The Book of the Dove

This general parallelism appears in other cardinal points. Every chapter in the Iḥyāʾ and the Ethikon opens with a section containing the utterances of Scriptures and Tradition on the subject treated in it. Both go on with a definition of the subject, called ḥadd limit/definition or ḥaqīqa reality/essence by Ghazālī, mtakhmanūtā determination/definition by Bar Hebraeus. Further Ghazālī divides the works into three states: that of knowledge (ʿilm science), action (ʿamal practice) and disposition (ḥāl state) 1) Iḥyāʾ IV, p. 208.; this division is also that of Bar Hebraeus who calls the states: speculation (idaʿtā d-dubārā knowledge of conduct), practice (sūʿrānā action) and disposition (hūpākā habit/state) 2) Ethikon, p. 420.. Both Ghazālī and Bar Hebraeus maintain that there is ʿilm al-muʿāmala science of conduct and idaʿtā d-dubārā knowledge of conduct, and ʿilm al-mukāshafa science of revelation and idaʿtā d-gelyānā knowledge of revelation, and both say expressly that they will only treat of the former 3) Iḥyāʾ I, p. 4; Ethikon, 1..

From this parallelism in capital points it may already be clear, that Bar Hebraeus, as to the general lines of his work, was dependent upon Ghazālī. This parallelism exists chiefly between the Iḥyāʾ and the Ethikon. The Ethikon and the Book of the Dove have really different aims. The Ethikon, like the Iḥyāʾ, has been written in order