appointed the sun for a taper8 ,god hath also provided and caused you to bring forth corn from the earth40#ie ,if we were to count all such verses and comment upon them showing the kindness of the ,creator for the created1 it would take too many volumes4 ,we do not intend to do it in this book4 ,if ,god should grant us life and leisure we shall write a book to show the kindness of ,god to which ,he has called our attention4 ,it should be known that this kind of argument is just contrary to that which the ,asharites think leads to the knowledge of ,god4 ,they think that the creation does not lead us to the knowledge of ,god through any of ,his goodness1 but through possibility1 that is1 the possibility which is found in all things1 which we can understand to be of his shape or of quite a contrary one4 ,but if this possibility be found alike in both the cases1 then there is no wisdom in the creation of the universe1 and there is found no harmony between man and the parts of it4 ,for1 as they think1 if it is possible for the things to have any other form than they have now1 then there can exist no harmony between man and other existent things by the creation of which ,god has obliged man and commanded him to be thankful to ,him4 ,this opinion1 by which the creation of man1 as a part of the universe1 is just as possible1 for instance1 as his creation in the void1 is like the opinion of those who say that man exists but he could have been created in quite a different shape1 and yet could perform actions like a man4 ,according to them it is also possible that he may have formed the part of another universe quite different from the existing one4 ,in that case the blessing of the universe can have no obligation for man1 for they are not necessary for his purpose4 ,hence man is quite careless of them and they of him4 ,so their existence is no blessing to him4 ,this is all against the nature of man4 ,on the whole1 a man who denies the existence of the effects arranged according to the causes in the question of arts1 or whose wisdom cannot understand it1 then he has no knowledge of the art of its ,maker4 ,so also a man who denies the existence of an order of effects in accordance with causes in this universe1 denies the existence of the ,creator altogether4 ,their saying that ,god is above these causes1 and that they cannot have any bearing on the effects by ,his command1 is very far from the true nature of philosophy1 nay1 it is a destroyer of it4 ,for if it is possible to have the same effects with other than the prescribed causes just in the same degree as by them1 then where is the greatness in producing the effects from the known ,causes8 ,it is so because the effects from the causes have one of the following three reasons4 ,either the existence of the causes will be in place of the effects by compulsion1 as a man's taking his food2 or their being more perfect that is1 the effect becoming better and more perfect through them1 as a man's having two eyes1 or they may have neither a better nor a more compulsive effect4 ,in this case the existence of the effect and the cause would be by chance1 without any intention at all2 and hence1 there would be no greatness found in it4 ,for instance1 if the shape of human hand1 the number of the fingers1 and their length be neither necessary nor adding any perfection in its work in seizing things of different kind1 then the actions of the hand from this shape1 and number of parts1 would be by chance alone4 ,if it be so1 then it makes no difference whether a man is given a hand or a hoof1 or something else1 like the different animals1 for their particular actions4 ,on the whole1 if we ignore the causes and their effects1 then there remains nothing to refute the arguments of those who believe in the creation of the universe by chance alone1 that is1 those who say that there is no ,creator at all1 and that which has come into being in this universe is the result of material causes4 ,for taking one of the two alternatives it is not more possible that it may have happened by chance1 than done by an independent ,actor4 ,so when the ,asharites say that the existence of one or more possibilities shows that there is a particular ,maker of these things1 they can answer and say that the existence of things by one of these possibilities was by chance alone1 for intention works as one of the causes1 and that which happens without any means or cause is by chance4 ,we see that many things come into being in this way4 ,for example1 the elements mix together by chance1 and then by this unintentional mixing there is produced a new thing4 ,they mix again1 and this quite unintentionally produces quite a new thing4 ,in this way every kind of creation may be said to have come into existence by chance4 ,we say that it is necessary that there be found order and arrangement1 the more perfect and finished than what can be imagined4 ,this mixing together of elements is limited and prearranged1 and things produced by them are sure to happen1 and no disorder has ever happened in them4 ,but all this could not happen by chance alone1 for that which happens in this way by chance is of the least value4 ,it is to this that ,god refers1 8,it is the work of the ,lord1 who has rightly disposed all things40#if ,i would like to know what completeness can be found in things made by chance1 for such things are by no means better than their opposites4 ,to this ,god refers in the following words1 8,thou canst not see in the ,creation of the most ,merciful any unfitness or disproportion4 ,lift thy eyes again to heaven1 and look whether thou seest any flaw40#ig ,but what defect can be greater than that all the things can be found with any other quality than they really possess4 ,for the non-existent quality may be better than the existing one4 ,in this way1 if one thinks that were the ,eastern movement to become ,western and vice versa1 there would be no difference in the universe1 then he has destroyed philosophy altogether4 ,he is like a man who thinks that were the right side of the animals to become left1 and vice versa1 there would be no difference at all for one of the two alternatives is there4 ,for as it is possible to say that it is made according to one alternative by an independent ,maker1 so it is possible to assert that it was all made by chance alone4 ,for we see so many things coming into being by themselves4 ,it is quite clear to you that all the people see that lower kinds of creation could have been made in a different way from that in which they really are and as they see this lower degree in many things they think that they must have been made by chance4 ,but in the higher creation they know that it is impossible to have been made in a more perfect and excellent form than that given to it by the ,creator4 ,so this opinion1 which is one of the opinions of the ,mutakallimun is both against the ,law and philosophy4 ,what we say is that the opinion of possibility in creation is closer to a complete denial of ,god1 than leading us nearer to ,him4 ,at the same time it falsifies philosophy4 ,for if we do not understand that there is a mean between the beginnings and ends of the creation1 upon which is based the ends of things1 then there can neither be any order nor any method in it4 ,and if they be wanting then there can be no proof of the existence of an intelligent and knowing ,maker2 for taking them together with cause and effect we are led to the fact that they must have been created by wisdom and knowledge4 ,but on the other hand the existence of either of two possibilities shows that they may have been performed by a not-knowing ,maker and by chance alone4 ,just as a stone falling on the earth may fall in any place1 on any side1 and in any form4 ,it will show the want of the existence either of a creator at all or at least of a wise and knowing ,creator4 ,the thing which has compelled the ,mutakallimun of the ,asharites to adopt this opinion is a denial of the action of those natural forces which ,god has put in all things1 as ,he has endowed them with life1 power and so forth4 ,they avoided the opinion that there was any other creator but ,god1 and ,god forbid that there be any other1 for he is the only creator of the causes and they are made effective by ,his command only4 ,we will talk of this in detail when discoursing on ,fate and ,predestination4 ,they were also afraid that by admitting the natural causes they might be accused of saying that the universe came into being by chance only4 ,they would have known that a denial of it means a denial of a great part of the arguments1 which can be advanced for a proof of the existence of ,god4 ,one who denies any part of ,god's creation denies ,his work which falls very near to a denial of a part of ,his attributes4 ,on the whole as their opinion is based upon hasty conclusions1 which come to the mind of a man by superficial thought and as apparently it appears that the word 8intention0 can be applied to one who has power to do bad or otherwise1 they saw that if they did not admit that all the creation is possible1 they would not be able to say that it came into existence by the action of an intending creator4 ,so they say that all the creation is possible so that they may prove that the creator is an intelligent one4 ,they never thought of the order which is necessary in things made1 and with that their coming from an intelligent creator4 ,these people have also ignored the blame they will have to bear in thus denying wisdom to the creator2 or maintaining that chance should be found governing creation4 ,they know1 as we have said1 that it is necessary1 on account of the order existent in nature1 that it must have been brought into being by some knowing creator1 otherwise the order found in it would be by chance4 ,when they were compelled to deny the natural forces1 they had to deny with them a large number of those forces which ,god has made subservient to ,his command for the creation and preservation of things4 ,for ,god has created some things from causes which ,he has produced from outside1 these are the heavenly bodies2 there are other things which ,he has made by causes placed in the things themselves1 that is1 the soul1 and other natural forces1 by which he preserves those things4 ,so how wicked is the man who destroyeth philosophy1 and 8inventeth a lie about ,god40#ih ,this is only a part of the change which has taken place in the ,law1 in this and other respects1 which we have already mentioned1 and will mention hereafter4 ,from all this it must have become clear to you that the method which ,god had adopted for teaching ,his creatures that the universe is made and created by ,him is the method of kindness and wisdom1 towards all ,his creatures and especially towards man4 ,it is a method which bears the same relation to our intellect1 as the sun bears to our senses4 ,the method which it has adopted towards the common people about this problem1 is that of illustration from things observed4 ,but as there was nothing which could be given as an illustration1 and as the common people cannot understand a thing1 an illustration of which they cannot see1 ,god tells us that the universe was created in a certain time out of a certain thing1 which ,he made4 ,he tells us ,his condition before the creation of the universe1 8,his throne was above the waters40#ii ,he also says1 8,verily your ,lord is ,god who created the heavens and the earth in six days10#ajj and 8,then ,he set ,his mind to the creation of the heavens1 and it was smoke40#aja ,in addition to these there are other verses of the ,book1 pertaining to this subject4 ,so it is incumbent that nothing out of them should be interpreted for the common people1 and nothing should be presented to them in explaining it but this illustration4 ,for one who changes it1 makes the wisdom of the ,law useless4 ,if it be said that the ,law teaches about the universe that it is created1 and made out of nothing and in no time1 then it is a thing which even the learned cannot understand1 not to speak of the common people4 ,so we should not deviate in this matter of the ,law1 from the method laid down in it for instructing the common people1 and should not tell them except this regarding the creation of the universe1 which is found alike in the ,quran1 the ,bible1 and other revealed books4 ,the wonder is that the example in the ,quran is quite in accordance with the creation of the things in the visible world4 ,but the ,law does not say so1 which is a warning to the learned people that the creation of the universe is not like the creation of all other things4 ,he has used the words creation and flaw1 because they connote two things1--,conception of the things that can be seen1 and the creation of the things which the learned prove in the invisible world4 ,so the use of the words creation 7,huduth7 and eternal is an innovation in religion1 and the cause of great doubt and corruption of the belief of the common people1 especially of the argumentative among them4 ,this has greatly perplexed the ,mutakallimun of the ,asharites1 and has proved them in great doubt4 ,for if they explain that ,god intends doing things by an eternal intention--which1 as we said1 is an innovation--they have put it down that the universe is created4 ,then they are asked how can a created thing come from an eternal intention4 ,they answer that the eternal intention became connected with the action at the time of the creation especially1 and that is the time in which the universe was made4 ,then they may be asked1 that if the relation of the intending ,creator towards the created thing at the time of its non-existence be the same as at the time of its creation1 then that created thing is by no means better than the other thing1 when at the time of its making1 the action which was not found in its non-existence is not connected with it4 ,if the relation be different then there must necessarily be a created intention otherwise the created result of an action would come from an eternal action1 for what is necessary of it in action1 is necessary also in intention4 ,if it be said that when the time of its making comes it is found done2 it may be asked3 is it so by an eternal or a created action8 ,if they say by an eternal action1 they admit the existence of a created thing by an eternal action2 and if they say by a created action1 then there must be a created intention also4 ,they may say that intention is the action itself1 but this is impossible4 ,for intention is the only cause of the action in the intender4 ,if an intender1 intending to do an act in a certain time1 finds that act quite another than that which he intended1 then that act would have come into being without any intender at all4 ,at the same time1 if it is thought that from a created intention there can only be a created thing1 then as a rule an eternal intention should give an eternal thing1 otherwise the result of a created or eternal intention would be the same1 which is impossible4 ,all these doubts are found in ,islam only through the ,mutakallimun1 by their explaining things in ,law1 which ,god had forbidden them to do4 ,for in the ,quran it is not said whether intention is created or eternal4 ,so they neither adhere to the exoteric meanings of the ,law1 which may have given them beatitude and salvation1 nor did they attain the degree of certain and exact knowledge1 so that they may have had this blessing4 ,hence they are neither to be counted among the learned nor among the masses1 who believe and have strong faith4 ,they are the people 8whose hearts are perverse0#ajb and 8whose hearts are diseased40#ajc ,they say things by their tongues which are quite contrary to those which they believe in their hearts1 a cause of which is their tenacity1 and love of upholding their opinions at any cost4 ,by a repetition of attitudes like these they become quite devoid of all philosophy1 as we see the case of those who are completely accustomed to the ,asharite school of thought1 and are well pleased with it1 even to the degree of love4 ,they are certainly veiled on account of their habit and environment4 ,what we have said about this question is enough for our purpose4 ,now we would take up the second problem4 ,problem ,second3 ,prophetic ,mission3--,there are two points which are to be discussed in this problem4 ,first1 the proof of the coming of the prophets2 and secondly an explanation of the fact that the man claiming to be a prophet is really so and does not lie4 ,many people are desirous of proving the existence of the prophets by analogy--and such are the ,mutakallimun4 ,they say that it is proved that ,god speaks and intends1 and is the master of ,his creatures4 ,it is quite consistent for such a being in the visible world to send a messenger to his dependent people4 ,hence such a thing is also possible in the unseen world4 ,they have thought of making this valid for proving the advent of the prophets1 by absurd and far-fetched arguments which only ,brahmins should use4 ,they say that it is possible both in the observed and unseen world4 ,in the observed world it is quite evident1 that when a man stands up before a king and says1 8,o ye men1 ,i am the messenger of the king towards you0 and produces credentials for his claim1 it is necessary to acknowledge him to be true4 ,they say that in the case of the prophets1 the credentials are the miracles which they perform4 ,for certain reasons this method is quite fit and satisfactory for the common people1 but when investigated there appear many flaws in the principle4 ,our acknowledgement of a man who claims to be the messenger of a king is not true unless we know that the symbols which he has are those of the royal messenger1 which can only happen1 if a king tells his subjects that whenever they happen to see such and such symbols with a man1 which are particularly his1 they should take him as his messenger4 ,when this is so1 one can object1 from where does it appear that performance of miracles is the special sign of the prophets8 ,this can be proved neither by law nor by reason4 ,to prove it by religion is still more impossible2 it does not admit it4 ,reason alone cannot affirm that they are the special symbols of prophecy1 except that in many cases they were found in people who claimed to be prophets and in none other4 ,so in this case a proof of anyone's prophecy is based upon two premises4 ,first1 the man who claims to be a prophet has performed a miracle1 and secondly1 everyone who performs a miracle is a prophet4 ,now as to the premise that the claimant for prophecy has performed miracles we can say that it pertains to our senses after we have admitted that there are actions performed by men1 which can neither be made by wondrous workmanship or by some particular forces1 but are beyond our conception4 ,the second premise can only be true when we admit the existence of the prophets1 and that the miracles are only performed by those who are the true claimants for prophetic mission4 ,we would say that this premise is not true but for those who believe the existence of the prophets and the miracles4 ,for instance if it has become clear to man1 that the universe is created1 then he certainly knows that the world exists and the ,creator too4 ,this being so1 a man can object and say how can we say that one who performs the miracles is a prophet1 when the prophetic mission itself remains unproved8 ,even after we admit the existence of miracle in the manner in which it may seem quite impossible1 it is necessary that the two sides of the premise be admitted first and then the one can be applied to the other4 ,one cannot say that the existence of the prophets can be proved by reason1 because of its possibility4 ,for the possibility to which they refer is in fact really ignorance1 and is not found in the nature of things4 ,for instance1 if we say that it is possible that it will rain or not1 then the possibility is found in the nature of things1 that is1 it is felt that a thing may sometimes be1 and at others not be1 as in the case of rain4 ,here1 reason can exactly decide the possibility of a thing by its nature4 ,the necessary 7wajib7 is quite contrary to it2 that is1 it is a thing the existence of which is always found4 ,in this case reason can always decide without a mistake1 because its nature cannot be changed or transformed4 ,so when one party admits the existence of a prophet1 at a certain time it appears that the prophetic mission is a thing whose existence is possible and the other party says that it cannot feel it1 then that possibility becomes mere ignorance in its case4 ,now we believe in the existence of this possibility because we have known the prophets4 ,we say that a knowledge of the messengers from man1 leads us to a belief in the existence of messengers from ,god1 as the existence of a messenger from ,anir1 leads us to the conclusion of there being a messenger from ,zaid also4 ,this requires a similarity in the natural dispositions of both men and it is here where the difficulty lies4 ,if we suppose this possibility by itself even in the future1 it will only be by the means of the known fact and not by our knowledge and reason4 ,now one of the premises of this possibility has come into existence4 ,for the possibility is in our knowledge1 and the fact in itself is an established one1 by one of the two alternatives1 that is1 whether he sent a messenger or did not4 ,so we have nothing in this case but sheer ignorance1 as is the doubt whether ,anir sent any messengers in the past or did not1 which is quite different from our doubting1 whether or not he will send any in future4 ,so when we do not know about ,zaid1 for instance1 whether he has or has not sent any messenger in the past1 it is not correct for us to suppose anybody to be his messenger1 if he happens to have his symbols upon him4 ,we can admit his claim only after we know that ,zaid did send a messenger4 ,so when we admit the existence of the prophetic mission1 and the miracles1 then how can it be correct for us to say that one who performs the miracles is a prophet4 ,we cannot believe in this by hearing only1 for this faculty is not the thing by which such things can be proved4 ,at the same time we cannot claim this premise to be true by experience and habit1 except that the miracles performed by the prophets can be seen by one who believes in their mission1 and has never seen them to have been performed by anybody else1 so that they may be taken as a convincing sign for distinguishing a prophet of ,god1 from one who is not1 that is a distinction between one whose claim is right1 and one whose claim is wrong4 ,by these things it is seen that the ,mutakallimun have missed the whole purpose of the argument from miracles because they have put possibility in the place of real existence1 possibility which is in reality ignorance4 ,then they have believed in the premise that every one who performs miracles is a prophet1 which cannot be true except when the miracles prove the prophetic mission itself1 and the sender of messengers4 ,it is not by reason that we can believe in these marvelous things1 which happen again and again1 and are divine1 as a conclusive proof of the existence of prophetic mission1 except that one who can do such things is an excellent person1 and that such persons cannot lie4 ,but it can prove the prophetic mission of a person only when we admit that the mission does exist1 and that such marvelous things cannot be performed by any person1 however good he may be1 except by one who is a a prophet4 ,the miracles cannot prove the prophetic mission of a person1 because there is no connection between them and reason1 except that we admit that the miracles are one of the works of the prophets1 just as curing is the work of the physicians1 so that one who can cure is certainly a physician4 ,this is one of the fallacies of the argument4 ,moreover1 if we admit the existence of the prophetic mission1 by putting the idea of possibility1 which is in fact ignorance1 in place of certainty1 and make miracles a proof of the truth of man who claims to be a prophet it becomes necessary that they should not be used by a person1 who says that they can be performed by others than prophets1 as the ,mutakallimun do4 ,they think that the miracles can be performed by the magicians and saints4 ,the condition which they attach with them is that miracles prove a man to be a prophet1 when he at the same time claims to be so1 for the true prophet can perform them as opposed to the false ones4 ,this is an argument without any proof1 for it can be understood either by hearing or reason4 ,that is1 it is said that one whose claims to prophecy are wrong1 cannot perform miracles1 but as we have already said1 when they cannot be performed by a liar1 then they can only be done by the good people1 whom ,god has meant for this purpose4 ,these people1 if they speak a lie1 are not good1 and hence cannot perform the miracles4 ,but this does not satisfy the people who think miracles to be possible from the magicians1 for they certainly are not good men4 ,it is here that the weakness of the argument lies4 ,hence some people have thought that the best thing is to believe that they cannot be performed but by the prophets and hence magic is only imagination1 and not a change of essence4 ,among these are also men who deny all sorts of marvelous things from the saints4 ,it is clear to you from the life of the prophet1 peace be upon him1 that he never invited any man or community to believe in his prophecy1 and that which he has brought with him from ,god1 by means of the performance of any miracles1 in support of his claim1 such as changing one element into another4 ,whatever miracles did appear from him were only performed in the natural course of things1 without on his part any intention of contention or competition4 ,the following words of the ,quran will make this clear2 8,and they say3 ,we will by no means believe in thee1 until thou cause a spring of water to gush forth for us out of the earth1 and thou have a garden of palm-trees and vines1 and thou cause rivers to spring forth from the midst thereof in abundance2 or thou cause the heaven to fall down in pieces upon us1 as thou hast given out1 or thou bring down ,god and the angels to vouch for thee2 or thou have a house of gold1 or thou ascend by a ladder to heaven2 neither will we believe thy ascending thither alone1 until thou cause a book to descend unto us1 bearing witness of thee which we may read4 ,answer3 ,my ,lord be praised1 ,am ,i other than a man sent as an apostle80#ajd ,then again1 8,nothing hindered us from sending thee with miracles1 except that the former nations have charged them with imposture40#aje ,the thing by which we invited the people to believe in him1 and with which he vied with them is the ,quran4 ,for says ,god1 8,say1 verily1 if men and genii were purposely assembled1 that they might produce a book like this ,quran1 they could not produce one like unto it1 although the one of them assigned the other40#ajf ,then further he says1 8will they say1 ,he hath forged the ,quran8 ,answer1 bring therefore ten chapters like unto it forged by yourself40#ajg ,this being the case the miracle of the ,prophet with which he vied with the people and which he advanced as an argument for the truth of his claim to the prophetic mission1 was the ,quran4 ,if it be said1 that this is quite clear1 but how does it appear that the ,quran is a miracle1 and that it proves his prophecy1 while just now we have proved the weakness of the proof of prophecy by means of miracles without any exceptions in the case of any prophet4 ,besides the people have differed in taking the ,quran to be a miracle at all4 ,for in their opinion one of the conditions of a miracle is that it should be quite different from any act which may have become habitual4 ,but the ,quran is of this sort1 because it is only word1 though it excels all created words4 ,so it becomes a miracle by its superiority only1 that is1 the impossibility for people bringing anything like it1 on account of its being highly eloquent4 ,this being the case it differs from the habitual1 not in genus but in details only1 and that which differs in this way is of the same genus4 ,some people say that it is a miracle by itself1 and not by its superiority4 ,they do not lay it down as a condition for miracles that they should be quite different from the habitual1 but think that it should be such a habitual act1 as men may fall short of accomplishing4 ,we would reply that it is as the objectors say1 but the thing about it is not as they have thought4 ,that the ,quran is an evidence of his prophecy1 is based1 we believe1 upon two principles1 which are found in the ,book itself4 ,the first being that the existence of the class of men called prophets and apostles is well-known4 ,they are the men who lay down laws for the people by divine revelation1 and not by human education4 ,their existence can be denied only by the people who deny repeated action1 as the existence of all things which we have not seen--the lives of the famous thinkers and so forth4 ,all the philosophers1 and other men are agreed1 except those who pay no regard to their words1 7and they are the ,materialists71 that there are men to whom have been revealed many commandments for the people1 to perform certain good actions1 by which their beatitude may be perfected2 and to make them give up certain wrong beliefs and vicious actions4 ,this is the business of divine apostles4 ,the second principle is1 that everyone who does this work1 that is1 lays down laws by revelation1 is a prophet4 ,this principle is also quite in accordance with human nature4 ,for as it is known that the business of medicine is to cure a disease1 and one who can cure is a physician1 so it is also known that the business of the prophets is to give law to the people by divine revelation1 and one who does so is a prophet4 ,the ,book mentions the first principle in the following3--8,verily ,we have revealed ,our will unto thee1 as ,we have revealed it unto ,noah1 and the prophets who succeeded him1 and ,we have revealed it unto ,abraham1 and ,ishmael1 and ,isaac and ,jacob1 and the tribes1 and unto ,jesus1 and ,job1 and ,jonas1 and ,aaron and ,solomon2 and we have given thee the ,quran as ,we gave the ,psalms unto ,david2 some apostles have ,we sent1 whom ,we have mentioned unto thee1 and ,god spake unto ,moses discoursing with him10#ajh and again3 8,say1 ,i am not alone among the apostles40#aji ,the second principle is that ,mohammed1 peace be upon him1 has done the work of a prophet1 that is1 has given ,law to the people by divine revelation4 ,this also can be known from the ,quran1 where ,god mentions it4 ,he says1 8,o men1 now is an evident proof come unto you from your ,lord1 and ,we have sent down unto you manifest light40#aaj ,by manifest light is meant the ,quran4 ,again ,he says1 8,o men1 now is the apostle come unto you from your ,lord2 believe1 therefore1 it will be better for you10#aaa and again1 8,but those among them who are well-grounded in knowledge1 and faithful1 who believe in that which hath been sent down unto thee1 and that which hath been sent down unto the prophets before thee20#aab and again 8,god is the witness of the revelation which ,he hath sent down unto thee2 ,he sent it down with his special knowledge2 the angels are also witness thereof2 but ,god is a sufficient witness40#aac ,if it be said1 how can the first principle be known1 that is1 that there is a class of men who give the ,law to the people by divine revelation2 and so also1 how to know the second principle1 that is1 that which the ,quran contains1 about beliefs and actions1 is of divine origin8 ,we would answer that the first principle can be known by the information which these men give about the existence of things1 which were not found before1 but come into existence after they have informed the people about them1 and in a specified time2 and by their command for doing certain things1 and teaching certain precepts which do not resemble the common things and actions1 which can be taught by human agency4 ,this is so because if the miracles be of the kind of laying down ,laws1 proving that they cannot be laid down by human education1 but only through divine revelation1 then it is prophecy4 ,but the miracles which do not take the form of laws1 as the dividing of the sea1 etc41 do not necessarily prove the prophecy of anyone4 ,but they can only be used as supplements to the former1 if they fall very near to it4 ,but standing alone they cannot prove it1 and so by themselves alone they do not lead to a cognizance of the prophets1 if the other kind of miracles1 which are its conclusive proofs1 be not found in them4 ,so according to this principle must be understood the proofs of prophecy afforded by miracles1 that is1 the miracles of knowledge and deeds are its conclusive proofs while others only make it strong1 and can be used as witnesses4 ,so now it has become clear to you that men of this kind do exist1 and how can men be sure of them1 except by their repeated appearance2 as is the case with physicians and other kinds of men4 ,if it be asked3 ,how can it be proved that the ,quran is a conclusive proof that is a miracle which is the business of the prophets to perform1 as curing is the business of a physician1 we would say that this can be known in many ways3--,first1 the precepts which it contains about knowledge and deeds1 cannot be acquired by learning1 but only by divine revelation2 secondly1 by the information which it gives about hidden things2 and thirdly1 by its poetry1 which is quite different from that which can be achieved by imagination or repetition of verses1 that is1 it is known that it is of quite a different kind from the poetry of ,arabic speaking people1 whether the language be acquired and learned1 as is the case with non-,arabs1 or it be the mother-tongue1 as it is with the ,arabs themselves4 ,the first reason is the most weighty one4 ,if it be asked how can it be known that the laws which contain both knowledge and precepts about deeds are of divine origin1 so much so that they deserve the name of the word of ,god1 we would say also that this also can be known in many ways4 ,first1 a knowledge of the laws cannot be acquired except after a knowledge of ,god1 and of human happiness and misery2 and the acts by which this happiness can be acquired1 as charity and goodness and the works which divert men from happiness and produce eternal misery1 such as evil and wickedness4 ,again the knowledge of human happiness and misery requires a knowledge of the soul and its substance1 and whether it has eternal happiness or not4 ,if it be so1 then what is the quantity of this happiness1 or misery2 and also what amount of good would be the cause of happiness4 ,for the case of goodness and evil is just the same as with food1 which does not give health1 if taken in any quantity and at any time2 but must be used in a specified quantity and at an appointed time4 ,for this reason we find these limited in the religious laws4 ,all this1 or a greater part of it1 cannot be known but by divine revelation1 or at least a knowledge through it would be better4 ,again a perfect knowledge of ,god requires a knowledge of existent things4 ,then a law-giver must know the quantity of this knowledge which would be good to be imparted to the common people1 and the method to be adopted in teaching them4 ,all this1 or at least a greater part of it1 cannot be acquired by education1 learning or philosophy4 ,this can be clearly known from imparting learning1 and especially the giving of laws1 making regulations1 and giving information about the conditions of the ,day of ,judgment4 ,when all this is found in the ,quran in the most perfect form1 there can be no doubt that it is a divine revelation and ,his word1 given through the agency of ,his prophet4 ,so ,god has said1 informing the people about it1 8,say1 verily if man and genii were purposely assembled1 that they might produce a book like this ,quran1 they could not produce one like it40 ,this idea is further strengthened1 nay1 comes near exact surety and certainty1 when it is known that the prophet was an unlettered man1 and lived among a people1 uneducated1 wild1 and nomadic by habit1 who had never tried to investigate the universe1 as was the case with the ,greeks1 and other nations1 among whom philosophy was perfected in long periods of time4 ,to this very fact refer the words of ,god1 8,thou couldst not read any book before this2 neither couldst thou write it with thy right hand1 then had gainsayers justly doubted of the divine origin thereof40#aad ,hence ,god has repeatedly told the people this quality of ,his prophet4 8,it is ,he who hath raised up among the illiterate ,arabians an apostle from among themselves10#aae and1 8,those who shall follow the ,apostle the illiterate ,prophet40#aaf ,this matter can also be known by another method--that of comparison of this ,law with the others4 ,for1 if the business of the prophets be the giving of laws by divine revelation1 as has been acknowledged by all who believe in the existence of the prophets1 then if you look into the teachings of useful knowledge and actions leading to happiness1 which are contained in the ,quran1 and compare them with other divine books and religious systems1 you will find it excelling all the others in an unlimited degree4 ,on the whole1 if there are books worthy to be called the words of ,god1 on account of their wondrous nature1 and separation from the genius of human words and their peculiarity by what they contain in regard to knowledge and deeds1 then it is clear that the ,quran is much more worth thy1 and many times fitter1 than they are to be called the words of ,god4 ,this would be still clearer to you if you could know the past books--the ,old and ,new ,testaments4 ,but that is not possible because they have been changed to a great extent4 ,were we to describe the superiority of one ,law over another1 and the superiority of the teachings given to us about the knowledge of ,god1 and the ,day of ,judgment to the laws given to the ,jews and the ,christians1 it would require many volumes with a confession of our own short-comings in dealing with the subject4 ,for this very reason1 the ,law of ours has been called the last of the divine dispensations4 ,the ,prophet1 peace be on him1 has said1 8,had ,moses lived in my time1 he could not have helped following me10 and the ,prophet was right1 on account of the universal nature of the teachings of the ,quran1 and its regulations4 ,that is it is able to satisfy the needs of all1 being meant for the whole of the human race4 ,so ,god has said1 8say1 ,o men1 ,verily ,i am the messenger of ,god unto you all40#aag ,the ,prophet has said1 8,i have been sent both to the white and the black nations40 ,the case of religions is just the same as that of ,god4 ,there are some foods which agree with all1 or most of the people4 ,such is the case with religions also4 ,so the dispensations before our own were meant for some particular peoples1 ignoring all others1 but our religion was meant for the whole of the human race4 ,this being the case1 our ,prophet excels all the other ,prophets1 to him comes the divine revelation1 which makes a man fit to be called a prophet4 ,so the ,prophet has said informing us of his superiority over other prophets1 8,there is no prophet to whom has not been given a sign by which all the men would have believed4 ,i have been given divine revelation1 and ,i hope that my followers would be in the majority on the ,day of ,judgment40 ,all that we have said must have made it clear to you that the proof of the prophecy of the prophet from the ,quran is not of the same kind as that of turning a staff into a serpent for the proof of the prophecy of ,moses1 or of giving life to the dead1 and curing the blind and leprous for the prophecy of ,jesus4 ,for these1 although never performed by any but the prophets1 and sufficient to satisfy the common people1 are not by any means conclusive proofs of prophecy1 when taken by themselves1--they not being acts which make a prophet4 ,now as to the ,quran1 its case is just like curing by medicine4 ,for instance1 suppose two men were to claim to be physicians1 and one were to say that he could walk on water1 and the other were to assert that he could cure a disease1 and so one walked on the water1 and the other cured a sick man4 ,in this case1 our verification for medicine would be only for one who has cured a sick man1 but in the case of the other1 it would be outward satisfaction alone4 ,the first is far better4 ,the only reason by which the common people can be satisfied in this respect is that one who can walk on water1 which is against the nature of men1 can certainly cure a disease1 which is what men can do4 ,this also is one of the reasons of the connection between miracle1 which is not one of the conditions of prophecy1 and the sign which makes a man deserve the name of a prophet3 divine revelation4 ,of this quality is also the fact1 that there comes nothing to the mind of such a man except that which ,god has ordained for this unique work1 and specialised him for it1 among all his fellow-men4 ,so it is not inconsistent if he were to claim that ,god distinguished him with his revelations4 ,on the whole1 when once it is laid down that the prophets do exist1 and that the miracles cannot be performed except by them1 they can become a prophecy1 that is the miracles which are not in any way fit to be received as a proof for it4 ,this is the method to be adopted with regard to the common people4 ,for the doubts and objections which we have described about unnatural miracles are not perceived by the masses4 ,but if you look intently you will find that the ,law depends upon suitable and natural miracles1 and not upon unnatural ones4 ,what we have said about this problem is enough for our purpose and for the sake of truth4 ,problem ,third3 ,of ,fate and ,predestination4 ,this is one of the most intricate problems of religion4 ,for if you look into the traditional arguments about this problem you will find them contradictory2 such also being the case with arguments of reason4 ,the contradiction in the arguments of the first kind is found in the ,quran and the ,traditions4 ,there are many verses of the ,quran1 which by their universal nature1 teach that all the things are predestined1 and that man is compelled to do his acts2 then there are verses which say that man is free in his acts and not compelled in performing them4 ,the following verses tell us that all the things are by compulsion1 and are predestined1 8,everything have ,we created bound by a fixed degree20#aah again1 8,with ,him everything is regulated according to a determined measure40#aai ,further1 ,he says1 8,no accident happeneth in the earth1 nor in your persons1 but the same was entered in the ,book verily it is easy with ,god40#abj ,there may be quoted many other verses on this subject4 ,now1 as to the verses which say that man can acquire deeds by free will1 and that things are only possible and not necessary1 the following may be quoted3 8,or ,he destroyeth them 7by ship-wreck71 because of that which their crew have merited2 though ,he pardoneth many things40#aba ,and again1 8,whatever misfortune befalleth you is sent you by ,god1 for that which your hands have deserved40#abb ,further1 ,he says1 8,but they who commit evil1 equal thereunto40#abc ,again1 ,he says1 8,it shall have the good which it gaineth1 and it shall have the evil which it gaineth40#abd and1 8,and as to ,thamud1 ,we directed them1 but they loved blindness better than the true directions40#abe ,sometimes contradiction appears even in a single verse of the ,quran4 ,for instance1 ,he says1 8,after a misfortune hath befallen you 7you had already attained two equal advantages71 do you say1 whence cometh this8 ,answer1 ,this is from yourselves40#abf ,in the next verse1 ,he says1 8,and what happenth unto you1 on the day whereon the two armies met1 was certainly by permission of the ,lord40#abg ,of this kind also is the verse1 8,whatever good befalleth thee1 ,o man1 it is from ,god2 and whatever evil befalleth thee1 it is from thyself20#abh while the preceding verse says1 8,all is from ,god40#abi ,such is also the case with the ,traditions4 ,the ,prophet says1 8,every child is born in the true religion2 his parents afterwards turn him into a ,jew or a ,christian40 ,on another occasion he said1 8,the following people have been created for hell1 and do the deeds of those who are fit for it4 ,these have been created for heaven1 and do deeds fit for it40 ,the first ,tradition says that the cause of disbelief is one's own environments2 while faith and belief are natural to man4 ,the other ,tradition says that wickedness and disbelief are created by ,god1 and man is compelled to follow them4 ,this condition of things has led ,muslims to be divided into two groups4 ,the one believed that man's wickedness or virtue is his own acquirement1 and that according to these he will be either punished or rewarded4 ,these are the ,mutazilites4 ,the belief of the other party is quite opposed to this4 ,they say that man is compelled to do his deeds4 ,they are the ,jabarites4 ,the ,asharites have tried to adopt a mean between these two extreme views4 ,they say that man can do action1 but the deeds done1 and the power of doing it1 are both created by ,god4 ,but this is quite meaningless4 ,for if the deed and the power of doing it be both created by ,god1 then man is necessarily compelled to do the act4 ,this is one of the reasons of the difference of opinion about this problem4 ,as we have said there is another cause of difference of opinion about this problem1 than the traditional one4 ,this consists of the contradictory arguments advanced4 ,for if we say that man is the creator of his own deeds1 it would be necessary to admit that there are things which are not done according to the will of ,god1 or ,his authority4 ,so there would be another creator besides ,god1 while the ,muslims are agreed that there is no creator but ,he4 ,if1 on the other hand1 we were to suppose that man cannot act freely1 we admit that he is compelled to do certain acts1 for there is no mean between compulsion and freedom4 ,again1 if man is compelled to do certain deeds1 then on him has been imposed a task which he cannot bear2 and when he is made to bear a burden1 there is no difference between his work and the work of inorganic matter4 ,for inorganic matter has no power1 neither has the man the power for that which he cannot bear4 ,hence all people have made capability one of the conditions for the imposition of a task1 such as wisdom we find ,abul ,maali1 saying in his ,nizamiyyah1 that man is free in his own deeds and has the capability of doing them4 ,he has established it upon the impossibility of imposing a task which one cannot bear1 in order to avoid the principle formerly disproved by the ,mutazilites1 on account of its being unfit by reason4 ,the succeeding ,asharites have opposed them4 ,moreover if man had no power in doing a deed1 then it will be only by chance that he may escape from evil1 and that is meaningless4 ,such also would be the case with acquiring goodness4 ,in this way all those arts which lead to happiness1 as agriculture etc41 would become useless4 ,so also would become useless all those arts the purpose of which is protection from1 and repulsion of danger as the sciences of war1 navigation1 medicine etc4 such a condition is quite contrary to all that is intelligible to man4 ,now it may be asked that if the case is so1 how is this contradiction which is to be found both in tradition and reason to be reconciled we would say1 that apparently the purpose of religion in this problem is not to divide it into two separate beliefs1 but to reconcile them by means of a middle course1 which is the right method4 ,it is evident that ,god has created in us power by which we can perform deeds which are contradictory in their nature4 ,but as this cannot be complete except by the cause which ,god has furnished for us1 from outside1 and the removal of difficulties from them1 the deeds done are only completed by the conjunction of both these things at the same time4 ,this being so the deeds attributed to us are done by our intention1 and by the fitness of the causes which are called the ,predestination of ,god1 which ,he has furnished for us from outside4 ,they neither complete the works which we intend nor hinder them1 but certainly become the cause of our intending them--one of the two things4 ,for intention is produced in us by our imagination1 or for the verification of a thing1 which in itself is not in our power1 but comes into being by causes outside us4 ,for instance1 if we see a good thing1 we like it1 without intention1 and move towards acquiring it4 ,so also1 if we happen to come to a thing which it is better to shun1 we leave it without intention4 ,hence our intentions are bound and attached to causes lying outside ourselves4 ,to this the following words of ,god1 refer 8,each of them hath angels1 mutually succeeding each other1 before him and behind him2 they watch him by the command of ,god40#acj ,as these outside causes take this course according to a well defined order and arrangement1 and never go astray from the path which their ,creator hath appointed for them1 and our own intentions can neither be compelled1 nor ever found1 on the whole1 but by their fitness1 so it is necessary that actions too should also be within well-defined limits1 that is1 they be found in a given period of time and in a given quantity4 ,this is necessary because our deeds are only the effects of causes1 lying outside us2 and all the effects which result from limited and prearranged causes1 are themselves limited1 and are found in a given quantity only4 ,this relation does not exist only between our actions and outside causes1 but also between them and the causes which ,god has created in our body1 and the well-defined order existing between the inner and outer causes4 ,this is what is meant by ,fate and predestination1 which is found mentioned in the ,quran and is incumbent upon man4 ,this is also the 8,preserved ,tablet40#aca ,god's knowledge of these causes1 and that which pertains to them1 is the cause of their existence4 ,so no one can have a full knowledge of these things except ,god1 and hence ,he is the only ,knower of secrets1 which is quite true2 as ,god has said1 8,say1 ,none either in heaven or earth1 knoweth that which is hidden besides ,god40#acb ,a knowledge of causes is a knowledge of secret things1 because the secret is a knowledge of the existence of a thing1 before it comes into being4 ,and as the arrangement and order of causes bring a thing into existence or not at a certain time1 there must be a knowledge of the existence or non-existence of a thing at a certain time4 ,a knowledge of the causes as a whole1 is the knowledge of what things would be found or not found at a certain moment of time4 ,praised be ,he1 ,who has a complete knowledge of creation and all of its causes4 ,this is what is meant by the 8keys of the secret10 in the following words of ,god1 8with ,him are the keys of secret things2 none knoweth them besides ,himself40#acc ,all that we have said being true1 it must have become evident how we can acquire our deeds1 and how far they are governed by predestination and fate4 ,this very reconciliation is the real purpose of religion by those verses and ,traditions which are apparently contradictory4 ,when their universal nature be limited in this manner1 those contradictions should vanish by themselves1 and all the doubts which were raised before1 about the contradictory nature of reason1 would disappear4 ,the existent things from our volition are completed by two things3 our intention and the other causes4 ,but when the deeds are referred to only by one of these agencies1 doubts would rise4 ,it may be said is a good answer1 and here reason is in perfect agreement with religion1 but it is based upon the principles that these are agreed that there are creative causes bringing into existence other things2 while the ,muslims are agreed that there is no ,creator but ,god4 ,we would say that whatever they have agreed upon is quite right1 but the objection can be answered in two ways4 ,one of them is that this objection itself can be understood in two ways2 one of them being that there is no ,creator but ,god1 and all those causes which ,he has created1 cannot be called creators1 except speaking figuratively4 ,their existence also depends upon ,him4 ,he alone has made them to be causes1 nay1 ,he only preserves their existence as creative agents1 and protects their effects after their actions4 ,he again1 produces their essences at the moment when causes come together4 ,he alone preserves them as a whole4 ,had there been no divine protection they could not have existed for the least moment of time4 ,abu ,hamid 7,al-,ghazzali7 has said that a man who makes any of the causes to be co-existent with ,god is like a man who makes the pen share the work of a scribe in writing2 that is1 he says that the pen is a scribe and the man is a scribe too4 ,he means that writing is a word which may be applied to both1 but in reality they have no resemblance in anything but word1 for otherwise there is no difference between them4 ,such is also the case with the word ,creator1 when applied to ,god and the ,causes4 ,we say that in this illustration there are doubts4 ,it should have been clearly shown1 whether the scribe was the ,creator of the essence 7,jawhar7 of pen1 a preserver of it1 as long as it remains a pen1 and again a preserver of the writing after it is written1 a ,creator of it after it has come in touch with the pen1 as we have just explained that ,god is the ,creator of the essences 7,jawahir7 of everything which come into contact with its causes1 which are so called only by the usage4 ,this is the reason why there is no creator but ,god--a reason which agrees with our feelings1 reason and religion4 ,our feelings and reason see that there are things which produce others4 ,the order found in the universe is of two kinds3 that which ,god has put in the nature and disposition of things2 and that which surround the universe from outside4 ,this is quite clear in the movement of the heavenly bodies4 ,for it is evident that the sun and the moon1 the day and night1 and all other stars are obedient to us2 and it is on this arrangement and order which ,god has put in their movements that our existence and that of all other things depends4 ,so even if we imagine the least possible confusion in them1 with them in any other position1 size and rapidity of movement which ,god has made for them1 all the existent things upon the earth would be destroyed4 ,this is so because of the nature in which ,god has made them and the nature of the things which are effected by them4 ,this is very clear in the effects of the sun and the moon upon things of this world2 such also being the case with the rains1 winds1 seas and other tangible things4 ,but the greater effect is produced upon plants1 and upon a greater number1 or all1 on the animals4 ,moreover1 it is apparent that had there not been those faculties which ,god has put in our bodies1 as regulating them that could not exist even for a single moment after birth4 ,but we say1 had there not been the faculties found in all the bodies of the animals1 and plants and those found in the world by the movement of the heavenly bodies1 then they would not have existed at all1 not even for a twinkling of the eye4 ,so praised be the 8,sagacious1 the ,knowing40#acd ,god has called our attention to this fact in ,his book1 8,and ,he hath subjected the night and the day to your service2 and the sun and the moon and the stars1 which are compelled to serve by ,his ,command20#ace again1 8,say1 what think ye1 if ,god should cover you with perpetual night1 until the day of ,resurrection20#acf and again1 8,of ,his mercy1 ,he hath made you night and the day1 that ye may rest in the one1 and may seek to obtain provision for yourselves of ,his abundance1 by your industry2 in the other20#acg and1 8,and ,he obligeth whatever is in heaven or on earth to serve you40#ach ,further ,he says1 8,he likewise compelleth the sun and the moon1 which diligently perform their courses1 to serve you2 and hath subjected the day and night to your service10#aci ,there may be quoted many other verses on the subject4 ,had there been any wisdom in their existence by which ,god has favoured us1 and there would not have been those blessings for which we are to be grateful to ,him4 ,the second answer to the objection is1 that we say that the things produced out of it are of two kinds3 essences and substances2 and movements1 hardness1 coldness and all other accidents4 ,the essences and substances are not created by any but ,god4 ,their causes effect the accidents of those essences1 and not the essences themselves4 ,for instance1 man and woman are only the agents1 while ,god is the real creator of the child1 and the life in it4 ,such is also the case with agriculture4 ,the earth is prepared and made ready for it1 and the seed scattered in it4 ,but it is ,god who produces the ear of the corn4 ,so there is no creator but ,god1 while created things are but essences4 ,to this refer the words of ,god4 8,o men1 a parable is propounded unto you1 therefore1 hearken unto it4 ,verily the idols which ye invoke1 besides ,god1 can never create a single fly1 although they may all assemble for the purpose2 and if the fly snatch anything from them they cannot turn the same from it4 ,weak is the petitioner and the petitioned40#adj ,this is where the unbeliever wanted to mislead ,abraham1 when he said1 8,i give life and kill40#ada ,when ,abraham saw that he could understand it1 he at once turned to the conclusive argument and said1 8,verily1 ,god bringeth the sun from the east2 do thou bring it from the west40 ,on the whole1 if the matter about the creator and the doer be understood on this wise1 there would be no contradiction1 either in ,tradition or in reason4 ,so we say that the word ,creator does not apply to the created things by any near or far-fetched metaphor1 for the meaning of the creator is the inventor of the essences4 ,so ,god has said1 8,god created you1 and that which ye know40 ,it should be known that one who denies the effect of the causes on the results of them1 also denies philosophy and all the sciences4 ,for science is the knowledge of the things by their causes1 and philosophy is the knowledge of hidden causes4 ,to deny the causes altogether is a thing which is unintelligible to human reason4 ,it is to deny the ,creator1 not seen by us4 ,for the unseen in this matter must always be understood by a reference to the seen4 ,so those men can have no knowledge of ,god1 when they admit that for every action there is an actor4 ,it being so1 the agreement of the ,muslims on the fact that there is no ,creator but ,god cannot be perfect1 if we understand by it the denial of the existence of an agent in the visible world4 ,for from the existence of the agent in it1 we have brought an argument for the ,creator in the invisible world4 ,but when we have once admitted the existence of the ,creator in the invisible world1 it becomes clear that there is no ,creative agent except one by ,his command and will4 ,it is also evident that we can perform our own deeds1 and that one who takes up only one side of the question is wrong1 as is the case with the ,mutazilites and the ,jabarites4 ,those who adopt the middle ,course1 like the ,asharites1 for discovering the truth1 cannot find it4 ,for they make no difference for a man between the trembling and the movement of his hand by intention4 ,there is no meaning in their admitting that both the movements are not by ourselves4 ,because if they are not by ourselves we have no power to check them1 so we are compelled to do them4 ,hence there is no difference between trembling of hand and voluntary movement1 which they would call acquired4 ,so there is no difference between them1 except in their names1 which never effect the things themselves4 ,this is all clear by itself4 ,fourth ,problem3--,divine ,justice and ,injustice4 ,the ,asharites have expressed a very peculiar opinion1 both with regard to reason and religion2 about this problem4 ,they have explained it in a way in which religion has not1 but have adopted quite an opposite method4 ,they say that in this problem the case of the invisible world is quite opposed to the visible4 ,they think that ,god is just or unjust within the limits of religious actions1 so when a man's action is just with regard to religion1 he also is just2 and whatever religion calls it to be unjust2 ,he is unjust4 ,they say that whatever has not been imposed as a divinely ordained duty upon men1 does not come within the four walls of religion4 ,he is neither just or unjust1 but all ,his actions about such things are just4 ,they have laid down that there is nothing in itself which may be called just or unjust4 ,but to say that there is nothing which may in itself be called good or bad is simply intolerable4 ,justice is known as good1 and injustice as bad4 ,so according to them1 polytheism is in itself neither injustice nor evil1 but with regard to religion1 and had religion ordained it1 it would have been just and true4 ,such also would have been the case with any kind of sin4 ,but all this is quite contrary to our traditions and reason4 ,as to tradition ,god has described himself as just1 and denied injustice to himself4 ,he says 8,god hath borne witness that there is no ,god but ,he2 and the angels and those who are endowed with wisdom profess the same1 who executeth righteousness20#adb and 8,thy ,god is not unjust towards ,his servants20#adc and again1 8,verily ,god will not deal unjustly with men in any respect2 but men deal unjustly with their own souls40#add ,it may be asked1 ,what is your opinion about misleading the people1 whether it is just or unjust1 for ,god has mentioned in many a verse of the ,quran1 8,that ,he leads as well as misleads the people80 ,he says1 8,god causeth to err whom ,he pleaseth1 and directeth whom ,he pleaseth20#ade and1 8,if we had pleased1 we had certainly given every soul its direction40#adf ,we would say that these verses cannot be taken exoterically1 for there are many verses which apparently contradict them--the verses in which ,god denies injustice to himself4 ,for instance1 ,he says1 8,he liketh not ingratitude 7,kufr7 in ,his servant40#adg ,so it is clear that as ,he does not like ingratitude even from them1 ,he certainly cannot cause them to err4 ,as to the statement of the ,asharites that ,god sometimes does things which ,he does not like1 and orders others which ,he does not want1 ,god forbid us from holding such a view about him1 for it is pure infidelity4 ,that ,god has not misled the people and has not caused them to err will be clear to you from the following verses3 8,wherefore be thou orthodox and set thy face towards true religion1 the institution of ,god1 to which ,he hath created man kindly disposed20#adh and1 8when thy ,lord drew forth their posterity from the lions of the sons of ,adam40#adi ,a ,tradition of the ,prophet says1 8,every child is born according to the divine constitution40 ,these being contradictions in this problem we should try to reconcile them so that they may agree with reason4 ,the verse1 8,verily ,god will cause to err whom ,he pleaseth1 and will direct whom ,he pleaseth0 refers to the prearranged divine will1 with which all things have been endowed4 ,they have been created erring1 that is1 prepared to go astray by their very nature1 and led to it by inner and outer causes4 ,the meaning of the verse1 8,if we had pleased1 we have given unto every soul its direction10 is that ,he thought of not creating people ready to err1 by their nature1 or by the outer causes or by both1 ,he could have done so4 ,but as the dispositions of men are different the words may mislead the one and direct the other4 ,for these are the verses which speak of misleading the people4 ,for instance1 8,he will thereby mislead many1 and will direct many thereby3 but ,he will not mislead any thereby except the transgressors0#aej2 and1 8,we have appointed the vision which we showed thee1 and also the tree cursed in the ,quran10#aea and the verses about the number of angels of hell4 8,thus doth ,god cause to err whom ,he pleaseth and ,he directeth whom ,he pleaseth40#aeb ,it means that for evil natures1 these verses are misleading1 as for the sick bodies even good drugs are injurious4 ,but some one may object and ask1 what was the need of creating a class of men already prepared to err1 for this is the worst kind of injustice8 ,we would say that divine wisdom designated it so4 ,the injustice would have consisted in its being otherwise4 ,for the nature and constitution of men1 in ,his very creation1 are such that they require some men1 though very few1 to be wicked and evil by their nature4 ,such is also the case with the outer causes1 made for directing the people to the right path1 which requires that some men must be bad4 ,if many had been good then the divine law would not have been fulfilled1 because either there had not been created things in which there is little evil and much good1 for the good would have disappeared on account of that little evil2 or there had been created things with much good and little evil4 ,now it is well known that the existence of many good ones with a few evil ones1 is better than the non-existence of much good for the sake of little evil4 ,this very evil was the thing which remained hidden to the angels when ,god informed them that ,he was going to create upon the earth1 a vicegerent1 that is1 a man4 8,when ,god said to the angels1 ,i am going to place a substitute on earth1 they said1 wilt thou place there one who will do evil therein1 and shed blood8 but we celebrate thy praise1 and sanctify ,thee4 ,god answered1 ,verily ,i know that which ye know not40#aec ,he means that the thing which is hidden from them is that when there is found both good and evil in a thing1 and good overpowers the evil1 reason requires the creation of the one for the destruction of the other4 ,so from all these it is clear how misleading can be attributed to ,him1 in spite of ,his justice1 and injustice disproved4 ,the causes of misleading are created1 because from them appear the causes of direction to good4 ,for some people have not been given causes of direction to good in which there is found nothing which may lead to erring4 ,such is the condition of the angels4 ,so also the causes of good have those evil1 though in their nature much evil be not found2 this applies to man4 ,it may be asked3 ,what is the use of these contradictory verses1 thus compelling the people to take refuge in interpretations1 which you have absolutely forbidden8 ,we would say that to explain this problem to the common people1 they have been compelled to adopt this method4 ,for they should know that ,god is just1 and that ,he is the ,creator of all good and evil1 instead of believing1 as many nations have done1 that there are two ,gods1 the creator of good1 and the creator of evil4 ,so now they know that ,he is the ,creator of both4 ,as misleading is evil1 and as there is no ,creator but ,he1 it was necessary that it should be attributed to ,him1 like the creation of evil4 ,but this should be done without qualifying it1 that is1 that ,he created good for its own sake1 and evil for the sake of good--on account of their connection with one another4 ,in this way ,his creation of evil would be quite just4 ,to illustrate3 fire has been made because of its necessity for the existence of things1 and without it they could not have existed at all4 ,it also destroys things by its very nature4 ,but if you think of the destruction and evil which it causes1 and compare it to the advantages which we derive out of it1 you will find that its existence is better than non-existence1 that is1--good4 ,now the verse of the ,quran 8,no account shall be demanded of him for what ,he shall do2 but an account shall be demanded of them10 means that ,he does nothing because it is incumbent upon him for it is degrading to him1 to need doing a thing4 ,if it be so1 ,god needs that thing for ,his own existence1 because of necessity or to be more perfect in ,his ,being--and ,god is free from such imperfections4 ,man is just because he gains something good by being so1 which he cannot gain otherwise4 ,god is just1 not that ,he may become more perfect by ,his justice1 but because ,his perfection requires him to be just4 ,when we understand it in this way it would be evident1 that ,he is not just in the same way as man is just4 ,but it is not right to say that ,he is not just at all1 and that all ,his actions are neither just nor unjust1 as the ,mutakallimuns have thought4 ,for it cannot be understood by human intellect1 and is at the same time falsifying religion4 ,these people knew the meaning but were misled4 ,for if we say that ,he is not at all just1 we falsify the principle that there are things which are just and good in themselves and others which are evil and unjust4 ,again1 if we suppose that ,he is just in the same way as man is1 it becomes necessary to admit there is some defect in him4 ,for one who is just1 his existence is for the sake of things for which he is just1 and so he is dependent upon another4 ,it should now be known that it is not necessary for all the people to be told this interpretation in its entirety4 ,only those should be told it who have some doubts about this problem4 ,for not every one among the common people is confronted by these contradictions in the universal verses1 and ,tradition4 ,such people must believe in the exoteric meanings of them4 ,there is another reason for these verses4 ,the common people cannot differentiate between possible and impossible1 while to ,god is not ascribed power over the impossible4 ,if they be told what is impossible 7,mustahil7 and they think that ,god has power over it1 and then told that ,god has no power1 they begin to think that there is some defect in ,god1 because ,he cannot do a certain thing and hence ,he is weak4 ,as the existence of things free from evil was possible according to the masses1 ,god has said1 8,if we had pleased1 we had certainly given every soul its direction2 but the word which hath proceeded from ,me must necessarily be fulfilled1 when ,i said1 ,verily ,i will fill the hell with genii and men1 altogether40#aed ,this verse means one thing to the common people1 and the other to the learned4 ,the former take it to mean that it is not incumbent upon him that ,he should create a class of men to whom evil may be attached4 ,but it really means3 ,had we thought we could create men with whom evil could not be attached1 but would have been good in all and all1 and hence every one had been given his guidance4 ,this much is enough for this problem4 ,now we would deal with the fifth question4 ,problem fifth3 ,of the ,conditions of the ,day of ,judgment3--,the ,day of ,judgment is a thing in which all the religions are agreed1 and all the learned men have proved it by arguments4 ,the religions differ about the conditions of its existence2 nay1 in reality they do not differ about its condition1 but about the visible things by which they should explain to the common people the conditions of the unseen4 ,there are some religions which have made it only spiritual1 that is1 meant only for the souls2 while others have thought it to be both physical and spiritual4 ,the reconciliation in this matter depends upon the testimony of divine revelation1 and the necessary arguments of all the learned men1 that is1 that for a man there are two blessings3 of the present world1 and of the world to come1 which is itself established upon principles1 admitted by all to be true4 ,one of them is that when it is clear that all the existent things have not been created in vain1 but for some particular work assigned to them1 which is the sum total of their life1 then man is far fitter to be placed under this category4 ,god himself has warned us of the existence of this purpose in all the created things4 ,he says in the ,quran1 8,we have created the heavens and the earth1 and whatever is between them1 in vain4 ,this is the opinion of the unbelievers40#aee ,again1 ,he says1 describing and praising the learned men1 who have understood1 the real and inner purpose of this existence1 8,who remember ,god standing1 and sitting1 and lying on their sides2 and meditate on the creation of heaven and earth1 saying1 ,o ,lord1 thou hast not created this in vain2 far be it from thee therefore1 deliver us from the torment of hell fire40#aef ,the ultimate purpose in the creation of man is still more evident in him1 than in other things4 ,god has informed us of it in many a verses of the ,quran4 ,he says1 8,did ye think that we had created you in sport2 and that ye should not be brought again before us10#aeg and1 8,doth man think1 that he shall be left at full liberty1 without control80#aeh and further on ,he says1 8,i have not created genii and men for any other end1 but that they should serve me40#aei ,that is the genius out of all creation which could know him4 ,again1 ,he says1 informing us of the importance of knowing ,god1 8,what reason have ,i that ,i should not worship him who hath created me8 for unto him shall ye return40#afj ,now it being clear that man has been created for a certain work1 it is evident that the work should be of a particular kind4 ,for we see that everything has been created for a certain work1 which is found in it1 and in none other2 that is1 it is specialised in it4 ,this being so1 it is necessary that the real purpose of man's creation be those deeds which are found in him1 and in no other animal4 ,these deeds pertain to his rational powers4 ,as there are two portions of the rational powers1--practical and theoretical--it is evident that the first kind of thing is demanded of him4 ,that is1 that his faculties of knowledge and science should be found in their perfection4 ,the deed by which soul acquires perfection in those two faculties are goodness and virtue1 and those that retard it are evil and wicked4 ,and as these actions are most of them fixed by divine revelation1 religions appeared to fix them4 ,with that there also appears a knowledge of those qualities1 exhorting the people towards them4 ,they ordered men to act upon goodness1 and shew evil4 ,they taught them the quantity of the deeds which will be good for all the people1 both in practice and in knowledge taken together4 ,they also taught them the theoretical knowledge of things1 which all the people should know1 such as the knowledge of ,god1 angels1 of higher creation1 and of goodness4 ,in this way they also taught them the quantity of the acts which would be necessary to make the souls excel in virtue4 ,this is especially the case with our religion1 ,islam1 for when compared with other religions1 it is found that it is absolutely the best religion4 ,hence it was the last of divine dispensations4 ,now divine revelation has informed us in all the religions that the soul will live1 and all the argument of the learned people have established the same4 ,the souls are freed from physical desires after death4 ,if they be pure1 their purity is doubled by this freedom from desires4 ,if they be evil this separation increases their depravity1 for they are troubled by the evil which they have already earned1 and their regret increases about the opportunities which they lost before their separation from the body1 for this purification is not possible without it4 ,it is to this that following verse refers3--,a soul would say1 8,alas1 for that ,i have been negligent in my duties towards ,god3 ,verily ,i have been one of the scorners40#afa ,all the religions agree about this condition of man1 and call it his last goodness or misery4 ,this being so1 there could not be found in the visible world anything which may be given as an illustration1 so there is a difference in its description in the revelations given to different prophets4 ,we mean to say1 that there is a difference in illustrating the condition of the good and bad soul on that occasion4 ,there are some which have not given any illustrations of that happiness or misery which the good and bad souls will have there4 ,they have only said that the conditions there would be only spiritual1 and pleasures angelic4 ,others have given instances from the visible world2 that is1 they have given the examples of the pleasures here for the pleasures of the next world1 after deducting the trouble borne in acquiring them1 and in the same way1 they have illustrated the misery there1 by the example of misery here1 after deducting the pleasure which we derive from it4 ,either the people of these religions received from ,god revelations which those did not receive who made the next world purely spiritual1 or they saw1 that illustrations from things visible are best understood by the common people and that they are best led so or checked from an action through them4 ,so they said that ,god will put back the good souls in their respective bodies1 and the best possible ease--in paradise4 ,the bad souls will also return to their bodies1 where they will be in the worst possible misery1 which they call hell-fire4 ,this is true of our religion1 ,islam1 in illustrating the conditions of the next world4 ,there are many verses of the ,quran which contain arguments as to the possibilities of the conditions of that world1 which can be understood and verified by all4 ,for our reason cannot apprehend these things more than the possibility of knowing which is common to all1 and which is of the kind of analogy of the existence of the like from the being of the like1 that is of its coming into being4 ,it is an analogy of the coming into being of the small from the existence of the big and the great4 ,for instance1 ,god says1 8,and ,he propoundeth unto us a comparison and forgetteth ,his ,creation40#afb ,in these verses the argument used is the analogy of the return of the beginning1 when both are equal4 ,in the following verse the argument of those is refuted who differentiate between the real and return of the same thing4 ,he says1 8,he giveth you fire out of a green tree40#afc ,the doubt is that the birth was from heat and moisture1 while the return will be from cold and dryness4 ,so this doubt is met by the fact that ,god can create the contrary from the contrary1 as ,he can create the like from the like4 ,the analogy is drawn from the existence of the little from the great4 ,for example1 ,god says1 8,is not ,he who has created the ,heavens and the earth able to create new creatures like unto them6 yea1 certainly2 for ,he is the wise ,creator40#afd ,these verses have two arguments for proving the resurrection and at the same time refuting the arguments of those denying it4 ,were we to quote the verses which give this proof our discourse would be lengthened4 ,but all of them are of the kind we have mentioned4 ,so1 as we have already said1 all the religions are agreed that there is a blessing or misery for the human soul after death1 but differ in illustrating the conditions of that moment and in explaining it to the common people4 ,it seems that the illustration in our religion is the most perfect of all for the understanding of the people1 and at the same time most inciting of them all to gain for their souls the advantages of that day4 ,and it is the many with whom lies the primary purpose of religion4 ,the spiritual illustration would be least inciting to the common people for desiring the things of hereafter4 ,so they would have little liking for it1 while they would fear the physical illustration4 ,so it seems that the physical illustration would be most exciting to them1 than the spiritual1 while the latter would appeal only to the controversialists among the scholastic theologians1 who are always very few in number4 ,hence we find that the ,muslims have been divided into three parties about the meaning of the conditions of the ,day of ,judgment4 ,one party says that that existence would be just like our present one1 as regards pleasures and enjoyments1 that is1 they think that both are of the same genius1 but differ in perpetuity and termination3 the one is for ever and the others come to an end4 ,the other party thinks that the two existences are different4 ,but this is again subdivided into two parties4 ,the one thinks that that existence with our present faculties is spiritual1 but has been described as physical4 ,for this there are many religious arguments which it would be useless to repeat here4 ,the other party says that that existence is physical only2 but they at the same time believe1 that the body will be different from our present body4 ,this is only transient1 that will be eternal4 ,for this also there are religious arguments4 ,it seems that even ,abdullah ,b4 ,abbas held this view4 ,for it is related of him that he said1 8,there is nought in this world of the hereafter1 but names40 ,it seems that this view is better suited to the learned men because its possibility is based upon principles1 in which there is no disagreement according to all men3 the one being that the soul is immortal1 and the second is that the return of the souls into other bodies does not look so impossible as the return of the bodies themselves4 ,it is so because the material of the bodies here is found following and passing from one body to another1 i4 e42 one and the same matter is found in many people and in many different times4 ,the example of bodies cannot be found1 for their matter is the same4 ,for instance a man dies and his body becomes dissolved into earth4 ,the earth ultimately becomes dissolved into vegetable1 which is eaten by quite a different man from whom another man comes into being4 ,if we suppose them to be different bodies1 then our aforesaid view cannot be true4 ,the truth about this question is that man should follow that which he himself has thought out but anyhow it should not be the view which may deny the fundamental principle altogether4 ,for this would be denying its existence4 ,such a belief leads to infidelity1 on account of a distinct knowledge of this condition being given to man1 both by religion and by human reason1 which is all based upon the eternal nature of the soul4 ,if it be said whether there is any argument or information in the ,law about this eternal nature of the soul1 we would say that it is found in the ,quran itself4 ,god says1 8,god taketh unto himself the souls of men at the time of their death2 and those which die not ,he also taketh in their sleep40#afe ,in this verse sleep and death have been placed upon the same level1 on account of the change in its instrument1 and in sleep on account of a change in itself4 ,for had it not been so it would not have come to its former condition after awakening4 ,by this means we know that this cession does not effect its essence1 but was only attached to it on account of change in its instrument4 ,so it does not follow that with a cessation of the work of the instrument1 the soul also ceases to exist4 ,death is only a cessation of work1 so it is clear that its condition should be like that of sleep4 ,as someone has said that if an old man were to get the eyes of the young1 he would begin to see like him4 ,this is all that we thought of in an exposition of the beliefs of our religion1 ,islam4 ,what remains for us is to look into things of religion in which interpretation is allowed and not allowed4 ,and if allowed1 then who are the people to take advantage of it8 ,with this thing we would finish our discourse4 ,the things found in the ,law can be divided into five kinds4 ,but in the first place1 there are only two kinds of things3 indivisible and the divisible4 ,the second one is divided into four kinds4 ,the first kind which is mentioned in the ,quran1 is quite clear in its meanings4 ,the second is that in which the thing mentioned is not the thing meant but is only an example of it4 ,this is again divided into four kinds4 ,first1 the meanings which it mentions are only illustrations such that they can only be known by the far-fetched and compound analogies1 which cannot be understood1 but after a long time and much labour4 ,none can accept them but perfect and excellent natures2 and it cannot be known that the illustration given is not the real thing2 except by this far-fetched way4 ,the second is just the opposite of the former3 they can be understood easily1 and it can be known that the example is just what is meant here4 ,thirdly1 it can be easily known that it is merely an illustration1 but what it is the example of is difficult to comprehend4 ,the fourth kind is quite opposite to the former4 ,the thing of which it is an example1 is easily understood2 while it is difficult to know that it is an example at all4 ,the interpretation of the first kind is wrong without doubt4 ,the kind in which both the things are far-fetched3 its interpretation particularly lies with those who are well-grounded in knowledge2 and an exposition of it is not fit for any but the learned4 ,the interpretation of its opposite--that which can be understood on both the sides--is just what is wanted1 and an exposition of it is necessary4 ,the case of the third kind is like the case of the above4 ,for in it illustration has not been mentioned because of the difficulty for the common people to understand it3 it only incites the people to action4 ,such is the case with the tradition of the prophet2 8,the black stone is ,god's action on ,earth10 etc4 etc4 ,that which can be easily known that is an example1 but difficult to know of which it is example1 should not be interpreted but for the sake of particular persons and learned men4 ,those who understand that it is only an illustration1 but are not learned enough to know the thing which it illustrates1 should be told either that it is allegorical and can be understood by the well-established learned men2 or the illustration should be changed in a way which might be near to their understanding4 ,this would be the best plan to dispel doubts from their minds4 ,the law about this should be that which has been laid down by ,abu ,hamid 7,al ,ghazzali7 in his book1 ,al ,tafriga bainal ,islam wal ,zindiga4 ,it should be understood that one thing has five existences which he calls by the name of essential 7,zati72 sensual 7,hissi72 rational 7,agli72 imaginative 7,khayali7 and doubtful 7,shilbhi74 ,so at the time of doubt it should be considered which of these five kinds would better satisfy the man who has doubts4 ,if it be that which he has called essential then an illustration would best satisfy their minds4 ,in it is also included the following traditions of the ,prophet1 8,whatever the earlier prophets saw ,i have seen it from my place here1 even heaven and hell40 8,between my cistern of water and the pulpit1 there is a garden of paradise20 and 8,the earth will eat up the whole of a man except the extremity of the tail40 ,all these1 it can easily be known are but illustrations1 but what is the thing which they illustrate1 it is difficult to comprehend4 ,so it is necessary in this case to give an instance to the people which they may easily understand4 ,this kind of illustration1 when used on such an occasion is allowable2 but when used irrelevantly it is wrong4 ,abu ,hamid has not decided about the occasion when both the sides of the question--the illustration and the illustrated--be both far-fetched and difficult to understand4 ,in this case there would apparently be a doubt1 but a doubt without any foundation4 ,what should be done is to prove that the doubt has no basis1 but no interpretation should be made1 as we have shown in many places in our present book against the ,mutakallimun1 ,asharites and the ,mutazalites4 ,the fourth kind of occasion is quite opposite to the former4 ,in this it is very difficult to understand that it is an example1 but when once understood1 you can easily comprehend the thing illustrated4 ,in the interpretation of this also1 there is a consideration3 about those people who know that if it is an example1 it illustrates such and such a thing2 but they doubt whether it is an illustration at all4 ,if they are not learned people1 the best thing to do with them is not to make any interpretation1 but only to prove the fallacy of the views which they hold about its being an illustration at all4 ,it is also possible that an interpretation may make them still distant from the truth1 on account of the nature of the illustration and the illustrated4 ,for these two kinds of occasions if an interpretation is given1 they give rise to strange beliefs1 far from the law which when disclosed are denied by the common people1 ,such has been the case with the ,sufis1 and those learned men who have followed them4 ,when this work of interpretation was done by people who could not distinguish between these occasions1 and made no distinction between the people for whom the interpretation is to be made1 there arose differences of opinion1 at last forming into sects1 which ended in accusing one another with unbelief4 ,all this is pure ignorance of the purpose of the ,law4 ,from what we have already said the amount of mischief done by interpretation must have become clear to you4 ,we always try to acquire our purpose by knowing what should be interpreted1 and what not1 and when interpreted1 how it should be done2 and whether all the difficult portions of the ,law and ,traditions are to be explained or not4 ,these are all included in the four kinds which have already been enumerated4 ,the purpose of our writing this book is now completed4 ,we took it up because we thought that it was the most important of all purposes--connected with ,god and the ,law4 ,,footnotes ,footnote #be3 ,a translation of ,al-,kashf'an ,manhij i'l ,adillah fi ,aqaid il ,millah1 we ,tarif ma ,waqa fiha bi ,hasb i'l ,ta'wil min ,shubhi'l ,muzighah wa ,bid'ill ,mudillah4 ,footnote #bf3 ,quran ii1 #ai4 ,footnote #bg3 ,quran xiv1 #aa4 ,footnote #bh3 ,quran xxxix1 #ci4 ,footnote #bi3 ,quran vi1 #ge4 ,footnote #cj3 ,quran xvi1 #db4 ,footnote #ca3 ,quran ii1 #bhb4 ,footnote #cb3 ,quran xxix1 #fi4 ,footnote #cc3 ,quran viii1 #bi4 ,footnote #cd3 ,quran xxii1 #gb4 ,footnote #ce3 ,quran vii1 #ahd4 ,footnote #cf3 ,quran lxxvii1 #f-af4 ,footnote #cg3 ,quran xxv1 #fb4 ,footnote #ch3 ,quran lxxx1 #bd4 ,footnote #ci3 ,quran lxxxvi1 #f4 ,footnote #dj3 ,quran lxxxviii1 #ag4 ,footnote #da3 ,quran xxii1 #gb4 ,footnote #db3 ,quran vi1 #gi4 ,the story referred to will be found in the preceding verses4 ,footnote #dc3 ,quran ii1 #ai4 ,footnote #dd3 ,quran xxxvi1 #cc4 ,footnote #de3 ,quran iii1 #ahh4 ,footnote #df3 ,quran vii1 #aga4 ,footnote #dg3 ,quran iii1 #af4 ,footnote #dh3 ,quran xvii1 #df4 ,footnote #di3 ,quran xxi1 #bb4 ,footnote #ej3 ,quran xxiii1 #ic4 ,footnote #ea3 ,quran xvii1 #dd4 ,footnote #eb3 ,quran ii1 #bef4 ,footnote #ec3 ,quran xvii1 #de1 #df4 ,footnote #ed3 ,quran lxxvii1 #ad4 ,footnote #ee3 ,quran vi1 #ei4 ,footnote #ef3 ,quran xix1 #fe4 ,footnote #eg3 ,quran xvi1 #db4 ,footnote #eh3 ,quran xlii1 #ej4 ,footnote #ei3 ,quran liii1 #h1 #aj4 ,footnote #fj3 ,quran iv1 #afb4 ,footnote #fa3 ,quran xix1 #dc4 ,footnote #fb3 ,quran xxi1 #fg4 ,footnote #fc3 ,quran v1 #gg4 ,footnote #fd3 ,quran xlii1 #i4 ,footnote #fe3 ,quran xvi1 #ag4 ,footnote #ff3 ,quran xxv1 #fj4 ,footnote #fg3 ,quran ii1 #bef4 ,footnote #fh3 ,quran xx1 #ed4 ,footnote #fi3 ,quran xxxv1 #ci4 ,footnote #gj3 ,quran xxx1 #bi4 ,footnote #ga3 ,quran xxxv1 #da4 ,footnote #gb3 ,quran ii1 #bef4 ,footnote #gc3 ,quran xlii1 #i4 ,footnote #gd3 ,quran xliv1 #b4 ,footnote #ge3 ,quran xxxv1 #aj4 ,footnote #gf3 ,quran lxx1 #d4 ,footnote #gg3 ,quran lxxxix1 #bc4 ,footnote #gh3 ,quran xvii1 #hg4 ,footnote #gi3 ,quran ii1 #bfj4 ,footnote #hj3 ,quran xxiv1 #ce4 ,footnote #ha3 ,he also saw him another time1 by the lote-tree1 beyond which there is no passing3 near it is the garden of eternal abode4 ,when the lote-tree covered that which it covered1 his eye-sight turned not aside1 nor did it wander3 and he really beheld some of the greater signs of his ,lord4 7,quran lii1 #af1 #ah47 ,the lote-tree is the limit beyond which neither angel nor man can pass4 ,it stands in the seventh heaven1 on the right hand of the ,throne of ,god4 ,footnote #hb3 ,quran lxix1 #ag4 ,footnote #hc3 ,quran xxxii1 #b4 ,footnote #hd3 ,quran lxx1 #d4 ,footnote #he3 ,quran lxvii1 #af4 ,footnote #hf3 ,quran xl1 #ei4 ,footnote #hg3 ,quran iii1 #e4 ,footnote #hh3 ,quran ii1 #bd4 ,footnote #hi3 ,quran iii1 #e4 ,footnote #ij3 ,quran vi1 #ajc4 ,footnote #ia3 ,they will ask the concerning the ,soul3 answer1 ,the ,soul was created at the command of my ,lord3 but ye have no knowledge given unto you1 except a little4--7,quran xxii1 #he47 ,footnote #ib3 ,quran lxxvii1 #c1 et4 seq4 ,footnote #ic3 ,quran ii1 #ii4 ,footnote #id3 ,quran xxi1 #cc4 ,footnote #ie3 ,quran lxxi1 #ad-af4 ,footnote #if3 ,quran xxvii1 #ij4 ,footnote #ig3 ,quran lxvii1 #c4 ,footnote #ih3 ,quran iii1 #hh4 ,footnote #ii3 ,quran xi1 #i4 ,footnote #ajj3 ,quran vii1 #eb4 ,footnote #aja3 ,quran xli1 #aj4 ,footnote #ajb3 ,quran iii1 #e4 ,footnote #ajc3 ,quran ii1 #h4 ,footnote #ajd3 ,quran xvii1 #ib-ie4 ,footnote #aje3 ,quran1 xvii1 #fa4 ,footnote #ajf3 ,quran xvii1 #ij4 ,footnote #ajg3 ,quran xi1 #af4 ,footnote #ajh3 ,quran iv1 #afa1 #afb4 ,footnote #aji3 ,quran xlvi1 #h4 ,footnote #aaj3 ,quran iv1 #agc4 ,footnote #aaa3 ,quran iv1 #afh4 ,footnote #aab3 ,quran iv1 #afj4 ,footnote #aac3 ,quran iv1 #afd4 ,footnote #aad3 ,quran xxix1 #dg4 ,footnote #aae3 ,quran lxii1 #b4 ,footnote #aaf3 ,quran vii1 #aef4 ,footnote #aag3 ,quran vii1 #aef4 ,footnote #aah3 ,quran liv1 #di4 ,footnote #aai3 ,quran xiii1 #i4 ,footnote #abj3 ,quran lvii1 #bb4 ,footnote #aba3 ,quran xlii1 #cb4 ,footnote #abb3 ,quran xlii1 #cb4 ,footnote #abc3 ,quran x1 #bh4 ,footnote #abd3 ,quran ii1 #bgh4 ,footnote #abe3 ,quran xli1 #af4 ,footnote #abf3 ,quran iii1 #aei4 ,footnote #abg3 ,quran iii1 #afj4 ,footnote #abh3 ,quran iv1 #ha4 ,footnote #abi3 ,quran iv1 #hj4 ,footnote #acj3 ,quran xiii1 #ab4 ,footnote #aca3 ,quran lxxxv1 #bb4 ,footnote #acb3 ,quran xxvii1 #fg4 ,footnote #acc3 ,quran vi1 #ei4 ,footnote #acd3 ,quran lxvii1 #ad4 ,footnote #ace3 ,quran xvi1 #ab4 ,footnote #acf3 ,quran xxviii1 #ga4 ,footnote #acg3 ,quran xviii1 #gc4 ,footnote #ach3 ,quran xlv1 #ab4 ,footnote #aci3 ,quran xiv1 #cg4 ,footnote #adj3 ,quran xxii1 #gb4 ,footnote #ada3 8,hast thou not considered him who disputed with ,abraham concerning his ,lord1 because ,god had given him the ,kingdom8 ,when ,abraham ,said1 ,my ,lord is ,he who giveth life and killeth3 he answered1 ,i give life and kill1 ,abraham said1 verily ,god bringeth the sun from the east do thou bring it from the west2 whereupon the infidel was confounded2 for ,god directeth not the ungodly people40 ,quran ii1 #bfj4 ,footnote #adb3 ,quran iii1 #af4 ,footnote #adc3 ,quran xli1 #df4 ,footnote #add3 ,quran x1 #de4 ,footnote #ade3 ,quran xiv1 #d4 ,footnote #adf3 ,quran xxxii1 #aa4 ,footnote #adg3 ,quran xxxix1 #i4 ,footnote #adh3 ,quran xxx1 #bi4 ,footnote #adi3 ,quran vii1 #aga4 ,footnote #aej3 ,moreover1 ,god will not be ashamed to propound in a parable of a great1 or even a more despicable thing3 for they who believe will know it to be true from their ,lord2 but the unbelievers will say1 what meaneth by this parable8 ,he will thereby mislead etc4 7,quran ii1 #bd74 ,footnote #aea3 ,quran xvii1 #fb4 ,by the vision may be meant the ,prophet's night journey to heaven or the vision which he saw at ,hudaibiyyah1 seeing himself entering ,mecca or his vision about the ,omayyeds4 ,footnote #aeb3 ,quran lxxiv1 #cd4 ,footnote #aec3 ,quran ii1 #bh4 ,footnote #aed3 ,quran xxxii1 #ad4 ,footnote #aee3 ,quran xxxviii1 #bf4 ,footnote #aef3 ,quran iii1 #ahh4 ,footnote #aeg3 ,quran xxiii1 #aag4 ,footnote #aeh3 ,quran lxxv1 #cf4 ,footnote #aei3 ,quran li1 #ef4 ,footnote #afj3 ,quran xxxvi1 #ba4 ,footnote #afa3 ,quran xxxix1 #eg4 ,footnote #afb3 ,quran xxxvi1 #gh4 ,footnote #afc3 ,quran xxxvi1 #hj4 ,footnote #afd3 ,quran xxxxvi1 #ha4 ,footnote #afe3 ,quran xxxix1 #dc4 ,transcriber's ,notes ,the cover image was created by the transcriber1 and is placed in the ,public ,domain4 ,obvious typographical errors and variable spelling were corrected4 ,quran reference formatting has been made uniform to e4g4 8,quran xxv1 #fj40 ,the following corrections have been made to the text3 ,page ,original ,new ---------------------------------------- ------------------------ #ad cogniscance cognisance #bh heavena heavens #cj concensus consensus #ec cogniscance cognisance #fj necessarry necessary #fj shonld should #fj interpretes interprets #fd ,qnran ,quran #fg tbe the #fi ,mutazalites ,mutazilites #ga ,mutakallimum ,mutakallimun #gf he be #ia upo upon #ig nevertheles nevertheless #ih nonexistent non-existent #abi no not #ace s is #acg controvertialist controversialist #adc ,mutakalimun ,mutakallimun #adg bows bows' #afa ,quran ,quran xxx1 #bh4 ,footnote #df #afb ,quran ,quran xxxv1 #da4 ,footnote #dg #aff ii #aj ,footnote #ea #agd ,maati ,maali #ahf by be #aic ,quran ,quran vi1 #ajc4 ,footnote #ff #aid th the #aih imposible impossible #bjg excep except ,footnote #fg #bai beeause because #bbb pre-arranged prearranged #bdd there-of thereof #bea repeatsd repeated #bea appearence appearance #beg ,qnran ,quran ,footnote #ic #bei distingished distinguished #bfa ,quran ,,livi ,quran liv1 #bfb ,quarn ,quran ,footnote #ajb #bfe ,mutazlites ,mutazilites #bfe intellegible intelligible #bff perfom perform #bff use us #bfi ,,yxvii ,,xxvii ,footnote #ajh #bgj things things3 #bgd ,removed duplicate footnote #aaa4 ,numbers of the subsequent footnotes corrected4 #bgf #aah ,removed second1 unused footnote anchor #bgg alsays always #bgg in an #bgh thay they #bgh their there #bgh there their #bgi ,injusitce ,injustice #bhj ,added footnote anchors1 footnotes on next page #bhb ,added footnote anchors #bhb ,quran1 ,,xxxv1 #i ,removed footnote1 as no matching quran quote was found in the text #bhc ,added footnote anchors #bhe in-spite in spite #bhe ,added footnote anchor #bhf contradictary contradictory #bhf ,crertor ,creator #bhf attributd attributed #bhi #aca ,quran1 ,,xxx1 #ad4 #aca ,quran1 ,,xxxii1 #ad4 #bib that ,that #bic theoratical theoretical #bie that is1 444 world2 ,removed duplicate part #bif mirsery misery #bif possiblities possibilities #bii divded divided #cjj enternal eternal #cjj reilgious religious #cjd farfetched far-fetched #cje than then #cjf occassion occasion #cjf irrelevently irrelevantly #cjf ,mutazalites ,mutazilites #cjg man men #cjh interperetation interpretation