From the perspective of Professor Hakim, a moderate representative of the Tafkik school of thought, "separation" and "purity" are two sides of the same coin. Unlike the theoretical Sufism and the Transcendent Philosophy, he considers the combination of the realms and paradigms of religion, philosophy, and Sufism to be impossible. In his view, Greek and Indian doctrines and theories have been imposed on religious texts in Islamic philosophy and Sufism, and these thinkers, in order to reconcile their intellectual systems, have had to disregard the authority of the apparent meanings of religious texts and use the tool of interpretation to put their own words into the mouths of religious texts. However, Professor Hakim repeatedly emphasizes that his opposition to intellectual systems that seek to combine religion with philosophical and Sufi doctrines does not mean opposition to reason itself. To show the difference between types of reason, he uses the terms "self-founded religious reason" and "innate reason." In this paper, we seek to view Professor Hakim's intellectual system with two eyes: one eye that observes the possibilities and strengths of his ideas, and the other that observes the limitations and weaknesses. In short, one can sympathize with Professor Hakim's "separation of rationalities," but the "reduction of rationality to blind obedience" in his intellectual project must be criticized. This article is written using a library-based methodology.