Al-Khwarizmi, Ibn al-Nadim, and Al-Ghazali were more liberal than Aristotle's division. Al-Khwarizmi bases his division on two fundamental principles: the sciences of Sharia and the sciences of the non-Arabs. Ibn al-Nadim, from his observation of the sciences of his time, due to his profession as a bookseller, classifies them into ten categories, most of which are in Islamic sciences, and some are in the sciences of philosophy and religions. Al-Ghazali divides sciences into two fundamental principles: religious sciences and non-religious sciences. In these classifications, the Islamic sciences generally appeared with a fundamental basis, and their interconnectedness and continuity appeared. What is the position of the division mentioned by Ibn Tumart in relation to these previous divisions? What are its characteristics and advantages? Firstly, he defines the Messenger, and the demands for it require knowing what leads to knowledge of it. Although this starting point is sound in principle, it led Ibn Tumart to let the sciences of creed dominate all other sciences, whether related to Sharia or otherwise. In addition to dedicating the entire first section to it, we find him directing the second section (knowledge of the world) towards it, where he made two branches of it with a creedal and ethical character: knowledge of the benefits of the world and knowledge of its harms. In this context, the division ends with the neglect of natural sciences and those in their course, which its structure would have required, as it leads to knowledge of religion and the world, and the details of all worldly sciences were lost in the branch of knowledge of the means of livelihood. In contrast to this, we find in the division an emphasis on the sciences of language, with two branches of the third section (knowledge of language and knowledge of grammar), which reflects Ibn Tumart's passion for language and his interest in it. It may also reflect the difficulty he encountered in teaching.