لطفا منتظر باشید ...
Section 4
Religion
Muslims share a common cause with Western critics of
liberalism, such as MacIntyre and others who have launched their criticisms
from a religious standpoint. By examining this work it may even be discovered
that this sort of criticism is more appropriate from an Islamic standpoint than
from a Neo‑Thomist one.The alienation expressed by MacIntyre is a social
one, but there are deeper forms of alienation, which from the religious point
of view have their source in distance from God. The sort of community MacIntyre
seeks is one whose rival paradigms are those of the Christian Church and the
Muslim ummah. But the source of the cohesion of these communities is their
harmony with the divine order. If the methods of evaluation of rival traditions
as outlined by MacIntyre are to be employed to compare Christendom and the
ummah, it will be necessary to examine the ways in which the intellectual
traditions within the two communities have responded and continue to formulate
responses to the challenge of liberal modernism.For
his own part, MacIntyre concludes that the Thomistic synthesis of Augustinian
and Aristotelian thought has been confirmed in its encounter with other
traditions. But the analysis he offers is not specific to the defense of
Catholicism, but rather may be used to support various forms of traditional
thought against the secular liberal scientism which prevails in the West.
Indeed, a major flaw in all of MacIntyre's writings is that it fails to pay any
attention to Islam at all. When MacIntyre compares competing traditions of
liberal, Marxist and religious thought, the term religious can always be
replaced by Christian without
altering the intended meaning. [27]Prior to his conversion to Neo‑Thomism, which
occurred some time between the writing of After
Virtue and Whose Justice? Which
Rationality?, MacIntyre could be scathingly critical of Christianity, even
if, at the very same time, appreciative of its strengths. [28] The weaknesses
of Christianity to which he drew attention in his first book were its dogmatism
and otherworldliness‑its inherent tendency to disown its own
revolutionary vision, to circumscribe itself within the spiritual and to
accommodate itself to the status quo, even
if this meant tyranny Nothing in Whose
Justice? Which Rationality? explains how these criticisms are to be
answered. Islam, on the other hand, has not disowned its revolutionary vision,
nor has it had an episode comparable to Galileos encounter with the
Inquisition. This is not to deny that terrible injustices have been and
continue to be perpetrated in the name of Islam, nor that fanatical intolerance
has not marred doctrinal disputes among Muslims. Nevertheless, it must be
admitted that the dogmas accepted by Muslims have not prevented them from
accepting the natural sciences or technology, nor from the adoption of Western
social institutions when it has appeared (rightly or wrongly) rational to do
so. It must also be admitted that the call for justice issued by Islam,
particularly in its Shii version, retains its ability to inspire revolutionary
fervour. The hope for a just society in this world has not been abandoned by
Muslims. Because it began as a political no less than spiritual movement,
Muslims cannot deny that Islam demands them to seek justice in the here and
now. Because of the priority of the spiritual, however, Islam is able to
provide the moral basis and orientation lacking in secular ideologies.MacIntyre's failure to answer his own criticisms of
Christianity have left at least one‑Muslim reader with the impression
that his work provides a better defense of Islam than it does for the
Christianity he himself professes.
Notes:
[27]. MacIntyre admits his neglect of Islam, despiteits importance, "not only for its own sake but also because of its large
contribution to the Aristotelian tradition," in the first chapter of nose Justice? Which Rationality?, p. 11.[28]. See Alasdair Madntyre, Marxism and Christianity (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame
Press, 1984).
