Beyond Surface Comparison: Epistemic Frameworks in al-Ghazālī and Kant

Abstract

This study explores the critical philosophies of al-Ghazālī and Immanuel Kant, emphasizing the structural frameworks that underpin their approaches to reason, metaphysics, and the limits of human knowledge. While prior scholarship has largely highlighted surface similarities in their treatment of rational inquiry and metaphysical speculation, this paper argues that such comparisons obscure the deeper divergences rooted in their respective intellectual architectures. Al-Ghazālī’s critique arises from a religiously grounded epistemology, wherein reason serves to elucidate and defend divine truths, whereas Kant’s critique is grounded in pure reason, aiming to delineate the boundaries of rational inquiry and establish a metaphysical framework for moral and theological understanding. By examining their approaches to metaphysics, causality, and the interplay of empirical and rational knowledge, this paper situates their critiques within broader epistemological and philosophical traditions, revealing the distinct yet convergent pursuit of "critique of reason" in both Islamic and Western thought. The analysis underscores that the shared features in their critiques are contingent upon deeper differences in the foundations, methods, and objectives of their thought.