Some academic disputes will probably never end, one of them being the dispute between proponents of falsafah against that of kalām (theology). What makes this debate interesting, at least personally, is that both sides have some interesting figures in their support. You find highly respectable and heavyweight scholars on both sides. So it’s not a debate you can easily rule in one favour of one side to the other completely.
My approach has been to follow the fight case by case, discussion by discussion. I do not adhere to all the teachings of philosophy nor accept all the arguments of the theologians. I will follow the evidence on both sides, evaluate their arguments and reach a conclusion that I think enjoys greater intellectual weight.
To better understand this approach, it’s a good idea to visualize the domain of the debate. I like to think of the relationship between philosophy and kalām as a Venn Diagram. There are discussions exclusive to both sides that the other either cannot say anything about methodologically (its outside its reach), or it has no interest in it to begin with. And there is an intersection of discussions which both have something to say, and this is where the most heated debates take place.
For example, theology discusses the name, number and different responsibilities of angels. Or the events of the grave and the details of the people of heaven and hell. Philosophy cannot possibly make any useful comments in this regard, because no amount of rationalization will independently lead you to this information.
On the other side, philosophy discusses the nature of the soul, the nature of time, motion and space, metaphysics and ontology in general. A theologian whose main purpose is to defend the articles of faith found in the Qurʿān and Hadith, does not really care about the nature of space-time (unless of course it somehow became relevant to his discussion on proving God’s existence.) And unless the theologian wants to discuss these things using the tools of philosophy, which then categorically puts him outside his favourite domain, then he really has no business or interest in discussing such matters.
This means, to the distaste of some people, philosophy has a role to play in the intellectual discipline. Whether you think it’s useless or not, that’s a separate discussion. But it’s not the case that every philosophical discussion should lead to a conclusion that contradicts the religion, as some of the anti-falsafah camp like to label all of philosophy as kufr.
This brings us to the intersection, where both, more often than not, disagree. Topics such as God, His Attributes (knowledge and will in particular), the nature of God’s relationship with Creation, the reality of revelation and others fall into this area. It is here where I follow the evidence, and see which side fares better.
I think this dynamic approach is generally very helpful in many academic debates which host important and key figures on both sides. Note the presence of such figures is indicative of both the importance of the debate and its complexity. May Allah bless our hearts with the light of His guidance.
