THE ISSUE OF RECONCILIATION BETWEEN PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGION: SPECIAL REFERENCE TO AL-KINDI, AL-FARABI AND IBN RUSHD
by Dr Adibah Abdul Rahim [View Writer's Profile]

Abstract
From the sixth to the twelfth century, the question of the accord between philosophy and religion was really vital. In fact, it was regarded as the most important feature of Islamic philosophy. During those periods, philosophers were accused of heresy (kufr) or of being irreligious. For example, al- GhazElE condemned the philosophers as irreligious in his tahEfut al- falEsifah for their doctrines concerning the eternity of the world, their denial of God’s knowledge of particulars, and their denial of the resurrection of the body. Consequently, Muslim philosophers felt the need to defend themselves and their opinions. They were confident that they had to and could interpret and assimilate philosophy, especially Greek philosophy, into the Islamic ethos. They were also confident that they could make philosophy acceptable to Muslims at large. This is because of their conviction of the universality of the human condition, both physical and spiritual. Man’s rationality and sociability are viewed as part of a universe, which is eminently and naturally ordered. In order to reconcile philosophy into religion, which is revelation-centric, they had to find a formula of how to incorporate revelation into philosophy. Whatever their approach, the philosophers’ attempt to reconcile philosophy and religion was one of the Muslim philosophers’ major contributions to the advancement of philosophy. This paper tries to examine this issue of reconciliation. It refers particularly to the thought of al- KindE, al- FarEbi, and Ibn Rushd. The purpose of the study is to focus on some of the distinct views as well as similarities among them, and at the same time, to reaffirm the necessity of philosophy.

Introduction

From the sixth to the twelfth century, the question of the accord between philosophy and religion was really vital. In fact, it was regarded as the most important feature of Islamic philosophy. During those periods, philosophers were accused of heresy (kufr) or of being irreligious. For example, al- GhazElE condemned the philosophers as irreligious in his tahEfut al- falEsifah for their doctrines concerning the eternity of the world, their denial of God’s knowledge of particulars, and their denial of the resurrection of the body. Consequently, Muslim philosophers felt the need to defend themselves and their opinions. They were confident that they had to and could interpret and assimilate philosophy, especially Greek philosophy, into the Islamic ethos. They were also confident that they could make philosophy acceptable to Muslims at large. This is because of their conviction of the universality of the human condition, both physical and spiritual. Man’s rationality and sociability are viewed as part of a universe, which is eminently and naturally ordered. In order to reconcile philosophy into religion, which is revelation-centric, they had to find a formula of how to incorporate revelation into philosophy. Whatever their approach, the philosophers’ attempt to reconcile philosophy and religion was one of the Muslim philosophers’ major contributions to the advancement of philosophy. This paper tries to examine this issue of reconciliation. It refers particularly to the thought of al- KindE, al- FarEbi, and Ibn Rushd. The purpose of the study is to focus on some of the distinct views as well as similarities among them, and at the same time, to reaffirm the necessity of philosophy.

AL -KINDO’S VIEWS ON RECONCILIATION BETWEEN PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGION.

Al- KindE (c.185/801-c.260/873)¹ was called ‘The Philosopher of the Arab’ due to his being the first Arab Muslim to study science and philosophy. He was also the first philosopher to touch upon the discussion of the reconciliation between philosophy and religion before al- FarEbE, Ibn SEna, and Ibn Rushd² . However, in his discussion of this issue, he was inconsistent in his stand. Indeed, he gave two quite different views. Firstly, he followed the way of the logicians and reduced religion to philosophy. Secondly, he raised religion above philosophy, and regarded religion as a divine science which can be known by a Prophetic faculty. However, it is through philosophic interpretation that religion becomes conciliated with philosophy. Therefore, I will elaborate on the issue of reconciliation in al- KindE’s thought through these two views of him. He approached this issue on two different levels, the first is on the identity of the moral aims of religion and philosophy, and the second is the epistemological approach.

1. THE IDENTITY OF MORAL AIMS OF RELIGION AND PHILOSOPHY First of all, al- KindE argued for the need for philosophy and its accord with religion. He presented arguments in this way. If theologians (those who are opposed to the pursuit of philosophy) say that philosophy is necessary, they should study it. If they say that it is not necessary, they have to give the reason for this, and present a demonstration. Giving the reason and demonstration are parts of the acts of philosophizing, and thus, philosophy is necessary in either case³ . In order to defend philosophy, al- KindE argued that both philosophy and religion have identical aims, namely, the knowledge of the unity of God, and the pursuit of virtue. He believed philosophy to be the knowledge of the reality of things, and this knowledge comprises theology (al- rubEbiyah), the science of monotheism, ethics, and all useful sciences, which lead men to practise good and eradicate evil⁴ . Meanwhile, al- KindE proposed the similar aim of religion, which is to affirm the unique divinity of God as well as the pursuit of virtues⁵ . Therefore, al- KindE revealed that on a theoretical level, both religion and philosophy deal with a similar problem, that is, the unity of God, whereas on a practical level, al-KindE also insisted on the identical aims of religion and philosophy that is to achieve a higher moral life. Thus, for al- Kindi, there is no essential difference between religion and philosophy since both aims at the same thing.

The fact that al- Kindi discussed this point (that is the inclusion of theology into philosophy) is actually derived from Aristotle’s philosophy. Thus, it is clear that he regarded philosophy with greater esteem than religion. Moreover, his Mu’tazilite background in thought with its attitude toward the positive role of reason in knowledge of good and evil, made him value reason or philosophy above religion in its function of promoting the higher moral life of the Muslim. Clearly, al- Kindi’s philosophy is actually influenced by the Mu’tazilites, for example, his views that the final end of philosophy lies in its relation to morality. In this regard, the philosopher’s aim in philosophizing is both to know and to become wise, or to act justly. Knowledge and virtue are regarded as equal and as important activities of reason. The implication of such a concept is to minimize the role of religion in all ethical obligations or, in other words, to assert the primacy of reason over revelation in matters of morality. It is a humanistic attitude similar to that of the Stoics and the Mu’tazilites.

As a whole, al- Kindi’s views that theology is a part of philosophy could be argued because theology is distinct in several ways from philosophy itself. Among the differences are (1) that theology occupies a higher rank than philosophy; (2) that religion is a divine science and philosophy is a human one; (3) that the way of religion is faith and that of philosophy is reason; (4) that knowledge of the prophet is immediate and through inspiration and that of the philosopher is by way of logic and demonstration⁶ .

2. EPISTEMOLOGICAL APPROACH The major concern of al- Kindi in his epistemological approach is about rational and the prophetic knowledge. Al- Kindi did not have a consistent stand on this issue. In one place, he maintained the equal certainty of both rational and prophetic knowledge but, in a second place, he included the prophetic in the rational, whilst in a third place, he declared that human knowledge is inferior to prophetic knowledge. His inconsistency was due to his synthetic and not analytic approach. He saw the problem of the relationship between religion and philosophy in its general context without analyzing the different ramifications of the problem. In the several places where he tried to establish a harmony between religion and philosophy, he showed a positive attitude towards the rational ascertainable nature of the prophetic message. He stated, “ the utterances of Muhammad the truthful, and the message that he transmitted from the Almighty are ascertainable by intellectual arguments. Only people deprived of sound reason and enshrouded in ignorance would reject it” ⁷. His positive attitude toward the rational ascertainable nature of the prophetic message was revealed by al- Kindi through his reduction of the conflict between reason and revelation to a problem of allegorical interpretation (ta’wEl). He argued that any contradiction between the Quranic words and philosophy was due to our misunderstanding of the real meaning of the Qur’En⁸ .

Al- KindE in his explanation of the verse (And the stars (al- najm) and the trees bow (prostrate) themselves)⁹ , adopted the method of allegorical exegesis and opened the door for the philosophical interpretation of the Qur’En, and thereby brought about harmony between religion and philosophy. (Stars and trees bow) is interpreted by reference to different meanings of the word ‘sajdah’. It means (1) prostration in praying; (2) obedience; (3) change from imperfection to perfection; (4) following by will the order of a person. For al- Kindi, it is the last meaning that applies to the worship of the stars. The heavenly sphere is animated and is the cause of life in the world of corruption, and, the movement is called worship (sujEd) in the sense that it obeys God¹⁰ . Therefore, on his way to harmonize religion and philosophy, al- Kindi argued that the Qur’En has two meanings, direct and indirect, and that is the nature of the Arabic language. In this sense, he argued the stars and trees do not bow in the same manner as a praying Muslim does. From this point, al- Kindi wanted to say, if this verse has various meanings, and the fourth meaning is outweigh (marjuh), therefore, it is not possible to harmonize every contradictory aspect. In his treatise, On First Philosophy, al- Kindi declared that the intellectual power of man to know the ultimate truth is limited¹¹ . In his comparison between human knowledge and prophetic knowledge, he firmly believed that human knowledge is inferior to prophetic knowledge. This statement showed his comparison of both types of knowledge,

“… Like the knowledge of the Apostles, which God has given a high position, a knowledge, which is not the outcome of a desire (for its acquisition), of research and pain and trouble as well as study and exercise and dialectics and which does not require any time. It is the outcome of the Will of God through the purification and illumination of their souls for the (sake of) the truth by God’s grace (and) His guidance, His inspiration, and His messages. This knowledge is the prerogative of the Apostles over the rest of the human beings, and it is one of their unusual trances (khawElij), i.e., their prodigious signs, which distinguish them from the rest of the ordinary men. Human beings, who are not the prophets, have no way of attaining to the higher knowledge of the secondary true substances, or to the primary sensible substances and their accidents, without research or the help of logic and mathematics as we have said; and for this a period of time is required. But the prophets attain to this knowledge without recurring to nothing of that kind but through the Will of God who sent them, without needing any time in reaching what they are after or anything else. The minds gain the conviction that knowledge is from God, because He is existent, when ordinary human beings fail by their nature and temperament. Thus, they submit themselves and let themselves be guided. Their sound understanding is directed towards the belief in the truth of the messages of the Prophets” ¹².

Al- Kindi did not only see the difference between philosophical (human) knowledge and prophetic knowledge in terms of clarity and methodology, but also in the comprehensiveness of prophetic knowledge. The example of its comprehensiveness is to be found in the answer to the infidels who asked (Who will be able to give life to bones when they have been reduced to dust? The answer is “He who produced them originally will give life to them” )¹³ . The answers to the theories of creation out of nothing, and the Omnipotence of God have been expressed by the prophet in a clear and comprehensive form. In this regard, al- Kindi clearly emphasized the superiority of prophetic knowledge and Quranic arguments. For him, they are surer more, certain, and convincing than the philosophical arguments, which are human. Therefore, al- Kindi argued that human knowledge, being derivative, depends on the senses and cannot be so comprehensively or forcefully clear as the divine knowledge, which embodies explicit and implicit aspects of truth bestowed by God upon His prophets.

As a whole, despite al-Kindi’s view of the importance and necessity of philosophy, he still believed that religion is above all. In fact, al- GhazEli excluded him from his book tahEfut al- falEsifah. He might have assumed that al- Kindi was not involved in any of the three principles for which al- GhazEli accused philosophers as being irreligious.