this way Maimonides addressed it to all those, like his friend, who were rabbis and, therefore, knowledgeable about and committed to rabbinic Judaism. Such persons also possessed some knowledge of general theology and philosophy, including the works of Aristotle, as translated and interpreted by Muslim scholars (the form in which Maimonides knew Aristotle's work as well). But their knowledge of philosophy and science was slight compared to their rabbinic knowledge, and in Maimonides' opinion this "lack of knowledge [was] a major reason for Rabbi Joseph's perplexity."
Thus, in the Guide, Maimonides dealt with the "raw material" of "knotty, often disconcerting passages from Biblical and rabbinic literature" which he "aligned with concepts and images drawn from philosophic and scientific literature." Maimonides' conclusions about religious topics were not at all heterodox and differed little from those of most of his predecessors. But he differed from most of them in using a scientific, logical approach, employing the argumentative forms and methods of demonstration of philosophy to aid in demonstrating the truths of the religious tradition. Maimonides was sure that, as he put it, "the works of Aristotle are the roots and foundations of all works on the sciences." The philosophical method of Aristotle was the height of human intellectual endeavor and must, therefore, be capable of supporting the height of Divine truth revealed in the Law. And, since human beings were capable of such intellectual achievement, it was inexcusable to employ sloppy reasoning in the defense of the faith.
The poor reasoning attacked by Maimonides was that employed by adherents of the Kalam, the system employed by the Mutakallimum, the first major school of Islamic theology. These scholars favored the material atomism of the Greek philosopher Democritus and regarded Aristotle's works as "a threat to religious faith" because of his over-reliance ...