the philosophers, and suggested that knowledge is attained only through seclusion and reflection, and that this degree of knowledge is of the same order as the degrees attained by the prophets. He explicitly stated precisely the same thing in his book The Alchemy of Happiness. As a result of this confusion and muddle, people divided into two groups: one undertook to disparage the philosophers and philosophy, while the other undertook to reinterpret the revealed Law and sought to make it conform to philosophy. All of this is mistaken. Rather, the revealed Law should be left according to its apparent meaning, and its reconciliation with philosophy should not be openly explained to the general public. To do so is to disclose the conclusions of philosophy to them without their possessing demonstrative proof of those conclusions. This is neither lawful nor permissible: I mean disclosing any philosophical conclusion to someone who does not possess demonstrative proof of it. For such a person belongs neither among the scholars who reconcile the revealed Law with reason nor among the general public who follow the apparent meaning of the revealed Law. His conduct thus undermined both philosophy and the revealed Law for some people, while preserving both for others.

As for his undermining the revealed Law, this lay in his openly presenting in that work interpretations that ought not to be disclosed. As for his undermining philosophy, this likewise lay in his disclosure of philosophical ideas that should not