be disclosed except in works of demonstrative reasoning. As for his preserving both, many people see no conflict between them because of the reconciliation he offered. He reinforced this understanding by explaining how the two could be reconciled in his book entitled The Distinction between Islam and Heresy. In it, he enumerated the various kinds of interpretation and stated categorically that one who engages in interpretation is not an unbeliever, even if his interpretation contravenes consensus.

Thus, what he did in these matters is harmful to the revealed Law in one respect, harmful to philosophy in another, and beneficial to both in another. Yet an examination of this man’s actions reveals that they are intrinsically harmful to both—I mean philosophy and the revealed Law—and beneficial to them incidentally. For disclosing philosophy to those unqualified for it intrinsically entails invalidating either philosophy or the revealed Law, though it may incidentally bring about their reconciliation.

The right course would have been not to disclose philosophy to the general public. Now that it has been disclosed, however, the right course is to teach those members of the general public who believe that the revealed Law is contrary to philosophy that it is not contrary to it. Likewise, it should be explained to those who believe that philosophy