Perhaps there is an importance to the wording here; by stating that religion is “subordinate to philosophy” rather than stating philosophy is “superior to religion,” Al-Farabi creates a bottom-up view of philosophy. His words create this feeling that philosophy is so powerful and grand, that we can only claim concepts are “subordinate” to it (it would be arrogant to assume we can easily comprehend the extent of philosophy’s “superiority.”). Al-Farabi’s language may be somewhat extravagant, but he can be precise in his meaning when he wishes to. Note how he uses the term “virtuous religion,” rather than just “religion.” One might assume this means the only form of religion that is even worthy of being compared to philosophy, is the “virtuous” kind.

I believe it is worth noting that Al-Farabi’s views may have caused controversy. While philosophy seems to have been well-embraced in the Islamic World during the time of Al-Farabi, I would doubt that his claim of philosophy being “superior” to religion was received well universally. Within the period he lived, religion held even more power over people all across the world. If Al-Farabi had made the same claims while living in the contemporary Christian World, perhaps he would have been accused of heresy. Considering the near-universal importance of religion at the time, claiming that anything was superior to religion would have surely angered many. The reason I am so adamant in this belief is because throughout much of history, anyone who tried to challenge the authority of religion met overwhelming resistance. A good example could be seen in Galileo, who’s theories on heliocentrism were dismissed as “heretical” by the Roman Inquisition for supposedly contradicting biblical scripture. The logic, philosophy, or intention of ideals often did not matter; if an ideal contradicted or challenged religious doctrine, it caused controversy. So even if philosophers were respected much more in the Islamic World, Al-Farabi’s views would have challenged the status-quo; and may have garnered much criticism.

Though this quote is somewhat challenging to understand, it seems to me that Al-Farabi is trying to say that most norms within religion are “justified” through the practical stipulations made in philosophy. In other words, if a religion claims certain acts to be “good,” then practical philosophy provides much-needed reasons for why those actions are good. Without practical philosophy, religion lacks any means of proving the merit behind its ideals. By this logic, it is easy to see why Al-Farabi would believe that religion is inferior to philosophy.

Assuming my understanding of Al-Farabi’s ideals are accurate, then I most certainly agree with his conclusions on philosophy’s superiority over religion. While I myself may be a relatively religious individual, I nevertheless believe that without philosophy, religion would be devoid of much of its meaning and purpose. For example, without having a good grasp on philosophy, it is difficult to understand why Christ’s ideals were so revolutionary, or why his assertion that “all who draw the sword will die by the sword” was so significant. It takes a degree of knowledge of philosophy to not only understand these words, but also to truly appreciate their wisdom. Many religious texts contain much philosophical wisdom for those who seek it; but for those who do not seek it, religion becomes a gathering point for blind followers and memorizers. Beyond this, I also agree with Al-Farabi’s assertations about practical philosophy providing the justifications for religious morality. Indeed, religions tend to forge certain guidelines of how to live a “moral” life (ex. Ten Commandments); but without philosophy we could never understand why these commandments are important to adhere to. In some respects, religion gives us moral commandments only after people reach a philosophical consensus on what defines moral action. In actuality, it is rather easy to blindly follow established rules and guidelines. It is notably harder to think on the wisdom behind rules; to use your intellect, human awareness, and imagination.

However, I do not necessarily agree with all of Al-Farabi’s claims. If the core purpose of religion and philosophy were exactly the same, I would say that philosophy is superior in every way. But I do not believe the goals of religion are entirely the same as philosophy’s goals. Religion has much to do with tradition, and culture. Especially if one were to observe historically “conservative” societies, they may realize that religion has many aspects tied to their cultures, in a way that philosophy simply isn’t. Religions have many aspects connected to community building and the establishment of pleasure-bringing traditions which are of value as well. For example, many holidays in Greece that are often associated with Greece’s culture (such as Greek Easter) are undeniably religious in origin. Another example could come from Turkey, where some traditions have roots in Turkic Shamanism or Zoroastrianism. The point I am trying to make, is that religion has many aspects that have positive social impact that differ from philosophy, which is why I believe it would be wrong to claim that philosophy is superior in every way.

What I found particularly intriguing was Al-Farabi’s comparison of philosophy to science, particularly in that both provide “demonstrative proofs” for certain concepts. Perhaps there are indeed parallels between philosophy and scientific methods. Due to all of these reasons, I would agree that philosophy is superior to religion in many ways.

It is rarely a good idea to interpret a philosopher’s words in an absolutist or maximalist manner – however, I would argue that this quote provides sufficient evidence to support the claim that Al-Farabi believed philosophy was superior to religion.

Merriam Webster’s Dictionary defines the word subordinate as “placed in or occupying a lower class, rank, or position: inferior.” If Al-Farabi claims that Religion is composed of two “parts” that are both “subordinate to philosophy,” then it would only be logical to assume he believed philosophy was superior to religion.

One thing that has caught my eye, is that Al-Farabi’s ideas are not necessarily the most complicated ideas one could encounter; However, the rich vocabulary and flowery language he uses makes his writings difficult to read at times (or rather, it may require one to read slowly and carefully). So, one might assume that his target audience is one educated enough to comprehend flowery language, but not quite educated enough to easily understand exceedingly complicated philosophy. It is almost as if his target audience is for students in a madrassa (or in the case of modern times, college students). That would be my theory at least.

Therefore, all virtuous laws are subordinate to the universals of practical philosophy. The theoretical opinions that are in religion have their demonstrative proofs in theoretical philosophy and are taken in religion without demonstrative proofs.

Therefore, the two parts of which religion consists are subordinate to philosophy.

Therefore, the kingly craft responsible for what the virtuous religion consists of is subordinate to philosophy.

1. Thus, virtuous religion is similar to philosophy. Just as philosophy is partly theoretical and partly practical, so it is with religion: the calculative theoretical part is what a human being is not able to do when he knows it, [47] whereas the practical part is what a human being is able to do when he knows it. The practical things in religion are those whose universals are in practical philosophy. That is because the practical things in religion are those universals made determinate by stipulations restricting them, and what is restricted by stipulations is more particular than what is pronounced unqualifiedly without stipulations: for instance, our saying “the human being who is writing” is more particular than our saying “the human being.” Therefore, all virtuous laws are subordinate to the universals of practical philosophy. The theoretical opinions that are in religion have their demonstrative proofs in theoretical philosophy and are taken in religion without demonstrative proofs.

Therefore, the two parts of which religion consists are subordinate to philosophy. For something is said to be a part of science or to be subordinate to a science in one of two ways: either the demonstrative proofs of what is assumed in it without demonstrative proofs occur in that science, or the science comprising the universals is the one that gives the reasons for the particulars subordinate to it. The practical part of philosophy is, therefore, the one that gives the reasons for the stipulations by which actions are made determinate: that for the sake of which they were stipulated and the purpose intended to be obtained by means of those stipulations. Further, if to know something is to know it demonstratively, then this part of philosophy that gives the demonstrative proof for the determined actions that are in virtuous religion. And since it is the theoretical part of philosophy that gives demonstrative prods for the theoretical part of religion, it is philosophy, then, that gives the demonstrative proofs of what virtuous religion encompasses. Therefore, the kingly craft responsible for what the virtuous religion consists of is subordinate to philosophy.