The Resurrection of the Dead, Based on Avicenna's and Thomas Aquina's View

’Resurrection’ is one of the most important issue among the religious, philosophical and theological issues. As an aim, this essay has to compare some opinions of the two prominent thinkers in Islam and Christianity. Avicenna and Aquinas, in regard with the Resurrection. Exept in respect to badily Resurrection, Avicenna’s method of dispute is an absolutely philosophical one; whereas Aquinas’ is a theological- philosophical method. Avicenna and Aquinas are both agreed that the soul is and incorporeal substance, so that it won’t be destroyed, supposing destruction of the body. Moreover, they both have the view that the soul is created and are agreed that it is eternal. There is no place for purgatory, bodily paradise and hell in Avicena’s philosophy. But, Aquinas, according to the narrative texts, accepts them and deals with thire’s details. As Aquinas, Avicenna believe in necessity of the Resurrection, but he thinks that the only way of accepting bodily Resurrection is to have earnest trust in our religious tradition. His main obstacle is the materiality of imagination. But, while insisting on the point that, man is a compound of soul and body, and that we cannot obtain perfect happiness in this world, Aquinas, consequently, arrives at necessity of bodily Resurrection; accepthing, of course, some differences between corporeality in this world and corporeality in the Resurrection.Concerning spiritual Resurrection, Avicenna, proves immateriality of the soul and so he guarantees it’s permanence. Then, by proposing some principles, he claimes the existence of intelctual enjoyment and intellectual pain; or, the human soul’s misery and happiness. On the other hand, Aquinas, by denying various probable cases of happiness; he concludes that the last happiness will not happen unless you have an immediate intelectual vision of God’s entity, and this occurs only in Resurrection and by Divine illumination.