The Common Basis of Islam and Liberalism: Reason Can't Be Trusted

There is a shared assumption between the Liberal Order and the Islamic Order: their common distrust of reason's ability to grasp the truth, especially in the moral realm. Hence both the Liberal Order and the Islamic Order reject reason as hopelessly leading to moral relativism. In response, one imposes the Liberal Order as the solution, and the other imposes an Islamic Order. In one we suffer the tyranny of relativism foisted upon us by the likes of the "prophet" of Liberalism, John Rawls. In the other, we suffer the tyranny of a supposed divine positivism of the "prophet" of Islam, really nothing other than just the personal judgments and foibles of a crafty 7th century Arab moral and theological simpleton, one whom, in the British bioethicist Jonathan Glover's words might be characterized as a "monster of self-confidence."

Rawls and Muhammad: Both Despaired of Reason

Consider this. Let us suppose that J. Budziszewski's* summary of the liberal mind is accurate:

The argument [of the liberal or relativist, one who rejects reason as a source of law, that is the natural law] seems to be "Because we don't agree with each other, you must do as I say"--for, if anyone should profess "But your opinion is just as controversial as the ones you complain about," they respond "See what I mean?" Or perhaps, like John Rawls, they respond that their opinion should have special privileges because it is "political not metaphysical." Here the argument seems to be "The ultimate truth of things is unknowable [by reason], and that's why you must do as I say."

Now, let us suppose also that Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri accurately summarizes the Islamic view of things in his book Reliance of the Traveler:**

[M]inds are in obvious disagreement about acts. Some minds finds certain acts good, others find them bad. Moreover, one person can be of two minds about one and the same action. Caprice often wins out over the intellect, and considering something good or bad comes to be based on mere whim. So it cannot be said that an act which the mind deems good is therefore good . . . its performance called for and its doer rewarded . . . or whatever the mind feels to be bad is thus bad . . . its nonperformance called for and its doer punished . . . . [So] the basic premise [of Islam according to the Ash'aris] is that the good of the acts of those morally responsible is what the Lawgiver [Allah] or His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace) has indicated is good be permitting it or asking ti be done. And the bad is what the Lawgiver [Allah through his prophet Muhammad] has indicated is bad by asking it not be done.

The liberal despairs of human reason, and he imposes his tyranny of relativism. The Muslim despairs of human reason, and he imposes the tyranny of Islam. In their foundational assumptions and distrust of reason, Liberalism and Islam are brothers? That would appear to be the case.

Might the solution to the ills of Liberalism and the ills of Islam be a re-commitment to human reason in its theoretical and its practical (moral) range? Might our re-commitment to the link between human reason and the divine Reason, that is, the Logos, the Word of God, be the solution to the ills of Liberalism and the ills of Islam? Taking it one step further: might that re-commitment to human reason, to the link between human reason and the divine Logos lead us to a re-commitment to the belief that perhaps that Logos became incarnate and dwelt among us full of grace and truth, in the God-Man Jesus? And might that belief, that faith, lead to the re-commitment that perhaps that Logos made flesh, the incarnated Logos, founded his Church on Peter and that it continues in his successors? Might a rejection of the despair of human reason, and a re-commitment to this chain--faith in reason, faith in Reason, faith in the Reason made Flesh, faith in the Reason made Flesh founding a Communion, that is to say, the Church, be the means to overcome the ills of Liberalism and the ills of Islam? For both Liberalism and Islam start with infidelity: they are unfaithful to reason, which means they are unfaithful to Reason, which means they are unfaithful to the Logos made flesh, which means they are unfaithful to His Communion, a Communion which ultimately extends from this world into eternity, from the world into Paradise.

____________________________________
*J. Budziszewski, What We Can't Not Know (Dallas: Spence Publishing, 2003), 52.
**Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, Reliance of the Traveller (Nuh Ha Mim Keller, trans.) (Betlsville, Maryland: Amana Publishers, 1994), 2 (section a1.3, a1.4).