Jewish and Islamic Philosophers on Prophecy and Political Order

Introduction

To divide the view of the role of the prophet in Islam and Jewish writers' sense of the political order throughout history by looking solely at religion would be to ignore crucial elements that made up the perspective of these writers. Al-Farabi, for instance, was an Islamic philosopher of the tenth century whose political outlook was based more on Aristotelian ethics than on Islam, though his view of prophecy was shaped by his understanding of Muhammad and the prophet's significance in Islamic tradition. Then there is the twelfth-century philosopher Judah Halevi, who, like Al-Farabi, viewed the philosophical order as a whole system complete in and of itself, independent of other systems.

Yet while Al-Farabi accepted the Aristotelian concept that happiness was the ultimate end of humanity — the goal to be pursued by society, or "the City," which could be reached by exercising reason and acting virtuously — Halevi maintained that human reason has its limits and pales in comparison to revelation. For Halevi, revelation alone could tell human beings about God, themselves, and the creation of the universe, whereas finite human reason could only speculate. Religion was thus intimately united with his essentially "anti-political" view of political order, and it shaped his conception of the prophet's role in politics. As a Jew, Halevi held that the Jewish people owed allegiance to God, who was the Lawgiver, and that throughout the history of the Hebrews, God and His prophets had made special covenants that set the Jews apart from other peoples as a chosen race.

These two philosophers of the Middle Ages were but two examples of the ways in which Islamic and Jewish writers held differing views of prophecy, which in turn shaped their visions of political order. This paper examines them alongside Averroes and Maimonides in exploring this theme.

Al-Farabi: The Prophet-Legislator and the Aristotelian Political Order

Al-Farabi viewed the idea of Plato's Philosopher-King in the light of Islamic tradition — that virtue begins with knowledge of the interaction between the divine and the human. For Al-Farabi, the Prophet-Legislator was the extension of this concept: the Prophet-Legislator serves as the link between God and man, translating into terms that man can understand the dictates that God wishes him to know and abide by. The Prophet is one who receives visions directly from God — this is, in other words, revelation. Al-Farabi did not reject reason by accepting prophecy and its role in the Aristotelian political order; for him it was simply a fact of life. It was, moreover, the fact upon which the system of politics was to be founded, since this divine revelation constituted the overall character of the pursuit of happiness.

Virtue was still tied to reason; it was, however, colored by the acceptance of the role of Mohammed, who engaged directly with the "Active Intellect," which shapes human judgment.¹ In this framework, the prophet is not a figure who displaces philosophical inquiry but rather one who grounds it, providing through revelation the ultimate standard against which the virtuous city orients itself.

Averroes: Philosophy, Revelation, and the Ideal State

Averroes, a twelfth-century scholar from Spain, was a follower of Al-Farabi. He was called "The Commentator" by Aquinas for his vast commentaries on Aristotle and Plato. For Averroes, philosophy was an obligation under Shari'a law for those capable of pursuing it — a position he grounded in readings of the Qur'an: "Take heed, you who have eyes" and "Do they not consider how the camel was created, how heaven was lifted up?" From these passages, Averroes concluded that "the door of reflection [leads] to true cognizance of Him."² The Intellect was, for Averroes, a gift from God meant to be used in the pursuit of knowledge of God and His creation.

As far as prophecy was concerned, Averroes stood alongside Al-Farabi: he embraced Islam and the Qur'an as divine revelation. Revelation was tied to faith. The ideal state, for Averroes, thus consisted of a public possessing the Qur'an — since it was the revelation needed both for belief in the God of Mohammed and for understanding of Shari'a. This belief, when united with the knowledge of the philosopher, essentially set the framework of socio-political life. Moreover, Averroes held that religion was superior to philosophy because it related directly to God, whereas philosophy stemmed from men.

For this reason, the role of the prophet for Averroes was to outline the political order, just as Mohammed did for Islam: the prophet gave the code of law. This did not displace or negate the role of the philosopher, because it remained the philosopher's task to apply reason to the development of the virtuous life. In this sense, the prophet and the philosopher operated harmoniously, with the prophet-king and the philosopher-king both serving as examples of moral guidance and authority.

Conclusion

The contrast between Islamic and Jewish medieval political philosophy ultimately turns on the relationship each tradition drew between prophecy and political authority. For Al-Farabi and Averroes, the prophet — above all Mohammed — was integral to the political order, serving simultaneously as divine conduit, lawgiver, and model for the virtuous city. Prophecy and reason, revelation and philosophy, were not in opposition; they were complementary elements of a unified system oriented toward human happiness.

For Halevi and Maimonides, however, the prophet occupied a different role altogether. He was a messenger, not a king — the bearer of divine law to a people whose true sovereign was God Himself. Because the Jews understood themselves as a chosen people living within others' political structures, they developed no autonomous political philosophy in the Aristotelian sense. The Islamic philosophers, having inherited both Aristotelian political theory and a prophetic tradition that included explicit political governance, were able to synthesize these into a coherent vision. The Jewish thinkers, shaped by a tradition of covenant, diaspora, and divine sovereignty, arrived at a fundamentally different — and largely apolitical — conclusion about the role of the prophet in human affairs.

Bibliography

Al-Farabi. "The Political Regime." In Medieval Political Philosophy, edited by Joshua Parens and Joseph Macfarland. London: Cornell University Press, 2011.

Averroes. "The Decisive Treatise." In Medieval Political Philosophy, edited by Joshua Parens and Joseph Macfarland. London: Cornell University Press, 2011.

Halevi, Judah. "The Kuzari." In Medieval Political Philosophy, edited by Joshua Parens and Joseph Macfarland. London: Cornell University Press, 2011.

Maimonides. "The Guide of the Perplexed." In Medieval Political Philosophy, edited by Joshua Parens and Joseph Macfarland. London: Cornell University Press, 2011.