HKB
ad Bobov. p. 16; Chardin, Voy. de Perse, tom. ii. p. 450; Ricaut's State of the Ottoman Empire, l. 2. c. 24, &c. 3 Vide Chardin and Ricaut, ubi supra.
principles and methods of reasoning very different from what are used by those who pass among the Mohammedans themselves for the sounder divines or more able philosophers,1 and, therefore, in the partition of the sciences this is generally left out, as unworthy a place among them.2 The learned Maimonides3 has laboured to expose the principles and systems of the scholastic divines, as frequently repugnant to the nature of the world and the order of the creation, and intolerably absurd. This art of handling religious disputes was not known in the infancy of Mohammedism, but was brought in when sects sprang up, and articles of religion began to be called in question, and was at first made use of to defend the truth o those articles against innovators;1 and while it keeps within those bounds is allowed to be a commendable study, being necessary for the defence of the faith: but when it proceeds farther, out of an itch of disputation, it is judged worthy of censure. This is the opinion of al Ghazâli,2 who observes a medium between those who have too high a value for this science, and those who absolutely reject it. Among the latter was al Shâfeï, who declared that, in his judgment, if any man employed his time that way, he deserved to be fixed to a stake, and carried about through all the Arab tribes, with the following proclamation to be made before him: 'This is the reward of him who, leaving the Korân and the Sonna, applied himself to the study of scholastic divinity."3 Al Ghazâli, on the other hand, thinks that as it was introduced by the invasion of heresies, it is necessary to be retained in order to quell them: but then in the person who studies this science he requires three things, diligence, acuteness of judgment, and probity of manners; and is by no means for suffering the same to be publicly explained.4 This science, therefore, among the Mohammedans, is the art of controversy, by which they discuss points of faith concerning the essence and attributes of GOD, and the conditions of all possible things, either in respect to their creation, or final restoration, according to the rules of the religion of Islâm.5 The other science is practical divinity or jurisprudence, and is the knowledge of the decisions of the law which regard practice, gathered from distinct proofs. Al Ghazâli declares that he had much the same opinion of this science as of the former, its original being owing to the corruption of religion and morality; and therefore judged both sciences to be necessary, not in themselves, but by accident only, to curb the irregular imaginations and passions of mankind (as guards become necessary in the highways by reason of robbers), the end of the first being the suppressing of heresies, and of the other the decision of legal controversies, for the quiet and peaceable living of mankind in this world, and for the preserving the rule by which the magistrate may prevent one man from injuring another, by declaring what is lawful and what is unlawful, by determining the satisfaction to be given, or punishment to be
1 Poc. Spec. p. 196. 2 Apud Ebn Sina, in Libello de Divisione Scientiar, et Nasiro'ddin al Tûsi, in Præfat. ad Ethic. 3 More Nevoch. l. I, c. 71 and 73. 1 Al Ghazâli, apud Poc. ubi supra. 2 Ibid. 3 Vide Poc. ibid. p. 197. 4 Al Ghazâli, ibid. 5 Ebn al Kossá apud eund. ibid. p. 198.