Philosophy in Islam

A conversation with Kevin Barrett

Kevin Barrett is one of the most active and insightful (and funny) thinkers on Israel and Jewish power. His Substack newsletter is often featured on the Unz Review. He is also a convert to Islam, holds a PhD in Islamic studies, and lives in Morocco with his family. A polyglot who studied in Paris, he speaks excellent French. He was kind enough to visit me in the French Alps in January 2025. Between two outings, we recorded a long conversation in French.

I am publishing here a condensed and edited transcript of the first part of this conversation, which focuses on philosophy. I intend to delve deeper into the topics we discussed and will certainly return to them once I have read the 2,000 pages of the collective work History of Islamic Philosophy (edited by Seyyed Hossein Nasr and Olivier Leaman, and published by Routledge in 1996), which Kevin recommended to me.

My main interest is the relationship between philosophy and religion. In the Christian world, this relationship has been highly contentious from the outset. The Christianization can be seen as a religious war against Roman religious traditions, which included philosophy. The jealous God of Christianity hated the God of the philosophers as much as the gods of the temples. In this conflict, which has never truly ended, I stand on the side of philosophy, with a particular affinity for Stoicism, considered the most accomplished synthesis during the Roman Empire’s most glorious period, spanning from Augustus to Marcus Aurelius. Philosophy was then synonymous with high culture and formed the basis of ethics as well as science and political ideas, much like Confucianism in imperial China, with the difference that there was never a formal alliance between the State and any particular philosophical school.

In the ancient world, metaphysical questions about God and the Cosmos, or about the fate of the soul fell within the realm of philosophy and not of religion. However, even though truces and even alliances were forged during the Middle Ages between Christian theology and Greek philosophy, the long-term result of their struggle was to strip philosophy of the right to address metaphysical questions autonomously. Philosophy responded by going to war, not only against theology, but against the very idea of God. Yet, in my view, philosophy has meaning and value only on the condition that it helps humanity to reflect on its participation in the divine order. Consequently, as a Neo-Roman (not a Neo-pagan), I aspire to the revitalization of genuine Greco-Roman philosophical thought, reconciled with transcendence. In its revolt against God, modern Western philosophy has killed the spirit of Greco-Roman philosophy, and is thus nothing more than the carcass that theologians love to display as proof of their superiority. This is, in my view, one of the great tragedies of the West.

To better understand the problem and its possible solution, it is worth comparing the historical attitudes of Christianity and Islam toward philosophy. Is Islam, in essence—that is, in its historical foundations—more open to philosophy than Christianity? Has Islamic philosophy preserved and built upon the authentic legacy of Greek philosophy? The well-known fact that it was Muslims who, beginning in the 10th century, taught the West that Aristotle was compatible with monotheism, seems to point in this direction. But what does the Islamic tradition itself tell us about this question? And what is the situation today? How is philosophy (falsafa) faring in Islam? Can we hope that Islamic civilization will help the West reconnect with its own philosophical heritage, as it once did in the past? This conversation with Kevin Barrett offers some answers.

Laurent: Without necessarily denying the role of divine inspiration, philosophy posits that reason is man’s highest faculty, his God-given compass in his quest for the truth. Inevitably, philosophy thus finds itself in conflict with Revelation, which demands an act of faith from man. There were efforts at some dialogue between philosophy and religion, but the general impression I take away from my readings on Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages is that the relationship was extremely violent, with philosophers frequently ending up in the same dungeons or on the same pyres as heretics. When one reads Tertullian or even Augustine, one senses Christianity’s deep hostility toward philosophers’ claim to be able to understand the nature of the world and human nature through reason alone. What is the situation in the Islamic world?

Kevin: Throughout the history of thought in Muslim countries, there has always been a dialogue between religion and philosophy, and I think this dialogue has been less violent in Muslim countries than in Christian ones. One reason for this is that there is no church in the Muslim world, and therefore no central authority to decide what is orthodox and what is heretical. In the Muslim world, the process of selecting good ideas and rejecting bad ones works somewhat like it does in the modern university, through debate and consensus. It is the thinkers themselves who govern their community. Of course, the dialogue is sometimes heated, and there are thinkers who are hostile to philosophy. For example, the Persian Al-Ghazali (c. 1058–1111), the greatest anti-philosopher in the Muslim world, wrote The Incoherence of the Philosophers. Ibn Rushd, known in the West as Averroes (1126–1198), responded with The Incoherence of the Incoherence. Generally speaking, the Muslim world is not obsessed with orthodoxy (correct belief) as the Christian world is, and emphasizes orthopraxy (correct action). Consequently, philosophers there enjoy relative freedom.

Laurent: When we talk about philosophy, we must also consider science, which is, in fact, the origin of philosophy, since the first pre-Socratic philosophers were mathematicians. Historically, Christianity has had a very tense relationship with science, which I believe can be explained quite simply: Christian revelation is based on the premise of a colossal miracle that upends human history. And even two miracles: the Incarnation and the Resurrection. Christian tradition has made the miracle (more precisely, the miracle narrative) the argument for its truth, and this colors all its literature: the lives of the saints are catalogs of miracles. This foundation in the miraculous naturally goes hand in hand with a suspicious view of science, because science does not like miracles. Science, which was still called “natural philosophy” until the 18th century, is the study of natural laws. Just as every miracle is a challenge to natural laws, every natural law is a challenge to the miracle, and thus to the Christian faith. It seems to me that Islam, unlike Christianity, is not based on belief in a miracle, but only in a revelation, and a revelation does not violate the natural laws of the physical world. I suppose this is one cause of Islam’s greater tolerance toward science. I read somewhere that science is even considered in Islam as a religious path, because seeking to understand how God makes the world go round is an expression of love for God. Am I mistaken?

Kevin: There is some truth to that statement. It is true that Islam places great emphasis on reason, referred to as al-Aql in the Quran. Thought, reason, and the capacity for reflection are among the greatest qualities. So Islam is not at all hostile toward free thought or the pursuit of truth through scientific means. There has been no real conflict on this ground in Muslim history. I cannot think of a single example of a scientist being persecuted for his science. Of course, thinkers have been persecuted from time to time. A well-known example is Mansur al-Hallaj (858–922). He was crucified for saying, “I am the Truth.” And Truth, with a capital T, is one of the names of God. It was therefore blasphemous, like saying “I am God.” He said this in a state of ecstasy, being a Sufi mystic. But a political enemy accused him of claiming to be God and had him executed. There are examples of this kind, but not in the case of scholars.

As far as miracles are concerned, I need to correct what you said just a little bit. It’s true that in the Islamic world, there isn’t the same emphasis on miracles as there is in Christianity, where you have to believe in miracles—otherwise, you’re a heretic. However, miracles do occur. For example, we read in the Quran that Moses crossed the Red Sea miraculously, or that Jesus spoke when he was still a baby to defend his mother from the Jews. There are other examples. But this does not form a major part of the religion. The great miracle is the Quran, it is the revelation, it is the message.

Generally speaking, Islam is not hostile to miracles. There are the mu’jizahs, the miracles of the prophets, which are somewhat the hallmark of the prophets. There are also many stories about the karamat al-awliya, the “miracles of the saints.” I worked on this for my thesis.

Fundamentally, there is a conception of the world that differs somewhat from the Western conception. The Arabic word for “reality” is wujud. Now, wujud means “found.” Reality is therefore not something that exists in and of itself, but something that is found. This implies that the laws of science, the laws of nature, are not absolute. Nature has patterns, but there can be exceptions: these are the miracles.

It’s a bit like Rupert Sheldrake’s ideas and that school of thought on supernatural events. There’s no problem with that in Muslim culture. Today, for example in Morocco, the vast majority of people—even the well-educated—believe that magic can perform miracles. Everyone knows that magic exists, and that it works. In fact, there are Western scientists today who agree. I’ve conducted several interviews with Dean Radin, a leading scientist in the field of parapsychology. And so, as a Muslim, and from experience, I agree with what I’ve read about the science of parapsychology, and even with certain popular beliefs based on experience, such as the premonition that the phone is going to ring. I think these small miracles are a part of life. Consequently, major miracles don’t pose a problem for me either. Islam is not against miracles.

Laurent: What you say about parapsychology and small miracles or paranormal phenomena is interesting, because among Christians, this is generally seen as inherently diabolical. There is a very strong dichotomy between divine miracles, which must be authenticated by the hierarchy, and the diabolical supernatural.

If I summarize your position: Islam is not against miracles, but Islam does not make belief in miracles the foundation of faith, except for the miracle of the Quranic revelation. But in my view, revelation is not a miracle in the strict sense of the term, because it is not an event that violates the laws of nature. A revelation does not entail matter behaving in a manner contrary to the laws of nature.

What I wanted to emphasize is that in Christianity, belief in the miracles of the Incarnation and the Resurrection is so fundamental that it creates a natural—and legitimate—suspicion that science will harm faith. What is quite striking in the Christian world in general, especially in Latin Christianity, is that there has been an undeniable regression in science after the Christianization. And this does not seem to have been the case in the Muslim world. On the contrary, there has been a very clear advancement of science in the Muslim world, which, incidentally, enabled a revival several centuries later in the West, since a large part of Greek science was rediscovered thanks to Muslim scholars.

I would also like to emphasize that authentic philosophy is not fundamentally hostile to the notion of revelation, since Greek reason includes the notion of intuition. Greek reason is humanity’s capacity to connect directly to the divine Logos, that is, the word of God.

There is no problem with the idea of God in Greco-Roman thought, at least for philosophers. If reason is sufficient, it is because God guides humanity through reason. Some philosophers might even go so far as to say that when we think, it is God who thinks within us. Does that make sense to you, as a Muslim?

Kevin: In the ongoing dialogue between the proponents of revelation and the proponents of reason throughout the history of Muslim thought, a key reference point is Ibn Tufayl’s book Hayy ibn Yaqdhan, written in the 12th century. It is a philosophical novel that later inspired Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe. Following a shipwreck, a child finds himself alone on a desert island and, with the help of a gazelle, reaches adulthood. He has no revelation, only his reason and nature. Through the exploration of nature and through reason, he arrives at the same conclusions as the theologian who lands on the island later. So the book’s argument is that reason is capable of reaching the same truths as those given to us by revelation. The author of this book was not burned, nor was his book. We find many ideas of this kind in Islam. Even though Islam and the majority of Muslim thinkers insist on the necessity of revelation, they also encourage the use of reason. But this is not sterile reason—reason without intuition, without depth.

According to the Quran, human nature is good; it is not corrupted by original sin. Everyone is born with the fitra, that is, good human nature. And if we are properly guided by this fitra that God has given us, we can arrive at the same understanding as we would with the help of revelation. This is the message of Ibn Tufayl. Of course, this is a somewhat extreme position, but one that is not in contradiction with Islam. All Muslim theologians acknowledge that human nature is good, and that humans can discover on their own many of the eternal truths that are also found in revelation. However, they still insist on the necessity of revelation, because not everyone is capable of discovering all truths on their own. Revelation is like a user’s manual. Theoretically, if you’re brilliant, you might be able to figure out on your own how this computer works. But it’s still easier if you have the user’s manual. Revelation is the user’s manual.

Laurent: If I understand correctly, philosophy can lead to the truth, but not everyone is a philosopher, which is why we need the revelation. This is a position that, to my knowledge, does not exist among traditional Christian theologians.

You mentioned original sin. It is true that in the Christian tradition, and especially in the Latin tradition under the influence of Augustine, original sin is a very important concept. Saint Augustine developed his theory of original sin in his debate with Pelagius, a Breton monk who emphasized human freedom and man’s ability to discern good and evil through his own reason, which, according to him, was not corrupted by original sin. Pelagius’s position seems close to that of Islam. So, the concept of original sin is absent from Islam, isn’t it?

Kevin: Yes. There is no such idea of the Fall, of a human nature that has been destroyed and turned evil. Moreover, the Quranic version of the story of Adam and Eve does not speak of a horrible and irreparable Fall. Adam and Eve committed a mistake, a sin, but they were forgiven. For Muslims, Adam is a prophet, a pure prophet, the first prophet. The Quranic version does not blame the sin on Eve, as Jewish and Christian versions do. Both Adam and Eve are seen as individuals responsible for their own actions. Each made a mistake. Each was forgiven. For Muslims, the story serves as an example of individual responsibility: Each individual will be judged with perfect justice on the basis of his or her own actions. Nobody can save us from responsibility for our actions, including our sins. When I taught Islam 101 I used to play Patti Smith singing “Jesus died for somebody’s sins but not mine” to illustrate that basic difference from Christianity. So neither Adam’s nor Eve’s mistakes implicate the rest of us, nor do we need any cosmic “get out of jail free” card. We just need to do our best, try to make sure our good actions outweigh our bad ones by as much as possible, and hope and pray that God’s all-encompassing mercy will encompass us. This is another area where Islam’s approach seems more rational, and perhaps more compatible with philosophy, than Christian ideas about original sin and the need for vicarious redemption through Jesus’s death and resurrection.

… to be continued.