So basically it is in that sense that I call it ironic that Hume et al would reason the practice of logical reasoning to have it's vulnerability in it's sensory nature when the very concept of reason itself, not to mention a concept of what constitutes sensory, is under the ultimate ends of such an argument itself derived from sensory associations, which, for the sake of consistency, must also be inherent with their flaws, or more specifically the sensory defined concept of what constitutes a flaw. - It's simply taking a derived form of skepticism to its end, which is also beyond what most skeptics themselves are willing to admit but nevertheless may be arrived at. In that end exists an internally turned being with certitude in nothing - almost like a psychological reclusiveness for lack of a better phrasing.
As for the turn to revelation, indeed it was a criticism of Al Ghazali, but specifically moreso of what stemmed from him. Though Al Ghazali himself was not the fundamentalist literalism I criticize, he undeniably made the world a better place for those after him who propagated extreme literalism in the Koran. It's also a criticism of convenience in that he took his leap of faith to the revelation that was closest to him. Law or no law of the state at the time, it's a decision of convenience in more ways than one (including the convenience of not upsetting the authorities by contradicting their rule, which is understandable though still the element of choice exists). Needless to say, the presence of that element of choice on the whole as well as a preexisting societal dictate towards one choice over all others makes his choice a weaker one, in that he took the safe route. It's an unfortunate solution to any riddle, even though it may have been the most practical. It's kinda like putting an enormous effort into debunking and completely dismantling somebody else's viewpoint then proposing what is right in front of you as an alternative, for whatever reason be it legal, practical, or political. In that sense, Al Ghazali's alternative route was that which conveniently was in front of him, known to him, and heavily expected of him, meaning it was not an alternative chosen for any particular merit other than that it was there and it was what he knew. It was a convenient piece to complete his puzzle with, and any predetermined societal bias towards that piece just further shows the reasons why it was chosen.
As for our own brand of literalism in western society, sure we have our set of strains. In fact, being a strict constructionist I could arguably be said to subscribe to one of them. A distinction must be made in the extent of literalism. Literalism in reading brief rulebook for legislative government is a lot different than an absurdly literal reading of the Koran that digs itself so deeply behind the words that it finds itself at odds with reality. There are times to be literal, and other times where being literal is absurd. Literally reading a rulebook in a game is practical for society. Literally reading an allegorical abstract defeats the purpose all together, making it absurd.
This is indeed turning into a fun discussion! I look forward to your next set of thoughts on it.