The Day of Judgment
Table of Contents
If the Law is divided into these 3 parts, to which of these does the the Day of Judgment belong?
I answer that it belongs to that part in which there is some difference of opinion.
The Asharite philosophers say that these things should be taken literally since no argument makes their literal sense absurd and unreasonable.
Many Sufi philosophers and those Abu Hamid (Al Ghazzali) differ widely in the interpretation.
Abu Hamid amalgamates the 2 interpretations.
A denial of its reality is infidelity, since it is one of the fundamentals of the Law.
Its reality can be easily verified by any of the 3 methods of argument common to all men.
But one who is not learned should take it exoterically, an interpretation in his case is unbelief, for it leads to infidelity.
I thus think that such people should accept the literal sense, for interpretation will certainly lead them to infidelity.
- A learned man who discloses the discussions of these things to the common people helps them towards unbelief.
- One who abets another in that direction is himself no[51] better than an unbeliever.
Therefore, these interpretations should be published only in learned books, so that it can reach only the learned.
But it is a mistake, both in religion and philosophy, to put them in other books, with dogmatic and exhortative arguments.
- Abu Hamid did this.
- His intention was good – to increase the number of learned men
- But he caused a lot of mischief through it.
Because of his books:
- some people began to find fault with philosophy
- others began to blame religion
- others began to think of reconciling the two.
- This was the very aim which Abu Hamid had in view in writing these books.
He tried to awaken the nature of men, for he never attached himself to any particular way of thinking in his books.
I am a Yeminite when I meet a Yeminite. If I meet a Ma’adi I am one of Banu Adnan.
Abu Hamid
Hence, the doctors of Islam should:
- prevent men, except the learned, from reading his books.
- hinder people from reading controversial writings which should not be studied except by those fit to do so.
As a rule, the reading of these books is less harmful than those of the former.
The majority cannot understand philosophical books, only those endowed with superior natures.
People are on the whole destitute of learning and are aimless in their reading which they do without a teacher.
Nevertheless they succeed in leading others away from religion. It is an injustice to the best kind of men and the best kind of creation; for in their case justice consists in the knowledge of the best things by the best people, fit to know it.
The greater the thing is the higher will be the injustice done to it on account of ignorance.
Hence God says: “Polytheism is a great injustice.”
The relation between philosophy and religion and the canons of interpretation in Law.
These things are suitable only for mention in philosophical books.
The real purpose of the Law is to impart the knowledge of truth and of right action.
The knowledge of truth consists in the cognisance of God and the whole universe with its inner significance, especially that of religion, and the knowledge of happiness or misery of the next world.
Right action consists in:
- those actions which are useful for happiness
- avoiding those which lead to misery
The knowledge of these actions has been called practical knowledge.
This is divided into 2 kinds:
- External actions
Theology is the knowledge of external actions.
- Actions pertaining to feelings
Examples are gratitude, patience, and other points of character to which the Law has urged us or from which it has prohibited us.
This is called the knowledge of continence and of the next world.
Abu Hamid in his book The Revivification of the Sciences of Religion inclined to this kind.
People have always turned away from theology and into feelings which leads them easily to piety.
- This is how his book got its name.
The purpose of the Law is to impart the knowledge of truth and of right action.
This can only be done by 1 of the 2 methods:
- By conception or verification such as what Mutakallimun have maintained in their books.
There are 3 methods of verification open to people:
- philosophy
- dogmatics
- exhortation
There are 2 methods of conception:
- by the thing itself, or
- by its like
People cannot understand philosophical and dogmatic arguments.
It is necessary that the Law should contain all kinds of verifications and conceptions.
Exhortative and dogmatic verification methods are meant for the common people.
The exhortative is more common than the other.
The method of rational inference is meant solely for the learned.
The primary aim of the Law is to improve the condition of the many without neglecting the few.
Hence, the method of conception and verification adopted are common to the majority.
These are 4 kinds of methods:
- The syllogisms where the minor and major premise are certain, besides being easily imagined and well known.
In particulars, both are the same, both exhortatively and dialectically.
But is still true by conception and verification.
These are set before the deductions which are drawn from them, and not from their likes.
There is no interpretation to this kind of religious injunction.
One who denies them or puts an interpretation on them is an infidel.
- The premises of which although well known or easily imagined are also positively established.
Their conclusions are drawn by analogy. Upon these, that is, their conclusions, an interpretation may be put.
- The reverse of the second
Here, the conclusions are themselves intended. Their premises are well known or easily imagined without being positively established.
Upon these resulting conclusions, no interpretation can be put.
Sometimes, the premises may be interpreted.
- The premises of which are well-known or conjectural without being positively established.
Their deductions are by analogy when that is intended.
It is the duty of the learned men to interpret them and of the common people to take them exoterically.