and matters of knowledge alike. Others, however, do not deny the outward practices established through mass transmission, though they may regard them as intended for the general public rather than the elite, just as they do with matters conveyed in revealed reports.

Their discourse revolves around the claim that the prophetic message serves the welfare of the general public in knowledge and practice, but not that of the elite. This is the central premise of the authors of “Rasā’il Ikhwān al-Safā” (Epistles of the Brethren of Purity) and the other distinguished proponents of philosophy. Some of them nevertheless hold that compliance with the practical prescriptions of religious law is obligatory. Such people are numerous among their jurists, Sufis, and judicious philosophers. This was the extent of Ibn Sīnā’s understanding when he repented and committed himself to fulfilling the obligations prescribed by religious law. The ancient philosophers held that the laws laid down by the foremost sages of their lands had to be followed; all the more reason, then, for them to require adherence to the laws of the messengers. For, as Ibn Sīnā said:

“The philosophers of the world agree that no law superior to this law of Muhammad has ever come into the world.”

All judicious philosophers agree that he is the most perfect and excellent member of the human race, and that the messengers as a class are superior to the celebrated philosophers as a class. They may then claim that the messengers and prophets are great sages, while the philosopher-sages are lesser prophets; or they may regard them as two distinct classes. This is not the place to explain that, for we have discussed it elsewhere.

The point is simply that the furthest these leading philosophers and speculative theologians go