Philosophical Thought
eISSN : 0000-0000
10.5
citescore
CiteScore measures the average citations received per peer-reviewed document published in this title. CiteScore values are based on citation counts in a range of four years (e.g. 2018-2021) to peer-reviewed documents (articles, reviews, conference papers, data papers and book chapters) published in the same four calendar years, divided by the number of these documents in these same four years
10.5
impact factor
CiteScore measures the average citations received per peer-reviewed document published in this title. CiteScore values are based on citation counts in a range of four years (e.g. 2018-2021) to peer-reviewed documents (articles, reviews, conference papers, data papers and book chapters) published in the same four calendar years, divided by the number of these documents in these same four years (e.g. 2018 – 21).
10.5
pubmed
CiteScore measures the average citations received per peer-reviewed document published in this title. CiteScore values are based on citation counts in a range of four years (e.g. 2018-2021) to peer-reviewed documents (articles, reviews, conference papers, data papers and book chapters) published in the same four calendar years, divided by the number of these documents in these same four years (e.g. 2018 – 21).
10.5
Embase
Biosis Preview
Volume 5, Issue 4 (2025)
3 2025, 5(4): 1001-1015 |
Back to browse issues page
History
Received: 2025/11/30 | Accepted: 2025/12/28 | Published: 2025/07/1
Received: 2025/11/30 | Accepted: 2025/12/28 | Published: 2025/07/1
How to cite this article
koohihajiabadi H, bonyani M. Examining the Boundary Between Philosophical Rationality and Religious Belief in the Earliest Phase of Islamic Philosophy. 3 2025; 5 (4) :1001-1015
URL: http://jpt.daneshafarand.org/article-6-83008-en.html
URL: http://jpt.daneshafarand.org/article-6-83008-en.html
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Rights and permissions
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
1- Assistant Professor of Islamic Studies, Faculty of Humanities, University of Hormozgan, Bandar Abbas, Iran.
2-
2-
| Abstract (HTML) (385 Views)
Full-Text: (10 Views)
This article investigates the conceptual formation and early delimitation of philosophical rationality and religious belief during the formative period of Islamic philosophy, with particular emphasis on the thought of al-Kindī and al-Fārābī. It argues that in the earliest stage of Islamic philosophical activity, the boundary between reason and revelation was neither conceptually stabilized nor theoretically unified, but rather emerged gradually, contextually, and often provisionally. By reconstructing how these two foundational figures articulated the relationship between philosophy and religion, the study demonstrates that early Islamic philosophy should be understood as an evolving intellectual field in which rational inquiry and religious belief were continuously renegotiated under the influence of Greek philosophical heritage and Islamic doctrinal commitments.
The introduction situates the problem historically by highlighting the profound epistemological challenges generated by the transmission of Greek philosophy into the Islamic world. Early Muslim philosophers were compelled to redefine the scope, authority, and limits of philosophical reason in relation to revealed knowledge, at a time when no established philosophical framework yet existed. The significance of this period lies in the fact that the conceptual patterns forged at this early stage provided the foundational assumptions upon which later, more systematic philosophical projects—most notably Avicenna’s—were constructed. Focusing on al-Kindī and al-Fārābī is therefore methodologically justified, since both thinkers operated within a transitional intellectual environment in which the relationship between reason and religion had not yet crystallized into a stable theoretical model [Kurniawan, 2018].
The article first examines al-Kindī’s conception of philosophy and its ultimate aim. Al-Kindī defines philosophy through multiple, complementary perspectives: as universal knowledge of things as they truly are, as the love of wisdom, and as the pursuit of first causes culminating in metaphysics or first philosophy [Al-Kindī, 1950]. At the same time, he introduces a teleological and ethical dimension by characterizing philosophy as “becoming godlike” insofar as human capacity allows [Al-Kindī, 1950]. This dual characterization reveals al-Kindī’s attempt to integrate Aristotelian rational inquiry with a religiously meaningful conception of human perfection. Philosophy is thus not merely theoretical but also transformative, oriented toward moral purification and proximity to the divine.
Within this framework, al-Kindī distinguishes between the philosopher and the prophet primarily on methodological rather than ontological grounds. Philosophical knowledge is acquired gradually through study, training, and demonstrative reasoning, particularly through mathematics as a preparatory discipline, whereas prophetic knowledge is received instantaneously through divine revelation without human effort or discursive mediation [Al-Kindī, 1950]. Despite this distinction, al-Kindī explicitly maintains that both the philosopher and the prophet apprehend the same truth. Revelation does not disclose truths that are in principle inaccessible to reason; rather, it delivers them in a more immediate, certain, and authoritative manner. Indeed, al-Kindī asserts that the truths conveyed by the Prophet of Islam are demonstrable through rational argumentation [Al-Kindī, 1950].
This position enables al-Kindī to defend philosophy against its religious critics by arguing that rejecting philosophical inquiry amounts to rejecting truth itself, and consequently undermines religion [Al-Kindī, 1950]. However, as the article argues, this harmonizing strategy remains theoretically underdeveloped. Al-Kindī simultaneously affirms the epistemic superiority of revelation and the indispensability of reason for understanding and validating revealed truths. As a result, the boundary between philosophical rationality and religious belief remains fluid and unresolved. Revelation is placed in a superior epistemic rank, yet philosophical reason functions as the interpretive and justificatory framework within which revelation becomes intelligible. Modern scholarship has noted this tension, emphasizing the unresolved duality in al-Kindī’s epistemology [Adamson, 2005; Reisman, 2003].
The article further argues that al-Kindī’s approach reflects a pragmatic and context-sensitive effort to manage intellectual conflicts rather than to construct a fully coherent theoretical synthesis. In several instances, al-Kindī shifts between philosophical reasoning and theological assertion, depending on the doctrinal stakes of the issue at hand [Al-Kindī, 1950]. This oscillation indicates that his project aims less at establishing a stable philosophical theology than at safeguarding the legitimacy of rational inquiry within a religious milieu often hostile to philosophy. Consequently, al-Kindī’s contribution is best understood as inaugurating a flexible and provisional mode of interaction between reason and revelation.
The article then turns to al-Fārābī, who represents a decisive move toward systematic reconstruction. Unlike al-Kindī, al-Fārābī does not merely defend philosophy’s compatibility with religion, but seeks to articulate a comprehensive philosophical framework that structurally defines the relationship between philosophy and religion. Al-Fārābī interprets religion through the lens of philosophy, describing virtuous religion (al-milla al-fāḍila) as a symbolic and imaginative representation of philosophical truths [Al-Fārābī, 1991].
In al-Fārābī’s system, philosophy is divided into theoretical and practical branches, while religion mirrors this division through doctrines (ārā) and actions (afāl). The crucial distinction between philosophy and religion lies in their respective cognitive methods: philosophy apprehends truth through demonstrative reasoning, whereas religion conveys the same truths through imagination, persuasion, and symbolic representation [Al-Fārābī, 1995]. This distinction allows al-Fārābī to explain both the unity of truth and the diversity of its expressions. He further differentiates between demonstrative philosophy, dialectical philosophy, and sophistical or deceptive forms of reasoning, assigning genuine epistemic authority exclusively to demonstrative philosophy [Al-Fārābī, 1970].
Central to this model is al-Fārābī’s theory of prophecy. Both the philosopher and the prophet receive emanation from the Active Intellect; however, the philosopher apprehends intelligibles directly through the perfected intellect, while the prophet receives them through a highly developed imaginative faculty, which translates intelligibles into sensory images and symbols [Al-Fārābī, 1996a; Al-Fārābī, 1959]. Consequently, prophetic knowledge is not epistemically independent of philosophical truth but constitutes its imaginative articulation for the sake of social and political guidance.
This epistemological framework culminates in al-Fārābī’s political philosophy, particularly in his conception of the virtuous city governed by the philosopher-prophet. Religion here serves primarily as a practical and pedagogical instrument that enables the realization of philosophical truth within the social order [al-Fārābī, 1991]. Contemporary scholars have identified this symbolic conception of religion as one of al-Fārābī’s most significant innovations [Galston, 1990; Lerner, 1987; Marmura, 1983; Parens, 2006].
The article’s critical analysis highlights both the strengths and limitations of al-Fārābī’s model. While he succeeds in resolving the conceptual instability present in al-Kindī’s thought by introducing a clear epistemic hierarchy, he does so at the cost of subordinating religion to philosophy. Revelation no longer functions as an independent source of knowledge but is reduced to a symbolic and rhetorical medium for conveying philosophical truths. As a result, the epistemic autonomy of religious belief is significantly constrained, even though its social and political necessity is affirmed [Ansarian et al., 2014; Moqarebi, 2013; Moqarebi & Pourhasan, 2012; Sola & Salari, 2013; Maleki & Mousavi Karimi, 2018].
The comparative section of the article demonstrates that although al-Kindī and al-Fārābī share a commitment to the unity of truth and the rejection of an intrinsic conflict between reason and revelation, they differ fundamentally in their strategies of reconciliation. Al-Kindī preserves a relative epistemic privilege for revelation while leaving its relationship to rational demonstration theoretically ambiguous. Al-Fārābī, by contrast, establishes a hierarchical model in which philosophy occupies the highest epistemic rank and religion functions as its imaginative and social counterpart [Ilmiah Mursidin, 2020; Ishraq, 2023].
The article concludes that the early boundary between philosophical rationality and religious belief in Islamic philosophy should be understood as a dynamic and unfinished process rather than a settled doctrine. Al-Kindī inaugurates a cautious and adaptive engagement between reason and revelation, managing tensions without fully resolving them. Al-Fārābī transforms this engagement into a systematic framework that stabilizes the relationship but at the expense of religious epistemic independence. The enduring significance of their efforts lies not in providing a definitive solution, but in establishing the conceptual horizons within which later Islamic philosophers—such as Avicenna and, eventually, Mullā Sadrā—would pursue more integrated and mature syntheses of reason and revelation.
The introduction situates the problem historically by highlighting the profound epistemological challenges generated by the transmission of Greek philosophy into the Islamic world. Early Muslim philosophers were compelled to redefine the scope, authority, and limits of philosophical reason in relation to revealed knowledge, at a time when no established philosophical framework yet existed. The significance of this period lies in the fact that the conceptual patterns forged at this early stage provided the foundational assumptions upon which later, more systematic philosophical projects—most notably Avicenna’s—were constructed. Focusing on al-Kindī and al-Fārābī is therefore methodologically justified, since both thinkers operated within a transitional intellectual environment in which the relationship between reason and religion had not yet crystallized into a stable theoretical model [Kurniawan, 2018].
The article first examines al-Kindī’s conception of philosophy and its ultimate aim. Al-Kindī defines philosophy through multiple, complementary perspectives: as universal knowledge of things as they truly are, as the love of wisdom, and as the pursuit of first causes culminating in metaphysics or first philosophy [Al-Kindī, 1950]. At the same time, he introduces a teleological and ethical dimension by characterizing philosophy as “becoming godlike” insofar as human capacity allows [Al-Kindī, 1950]. This dual characterization reveals al-Kindī’s attempt to integrate Aristotelian rational inquiry with a religiously meaningful conception of human perfection. Philosophy is thus not merely theoretical but also transformative, oriented toward moral purification and proximity to the divine.
Within this framework, al-Kindī distinguishes between the philosopher and the prophet primarily on methodological rather than ontological grounds. Philosophical knowledge is acquired gradually through study, training, and demonstrative reasoning, particularly through mathematics as a preparatory discipline, whereas prophetic knowledge is received instantaneously through divine revelation without human effort or discursive mediation [Al-Kindī, 1950]. Despite this distinction, al-Kindī explicitly maintains that both the philosopher and the prophet apprehend the same truth. Revelation does not disclose truths that are in principle inaccessible to reason; rather, it delivers them in a more immediate, certain, and authoritative manner. Indeed, al-Kindī asserts that the truths conveyed by the Prophet of Islam are demonstrable through rational argumentation [Al-Kindī, 1950].
This position enables al-Kindī to defend philosophy against its religious critics by arguing that rejecting philosophical inquiry amounts to rejecting truth itself, and consequently undermines religion [Al-Kindī, 1950]. However, as the article argues, this harmonizing strategy remains theoretically underdeveloped. Al-Kindī simultaneously affirms the epistemic superiority of revelation and the indispensability of reason for understanding and validating revealed truths. As a result, the boundary between philosophical rationality and religious belief remains fluid and unresolved. Revelation is placed in a superior epistemic rank, yet philosophical reason functions as the interpretive and justificatory framework within which revelation becomes intelligible. Modern scholarship has noted this tension, emphasizing the unresolved duality in al-Kindī’s epistemology [Adamson, 2005; Reisman, 2003].
The article further argues that al-Kindī’s approach reflects a pragmatic and context-sensitive effort to manage intellectual conflicts rather than to construct a fully coherent theoretical synthesis. In several instances, al-Kindī shifts between philosophical reasoning and theological assertion, depending on the doctrinal stakes of the issue at hand [Al-Kindī, 1950]. This oscillation indicates that his project aims less at establishing a stable philosophical theology than at safeguarding the legitimacy of rational inquiry within a religious milieu often hostile to philosophy. Consequently, al-Kindī’s contribution is best understood as inaugurating a flexible and provisional mode of interaction between reason and revelation.
The article then turns to al-Fārābī, who represents a decisive move toward systematic reconstruction. Unlike al-Kindī, al-Fārābī does not merely defend philosophy’s compatibility with religion, but seeks to articulate a comprehensive philosophical framework that structurally defines the relationship between philosophy and religion. Al-Fārābī interprets religion through the lens of philosophy, describing virtuous religion (al-milla al-fāḍila) as a symbolic and imaginative representation of philosophical truths [Al-Fārābī, 1991].
In al-Fārābī’s system, philosophy is divided into theoretical and practical branches, while religion mirrors this division through doctrines (ārā) and actions (afāl). The crucial distinction between philosophy and religion lies in their respective cognitive methods: philosophy apprehends truth through demonstrative reasoning, whereas religion conveys the same truths through imagination, persuasion, and symbolic representation [Al-Fārābī, 1995]. This distinction allows al-Fārābī to explain both the unity of truth and the diversity of its expressions. He further differentiates between demonstrative philosophy, dialectical philosophy, and sophistical or deceptive forms of reasoning, assigning genuine epistemic authority exclusively to demonstrative philosophy [Al-Fārābī, 1970].
Central to this model is al-Fārābī’s theory of prophecy. Both the philosopher and the prophet receive emanation from the Active Intellect; however, the philosopher apprehends intelligibles directly through the perfected intellect, while the prophet receives them through a highly developed imaginative faculty, which translates intelligibles into sensory images and symbols [Al-Fārābī, 1996a; Al-Fārābī, 1959]. Consequently, prophetic knowledge is not epistemically independent of philosophical truth but constitutes its imaginative articulation for the sake of social and political guidance.
This epistemological framework culminates in al-Fārābī’s political philosophy, particularly in his conception of the virtuous city governed by the philosopher-prophet. Religion here serves primarily as a practical and pedagogical instrument that enables the realization of philosophical truth within the social order [al-Fārābī, 1991]. Contemporary scholars have identified this symbolic conception of religion as one of al-Fārābī’s most significant innovations [Galston, 1990; Lerner, 1987; Marmura, 1983; Parens, 2006].
The article’s critical analysis highlights both the strengths and limitations of al-Fārābī’s model. While he succeeds in resolving the conceptual instability present in al-Kindī’s thought by introducing a clear epistemic hierarchy, he does so at the cost of subordinating religion to philosophy. Revelation no longer functions as an independent source of knowledge but is reduced to a symbolic and rhetorical medium for conveying philosophical truths. As a result, the epistemic autonomy of religious belief is significantly constrained, even though its social and political necessity is affirmed [Ansarian et al., 2014; Moqarebi, 2013; Moqarebi & Pourhasan, 2012; Sola & Salari, 2013; Maleki & Mousavi Karimi, 2018].
The comparative section of the article demonstrates that although al-Kindī and al-Fārābī share a commitment to the unity of truth and the rejection of an intrinsic conflict between reason and revelation, they differ fundamentally in their strategies of reconciliation. Al-Kindī preserves a relative epistemic privilege for revelation while leaving its relationship to rational demonstration theoretically ambiguous. Al-Fārābī, by contrast, establishes a hierarchical model in which philosophy occupies the highest epistemic rank and religion functions as its imaginative and social counterpart [Ilmiah Mursidin, 2020; Ishraq, 2023].
The article concludes that the early boundary between philosophical rationality and religious belief in Islamic philosophy should be understood as a dynamic and unfinished process rather than a settled doctrine. Al-Kindī inaugurates a cautious and adaptive engagement between reason and revelation, managing tensions without fully resolving them. Al-Fārābī transforms this engagement into a systematic framework that stabilizes the relationship but at the expense of religious epistemic independence. The enduring significance of their efforts lies not in providing a definitive solution, but in establishing the conceptual horizons within which later Islamic philosophers—such as Avicenna and, eventually, Mullā Sadrā—would pursue more integrated and mature syntheses of reason and revelation.
References
1. Adamson P (2005). Al-Kindī and the reception of Greek philosophy. In: Adamson P, Taylor RC, editors. The Cambridge companion to Arabic philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 32-51. [Link] [DOI:10.1017/CCOL0521817439.003]
2. Al-Fārābī (1959). ĀRĀʾ AHL AL-MADĪNA AL-FĀḌILA. Nasrī N, editor. Beirut: AL-MAṬBAʿA AL-KĀTŪLŪKIYYA. [Arabic] [Link]
3. Al-Fārābī (1970). KITĀB AL-ḤURŪF. 1st ed. Mahdī M, editor. Beirut: DĀR AL-MASHRIQ. [Arabic] [Link]
4. Al-Fārābī (1991). KITĀB AL-MILLA WA NUṢŪṢ AL-UKHRĀ. Mahdī M, editor. Beirut: DĀR AL-MASHRIQ. [Arabic] [Link]
5. Al-Fārābī (1995). TAḤṢĪL AL-SAʿĀDA. 1st ed. Bū Malḥam A, editor. Beirut: DĀR WA MAKTABAT AL-HILĀL. [Arabic] [Link]
6. Al-Fārābī (1996a). AL-SIYĀSA AL-MADĪNA. Bū Malḥam A, Commentator. Beirut: DAR VA MAKTABAT AL-HILĀL. [Arabic] [Link]
7. Al-Fārābī (1996b). IḤṢĀʾ AL-ʿULŪM. Bū Malḥam A, editor. Beirut: DAR VA MAKTABAT AL-HILĀL. [Arabic] [Link]
8. Al-Kindī (1950). RASĀʾIL AL-KINDĪ AL-FALSAFIYYA (Volume 1). ʿAbdulhādī Abūrīda M, editor. Beirut: DĀR AL-FIKR AL-ʿARABĪ. [Arabic] [Link]
9. Ansarian Z, Akbarian R, Nabavi L (2014). Representation-interpretation theory in Farabi's thought as a language tool for linking religion and philosophy. Essays in Philosophy of Religion. 2(2):35-58. [Persian] [Link]
10. Galston M (1990). Politics and excellence: The political philosophy of Alfarabi. Princeton: Princeton University Press. [Link] [DOI:10.1515/9781400861491]
11. Ilmiah Mursidin I (2020). Philosophical thought of Al-Kindī and Al-Fārābī. JURNAL AL-DUSTUR. 3(1):51-66. [Link] [DOI:10.30863/jad.v3i1.718]
12. Ishraq A (2023). Philosophy and religion in the political thought of Al-Fārābī. Religions. 14(7):908. [Link] [DOI:10.3390/rel14070908]
13. Kurniawan P (2018). Society and state according to Al-Fārābī. EL-QANUNIY. 4(1):101-115. [Indonesian] [Link] [DOI:10.24952/el-qonuniy.v4i1.1830]
14. Lerner R (1987). Beating the neoplatonic bushes. Journal of Religion. 67(4):510-517. [Link] [DOI:10.1086/487629]
15. Maleki A, Mousavi Karimi MS (2018). The consistency between religion and philosophy in regard to "God and his creation" and "the eternity of the world", based on the views of Fârâbi and Ibn-Sina. Philosophy of Religion. 15(1):51-72. [Persian] [Link]
16. Marmura M (1983). The Islamic philosophers' conception of Islam. In: Hovannisian R, Vryonis S, editors. Islam's understanding of itself. Malibu: Undena Publications. p. 87-102. [Link]
17. Moqarebi N (2013). Al-Fārābī's religiously informed views on the relationship between religion and philosophy. Scientific Monthly Journal of Wisdom and Knowledge. 8(10):22-28. [Persian] [Link]
18. Moqarebi N, Pourhasan Q (2012). Al-Fārābī's innovation regarding the relationship between religion and philosophy: Hierarchical theory of the language of religion. History of Philosophy. 3(1):9-36. [Persian] [Link]
19. Parens J (2006). An Islamic philosophy of virtuous religions: Introducing Alfarabi. New York: State University of New York Press. [Link] [DOI:10.1353/book5036]
20. Reisman DC, Al Rahim AH (2003). Before and After Avicenna. Proceedings of the First Conference of the Avicenna Study Group Islamic Philosophy, Theology, and Science. 2003 March 17-18; Leiden, Netherlands. Boston: Brill Academic Publishers. [Link] [DOI:10.1163/9789047402022]
21. Sola MK, Salari Khorram S (2013). Alliance of Philosophy and Religion from Farabi's View. Philosophy of Religion Research. 11(1):47-60. [Persian] [Link]
Send email to the article author