Gözde Hussain

This chapter traces the development of Sunni jurisprudence, theology, and advice-to-ruler literature, showing how these traditions evolved through debate, reasoning, and adaptation to changing historical contexts. By foregrounding the methodological and doctrinal diversity within the Islamic doctrinal tradition, it challenges common misperceptions and prejudices that portray Islam as monolithic, static, anti-rational, or resistant to intellectual exchange. Instead, the chapter demonstrates that pluralism, epistemic rigor, responsiveness to political and social circumstances, and engagement with external intellectual traditions have long been defining features of the Islamic scholarly tradition. The framework presented here also maps a detailed spectrum of orthodox positions within Sunni traditions, providing a structured basis through which scholars can evaluate the extent to which contemporary arguments concerning the political legitimacy of a liberal state and Muslim allegiance to it align with mainstream Islamic understandings of political authority. In doing so, the chapter highlights the distinctive ways in which Muslims have historically navigated social and political obligations in diverse ways, while countering persistent misrepresentations of the Islamic intellectual tradition.

About this book: This book delves into the compatibility of Islam with liberal values, engaging in a comparative analysis of Islamic moral language and John Rawls's liberal democratic ideas. Rawls, a prominent modern liberal political philosopher, posits that diverse moral and religious doctrines in a pluralistic society should align with the principles of a liberal democratic political culture. The author shares Rawls's assumptions and maps out a spectrum of Islamic orthodoxy positions to assess the plausibility of reconciling Islamic doctrines with a liberal political order. While acknowledging that such compatibility is not the mainstream outlook, the book argues that it's feasible through reasonable interpretations of Islamic sources. The central question addressed is the realism of observant Muslims endorsing a liberal democratic state from within their doctrinal tradition. By examining a range of Islamic orthodoxy positions, the book demonstrates that Muslims can theoretically find Islamic reasons, rooted in acceptable interpretations of divine sources, to justify their commitment to a liberal state. Furthermore, it provides moral reasons and strategies for the liberal state to address incompatible Islamic doctrines, ensuring Muslims can maintain religious practices without an Islamic political authority. This theoretical framework offers insights for future empirical and theoretical studies on Muslims navigating pluralistic liberal societies, making it a vital contribution to the discourse on Islam and liberalism.

This paper challenges one of the main contributions of Political Liberalism (PL), namely the burdens of judgment (BoJ), on the grounds that it is superfluous to the project of excluding matters of the good from politics and it makes PL susceptible to a scepticism objection. From Rawls’s PL, we can extract two arguments for epistemic restraint in the public realm. The first is a moral argument based on the principles of fairness and reciprocity. The second is an epistemic argument derived from the idea of the insurmountability of BoJ. The second of these arguments, I contend, is superfluous for two reasons: (i) BoJ, as a descriptive claim cannot itself explain why citizens should uphold a form of toleration that requires them to honor their epistemic restraint in politics. (ii) The moral argument alone is sufficient to justify epistemic constraint in the public realm through the reasonable exercise of political power. Moreover, acceptance of the BoJ is incompatible with subscribing to a reasonable comprehensive doctrine (RCD) with a degree of certainty that is required to be convinced of any such doctrine. The relation between BoJ and scepticism has been addressed before but these thinkers assume that it is the implication of BoJ namely, reasonable disagreement that entails scepticism. This paper lays new sceptical challenges at the doorstep of PL and these new challenges focus on the very idea of the insurmountability of BoJ. Furthermore, it argues that scepticism is not an appropriate epistemic commitment for PL as it is incompatible with the aim of freestanding political conception of justice. Also, it is subversive of the purpose of an overlapping consensus because the idea underpinning an overlapping consensus is that citizens should not only appreciate liberal political principles as reasonable but they should also accept them as true on the basis of their own religious or philosophical reasons. Provided that BoJ entails scepticism, BoJ makes citizens’ religious and philosophical truth claims utterly irrelevant to the stability of society. Accordingly, I argue that the Rawlsian account of reasonableness must relinquish the epistemic component, BoJ; instead it should articulate how the moral component of reasonableness entails the principles of epistemic restraint in politics and acting from public reasons.