How did classical philosophers (al-Fārābī, Aquinas, Thomas Hobbes) address the relationship between religion and state, and do their formulations remain valid today?

This question places us before three major philosophical projects that addressed the relationship between religion and state from radically different angles. Al-Fārābī (870-950 CE) in Baghdad and Damascus, Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274 CE) in Paris, and Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679 CE) in England — each faced a different political and religious context, and offered divergent philosophical solutions. Understanding these projects is necessary because contemporary debates about secularism and civil religion continue to revive — consciously or unconsciously — arguments formulated by these philosophers.

Inadequate Responses to Avoid

From some defenders of religion's political role:

"Al-Fārābī and Aquinas proved the necessity of religion for the state, and Hobbes is an extreme secularist." A reductive simplification. Al-Fārābī was not a "political Islamist" in the contemporary sense, Aquinas did not call for direct theocracy, and Hobbes — despite his apparent secularism — gave religion a central role in his political system. Reading these philosophers through contemporary lenses misses the complexity of their positions.

"Classical models are outdated; we need entirely new formulations." A position lacking historical depth. The fundamental problems these philosophers addressed — the tension between religious and political authority, the role of religion in political legitimacy, the relationship between religious truth and civil order — remain alive. Ignoring their solutions means reinventing the wheel.

From some secularists:

"Hobbes founded modern secularism, while al-Fārābī and Aquinas were mere theologians." A selective reading. Hobbes made the sovereign's absolute authority include religious power, which is not separation of religion from state but subordination of the former to the latter. Al-Fārābī and Aquinas offered complex political theories that cannot be reduced to simple "political theology."

"Classical philosophy was constrained by its religious contexts, so it has no value today." A methodological error. Great philosophers transcend their immediate contexts. Aquinas's arguments about natural law remain influential in contemporary legal philosophy, and al-Fārābī's theory of the virtuous city continues to be discussed in Islamic political philosophy.

Why These Responses Are Inadequate

They share a failure to see the philosophical complexity of these three projects. Each philosopher faced a real dilemma: how can one reconcile the demands of absolute religious truth with the requirements of relative political order? Their different solutions reflect not only their contexts, but deep philosophical visions about the nature of humanity, society, and truth.

The Fārābīan Project: The Philosopher-Prophet and the Virtuous City

Al-Fārābī in "Opinions of the People of the Virtuous City" and "Political Regime" presents a unique model that integrates Aristotelian philosophy with Islamic revelation. For him:

The First Ruler of the virtuous city combines philosophical perfection with connection to the Active Intellect (which some commentators interpret as a mechanism for revelation). This ruler is:
- A philosopher who grasps truths through rational demonstration
- A prophet who receives the same knowledge through imagination in images the masses can understand
- A politician who translates this knowledge into laws and legislation

Religion for al-Fārābī is not separate from philosophy but a "imitation" of it in symbolic language. Religious law (sharīʿa) is necessary because most people cannot grasp philosophical truths directly. Religion provides the masses — through imagination and symbols — what philosophers grasp through demonstration.

This model is neither simply theocratic nor secular. It is an attempt to transcend the tension by integrating both levels in one person (the philosopher-prophet) or in an epistemological hierarchy (the elite know through reason, the masses through religion).

The Thomistic Project: Distinction without Separation

Thomas Aquinas in the "Summa Theologica" and "De Regno" develops the theory of Two Ends:

Humans have two ends:
- A temporal natural end: civil happiness in this life (achieved through natural reason and the state)
- An eternal supernatural end: the beatific vision of God (achieved through faith and the Church)

The state is independent in its domain (civil order, natural justice) but subordinate in the ultimate end. The king derives his authority from God through the people, and has a moral duty to facilitate the virtuous life that leads to salvation.

Aquinas distinguishes between:
- Eternal law: the divine order of the universe
- Natural law: human reason's participation in eternal law
- Human law: application of natural law to particular circumstances
- Divine law: revelation that complements natural law

This distinction allows for relative autonomy of politics (through natural law known by reason) while keeping it within a religious cosmic framework.

The Hobbesian Project: Absolute Sovereignty and Civil Religion

Hobbes in "Leviathan" inverts the traditional equation. Religion does not found the state; rather, the state regulates religion:

In the state of nature, fear of death drives humans to establish absolute authority (Leviathan). This authority must be absolute to prevent civil war, and this includes authority over religious interpretation.

Religious conflicts (the wars of religion in Europe) threaten civil peace. The solution: sovereignty determines the accepted religious interpretation. There is no religious authority separate from civil authority.

But — and this is important — Hobbes does not abolish religion. "Fear of invisible power" is fundamental to human nature. Religion is necessary for social order, but must be "civil religion" under sovereign control.

Mutual Criticism and Permanent Problems

Al-Fārābī's model faces a problem: where do we find the philosopher-prophet? And what after the age of prophecy? Al-Fārābī hints that philosophers can approximate this ideal, but this opens the door to philosophical elitism.

Aquinas's model faces tension: if the eternal end is higher, how is the state truly independent? History shows this delicate balance is difficult to maintain (conflicts between papacy and empire).

Hobbes's model faces a dilemma: if sovereignty determines religion, what prevents it from complete tyranny? Hobbes assumes that fear of chaos justifies absolute power, but history shows absolute power can itself be a source of chaos.

Contemporary Validity: Enduring Lessons

Despite changing contexts, these philosophers' insights remain relevant:

From al-Fārābī: The idea that truth is one but expressed at different levels remains important in religiously diverse societies. How do we maintain truth while respecting diversity?

From Aquinas: The distinction between spheres of authority while remaining within a unified moral framework offers an alternative to strict secularism and theocracy. Natural law theory continues to influence debates about human rights.

From Hobbes: The warning about religious wars and the necessity of strong political authority to preserve peace remains highly relevant. But the experience of the twentieth century also shows the dangers of absolute power.

Contemporary Applications

In debates about "political Islam," we can benefit from al-Fārābī in distinguishing between epistemological levels without eliminating religion's public role.

In debates about "religious values in the public sphere" (Rawls vs. Sandel), Aquinas's model offers a middle path between complete exclusion and religious hegemony.

In debates about "security versus freedom," Hobbes's warning about chaos and his critics' warning about tyranny remain complementary lessons.

Conclusion: Transcending False Dichotomies

The three philosophers, despite their differences, share in rejecting simple dichotomy (religion or state). Each attempts to formulate a complex relationship that preserves religion's value and politics' requirements. This lesson — transcending simplification toward complex synthesis — is the most important thing we can learn from them today.

In an age oscillating between extreme secularism and religious fundamentalism, these philosophical projects remind us that there are more precise and profound ways to understand the relationship between the religious absolute and the political relative.

For Advanced Reading

- Advanced level: Al-Fārābī's theory of prophecy...