Davutoğlu and Qutb as case studies
Several writings have tackled Islam and International Relations (IR) in an attempt to highlight the Islamic worldview and normative foundations in understanding world politics. Islamic paradigm is seen as a non-Western explanandum in contrast with dominating explanatory power of Western IR theories. However, alternative approaches and analytical frameworks are gradually becoming a central piece in contemporary IR literature. Many writings underlined the Islamic paradigm as a philosophical thought that has not engaged or interacted with Western IR theories. They highlighted its shortage in tackling epistemological, normative and methodological deficiencies in Western theories’ ability to understand the different international practices and phenomena in an ethnically and culturally diversified system.
This chapter presents an Islamic IR theory that engages with the existing Western theories and presents complementary ontological and epistemological premises through the lens of constructivism. In doing so, it expands on Sayyid Qutb’s “hakimiyya,” or governance, and Ahmet Davutoğlu’s “alternative paradigms” as Islamic theoretical concepts that are surgically conceived based on constructivism’s main components: collective identity, common interests, shared knowledge and practices, as formulated in Alexander Wendt’s and Emmanuel Adler’s works. First, the chapter highlights the singularity of the constructivist approach in allowing the integration of culturally diversified paradigms in IR. Second, it examines scholarly writings that had addressed the possibility of introducing an Islamic IR theory and their shortcomings in developing an Islamic one, which engages with the existing core theories. Third, the study introduces Sayyid Qutb’s (1906–1966) and Ahmet Davutoğlu’s (1959–) worldviews as an Islamic IR theory based on constructivist premises in order to add a complementary framework on the ontological and normative levels to the existing IR theories.
The methodology is based on the analysis of the works of Sayyid Qutb and Ahmet Davutoğlu, who provided an Islamic alternative worldview in IR. It examines how, through their writings, they have denounced the ontological, normative and practical foundations of Western civilization and how this negative perception has shaped their reaction towards the Western domination of world politics. Also, it shows how both authors formulated their operational concepts as an immediate response that has to be adopted by Muslims in order to end their dependency on the global order and Western hegemons.
The chapter highlights concepts that were epistemologically conceived based on constructivist premises. The importance of addressing both authors stems from their engagement with Western theories as a complementary approach, ignited collective identity and common interest among Muslims and incited them to adopt an Islamic framework of shared knowledge and practice to counterbalance Western domination. Yet, Qutb and Davutoğlu manifested stark differences. Qutb’s criticism of Western civilization was triggered by a religious dogmatic view that looked forward, establishing an inward-looking Islamic nationhood while repudiating all non-Islamic aspects in life. However, Davutoğlu contemplated Western civilization as a political paradigm that needs to be complemented by an Islamic normative framework in order to have a just world order.
Based on Adler’s and Wendt’s writings, constructivism presents an interpretive framework for analysing world politics from culturally different perspectives. It focuses on the interaction of four main components in the formulation of IR reality: collective identity, common interests, shared knowledge and practices that are interconnected through inter-subjectivity. This section focuses on the presentation of these four components and their inter-subjective nature.
Constructivism relies on the role of ideas in IR and poses itself as a middle ground between rationalist and interpretive approaches in analysing world politics (Adler, 1997). It emphasizes a different ontological nature of IR as a discipline by taking into account various ideas as distinct normative and epistemic interpretations of world affairs’ reality. While rationalist approaches focus on the objective and material ontology of world politics and relativists on subjective ideas that act within structural constraints, constructivism focuses on the role of commonly shared ideas and “interests” in the formulation of international phenomena. Unlike rational and interpretive approaches that don’t give a central role for ideas in defining world realities, constructivists consider that states’ – social agents – behaviour, “identity” and “interests” are socially constructed by collective meanings, understandings and interpretations they attribute to the world (Adler, 1997).
By recognizing the effect of socio-cognitive factors on understanding world affairs, constructivism attaches a considerable importance to “meanings” given to reality by social actors, known as “inter-subjective knowledge” that shapes world reality the way they understand and know (Adler, 1997; Wendt, 1992). It consists of collective understandings that interpret reality for states and nations and give them instructions on how to act. Adler believes that the material world shapes and is shaped by the human capacity to learn and to understand based on normative and epistemic interpretations of the material world. These interpretations formulate a collective understanding that indicates how people perceive themselves and the existing reality and use their abilities and power. IR is, accordingly, constituted of social facts on which there is a common agreement. Therefore, constructivism emphasizes the ontological reality of “inter-subjective knowledge” and its epistemological and practical implications on states’ behavior, in general, and foreign policy, in particular.
According to constructivists, ideas are the collective knowledge that constitutes individual/state motivation for action in terms of defining what is possible and what is not and lead to the development of “practice.” Actions based on collective knowledge incite individuals to act purposively in light of their judgements, beliefs and convictions and lead to the institutionalization of knowledge through “practice.” For this reason, constructivism acknowledges the role of both ideas and interests not only in shaping social reality but also in influencing the formulation of existing structures in the international system. Instead of solely focusing on how structures influence individuals’ “identity” and “interests,” it gives importance to the role of individuals and social agents in socially constructing structures (Wendt, 1995, 1987). Social structure is constituted of a set of “practices” perpetuated by individuals or states which act as social agents in the implementation of actions based on their judgements and beliefs. Thus, the nature of the international system and the world order is not an exogenous given. States’ “identities” and “interests” are taking part in interstate interactions, influenced by “their practices” and shape their worldview. The international system structure is not exclusively material but also socially established through “practice” where social relationships, “shared knowledge” and “practices” play a considerable role in influencing states’ “interests,’ “identities” and behaviour.
As for “inter-subjectivity,” it underlines the presence of routine practices that are commonly shared by a group of individuals/states who participate in their production. Based on Karl Deutsch’s words in explaining security communities, “inter-subjectivity” exists because of the presence of a shared communication environment where individuals/states understand others and are understood in terms of sharing values and mutual responsiveness (Deutsch et al., 1957). In other words, Karl Popper elaborated more on “inter-subjectivity” by indicating that the ontological reality of “inter-subjectivity” is due to the expression and materialization of a subjective feeling, idea or thought into a discourse, a language or an action (Popper, 1982). Such thoughts and ideas are imposed on an entity or a group of people so that they would act accordingly. For that reason, material capabilities acquire importance in foreign policy analysis only because of the meaning they acquire through the formulation of “shared knowledge.” According to Anne Finnemore, people act in a way they are called for based on a set of norms and regulations in a cultural and historical context (Finnemore, 1996). They do things for reasons that are socially constituted by collective interpretations they give to the world and rules they act on. Based on constructivism, the national and systemic contexts constitute IR reality in which states exist as social agents and act based on their “identity,” which is their self-perception, and “interests,” namely their aspired goals in world affairs. IR reality is, thus, socially constructed based on states’ “shared knowledge” that is perpetuated by an established “practice” in their foreign policies. Thus, constructivism enables the integration of different IR paradigms from diverse analytical and normative frameworks into the existing realm of theories.
By relying on constructivism’s main pillars of analysis: collective identity, common interests, shared knowledge and practices,1 this chapter formulates an Islamic paradigm based on both Sayyid Qutb’s and Ahmet Davutoğlu’s operational concepts, al hakimiyya and alternative paradigms, respectively.
This section shows that, although many writings have introduced the Islamic paradigm as an alternative approach to IR, they didn’t develop a theoretical or an operational framework that interacts with the existing dominant theories. Amitav Acharya and Barry Buzan emphasized this deficiency by underlining the need for developing non-Western IR theories since the source of dominant theories doesn’t correspond with the structure of IR subjects; it speaks only for specific nations and expresses their purposes (Acharya and Buzan, 2010). They complained about the absence of non-Western approaches, including the Islamic one, with operational concepts that can be generalized as a complementary tool of analysis in IR.
In response to Western domination in IR, some scholars underscored Islam as a superior worldview to the Western approach, which aims to conceal structural and normative deficiencies in the world order. For example, Amr Sabet considered Islam as a possible reference in IR that, by formulating its episteme through adaptation, imitation and hybridization, presents a different foundation of behaviour, truth and good life than that of the West and its teleologies, notably the nation-state (Sabet, 2008). He added that, facing secularism and the modern liberal project, as two preconditions for development, Islam constitutes an ontological and epistemological paradigm based on religion, faith and morality. Unlike the Western approach that is approved as a common system of knowledge in the international order, the Islamic reference is based on a distinct historical view and alternative principles rather than power and materialism.
In spite of underlining Islam’s superiority, Sabet asserted the absence of an IR Islamic theory in response to systemic changes that empowered Western domination. He distinguished between Western and Islamic paradigms by underscoring their socio-historical differences and indicating that Islam offers a world vision instead of incarnating a unique socio-historical process of development. In spite of its incompatibility with current politics, Sabet referred to Islamic traditional and original sources to indicate that Islam has a predetermined legal vision of the international order as a world divided into two abodes: one of Islam and another of war. In analogy to the Westphalian peace agreement creating the Christian community versus the Ottoman Empire, the Islamic world vision establishes a centrality for Sharia based on the Umma in terms of dealing with Muslims and their lives. However, the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, colonialism and the emergence of nation-states disturbed power balance in favour of the West. They limited the Muslim world reaction to either modernity integration or rejection and eliminated any possible authentic response in terms of elaborating an IR theory.
In support of Sabet’s argument about the absence of an IR Islamic theory, Sharbanou Tadjbakhsh confirmed the possibility of creating an Islamic paradigm for understanding world affairs (Tadjbakhsh, 2010). He indicated that, by focusing on the nature of Sharia as an internal legal system, its externalization to the international level raises the question of incompatibilities between the Western and Islamic paradigms on the normative and ontological levels. According to Tadjbakhsh, in light of the Islamic paradigm’s static nature, it is essential to develop a process of conceptualization for changing Islam from “an object” to “a subject” of international relations. This is to make the Islamic paradigm, as a set of normative and cognitive beliefs about world reality, an explanatory framework in IR on the basis of a strategic vision and an influential cultural narrative emanating from the nation to justify or condemn international practices.
He added that there is a possibility for developing an Islamic paradigm in IR based on Islam rationalization. It consists of the Islamization of knowledge and the conceptualization of social sciences in order to develop alternative religious concepts and achieve compatibility between Islam and reason. It is a sort of Islamization of modernity in a post-modern perspective that goes beyond the strict Western conception of world order, in order to renew Islam’s concern of morality, good life and ethics without ignoring Western rationality and materialism. By having recourse to Western tools to islamize knowledge, information is relocated, rearranged and reconsidered for the enrichment of the discipline and the resuscitation of religion. By emphasizing Islam’s morality, normativity and purposes, the aim is to link Western knowledge to the main purpose of human existence as defined by the Creator. This will be through a methodology that goes beyond positivism and breaks with epistemological imperialism. According to Tadjbakhsh, knowledge must be related to ethical and metaphysical values for guidance, and it is for that reason that Western paradigms have to be deconstructed to determine discontinuities and opportunities in progress, modernity and rationality and to re-introduce religious knowledge.
This type of knowledge would link the senses, reason and faith through the consideration of empiricism, rationality and intuition, respectively, in order to establish a new scientific paradigm. Accordingly, Tadjbakhsh indicated that, by considering senses, divine sources and idealism, a synthesis emerges between the ideational and empiricism, which enables the introduction of Islam as an IR paradigm. He assumed that, only through this methodology, scientific reason and human sovereignty would be challenged. Also, thanks to this methodology, religion would be conceived as a human affair affected by time, space, history and morality that define life purpose, faith, self-protection and community consciousness.
Nassef Manabilang Adiong has also underlined the possibility of integrating an IR Islamic paradigm into the existing Western theories (Adiong, 2013). He supported this argument by giving the example of the English school that integrated Christianity in conceptualizing IR. He considered this example as an indication of the possibility of doing the same with Islam by presenting ontological propositions and developing an appropriate epistemology that would enable Islam to be integrated into an existing IR theory. Along with other scholars, he presented a wide array of scholarly writings emphasizing how some Muslim scholars and politicians adopted Islam as a distinct source of values, fundamentals and practices with regard to international relations’ phenomena and realities (Abdelkader et al., 2016).
While previous studies presented extensive analysis about the necessity and the possibility of developing an Islamic IR theory that complements the dominant Western sources, they presented Islam as a unique political thought without developing an Islamic conceptual framework that interacts with Western theories. In the subsequent section, this chapter sheds the light on how Sayyid Qutb and Ahmet Davutoğlu managed to conceal this deficiency by constructing Islamic operational concepts based on constructivist premises.
This section examines Qutb’s and Davutoğlu’s Islamic worldview that provides operational concepts for IR based on four components borrowed from constructivism: collective identity, common interest, shared knowledge and practice. Both thinkers are addressed together because of their argumentative and normative sameness in addressing international relations. Before tackling their contributions, the national and international contexts that influenced their views are explored first.
Starting with Sayyid Qutb, Egyptian national politics and bipolarity in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s played a major role in shaping Qutb’s views. With Qutb being an Arabic teacher and a journalist for a liberal newspaper before joining the Muslim Brotherhood, his inclination towards mixing Islamic jurisprudence with politics was rarely observed. Although his remarkable shift towards Islamism was attributed to his experience in prison during Gamal Abdel Nasser’s rule (1954–1970), Qutb’s visit to the US for studying schools’ curricula from 1948 till 1951 constituted a turning point that has strongly shaped his intellect and ideological reference (Bouzid, 1998). This visit ignited a rigorous Islamic consciousness in him that dominated his passion for poetry, literature and politics in his writings. From 1948 onwards, Qutb’s writings addressed Islamic thoughts in all walks of life in an assertive and unapologetic tone rejecting all aspects of Western civilization and calling for an immediate Islamic reform. This visit brought to his mind the necessity of reconsidering the premises of Western civilization in light of the post–Second World War economic and socio-political changes, ideological polarization between the communist and capitalist camps and the prevailing consumerism and materialism that marked Qutb’s consciousness.
After joining the Muslim Brotherhood in the early 1950s and the interruption of the short-lived political cooperation between Nasser and the Brothers, Qutb’s political thoughts have remarkably emphasized the unbreakable tie between Islam and politics, notably in establishing an Islamic ruling (Mahomed, 2016). After an assassination attempt on Nasser, the regime carried out a large wave of mass arrests among the Brothers’ high- and middle-ranking figures who were condemned to prison and some of them to death. In 1954 and 1965, Qutb, alongside thousands of Brothers, was sent to prison for being charged with plotting against national unity, conspiring with British colonizers and leading threatening underground activities in an attempt to control wide grass-roots support for the Brothers. From 1965, Qutb was imprisoned for the second time and tortured until his execution in 1966. During his imprisonment, Qutb emphasized the centrality and superiority of the Islamic model as a religious, moral and legal order in many of his writings. In Social Justice in Islam (1948), Problems in the Western Civilization (1951) and Signposts in the Road (1964) Qutb has criticized Western civilization. He underlined the “destructive” nature of Western civilization materiality and its “deprivation” of morality as manifested during the Cold War and the bipolar confrontations.
Also, torture in Nasser’s prisons had a non-negligible effect on the formulation of “al hakimiyya” as demonstrated in Qutb’s book Signposts in the Road. Not only did this experience lead to a strong resentment towards the West but also favoured the metamorphosis of a strong Islamic belonging and ideological reference in all walks of life, notably politics (Bouzid, 1998). In this book, Islam was presented as an antagonist worldview and ideological reference to the materialistic Western civilization. It was underlined as the best solution that every nation, including the West, has to opt to in order to end with the state of war, man’s sovereignty and materiality that are ruining humanity around the world.
Alongside Qutb’s commitment to the formulation of an Islamic paradigm, Ahmet Davutoğlu presented another attempt at producing an Islamic worldview in IR. Brought up in the conservative city of Konya in Central Anatolia, Davutoğlu developed an academic career as a political science scholar in both Malaysia and Istanbul on which he built an expertise in IR (Gözaydın, 2013). This background equipped him with the necessary tools to develop a critical Islamic IR approach acting as an alternative worldview in world affairs.
Davutoğlu’s contribution was strongly influenced by instabilities in Turkish politics and the post–Cold War unipolar order. With regard to national politics, being from a conservative background, Davutoğlu and his political views were strongly influenced by the dominant secular–Islamic dichotomy in Turkish politics. For him, not only did this dichotomy prevent the crystallization of a democratic system in Turkey, but it also deprived the country from investing its geopolitical and economic assets in the formulation of an active foreign policy (Davutoğlu, 2001). His academic expertise and critical views towards the army domination on national politics paved the way for his affiliation to the Justice and Development Party (JDP), the ruling party with an Islamic background, and his appointment as a diplomatic advisor to both the president and prime minister in foreign affairs since 2002.
On the other hand, the 1990s constituted a turning point in the formulation of Davutoğlu’s alternative paradigm as a worldview inspired by Islamic norms (Davutoğlu, 1993). During this decade, the Islamic–secular polarization led to successive governmental instabilities and the post–Cold War order produced a power vacuum in world politics, asserted US hegemony and entrenched the third world marginalization. The end of bipolarity was manifested by the disintegration of the Soviet Union into independent countries, the independence of Central Asian Republics, the East European shift towards Liberalism and the eruption of conflicts in the Balkans where Muslim minorities live. In response to these changes, in 1993, Davutoğlu wrote a book titled Alternative Paradigms: The Impact of Islamic and Western Weltanschauungs on Political Theory. In this book, he formulated an Islamic worldview to reconsider the domination of the Western normative and legal premises on the global order and to include Muslim countries at the centre of world affairs. Following this book, Davutoğlu called for the reconsideration of Turkey’s foreign policy and the development of an active diplomacy reflecting the essence of alternative paradigms. In 2001, he wrote Strategic Depth: Turkey’s Role and Position on the International Scene, where he presented a vision for the investment of Turkey’s vast geography and rich history in the formulation of an active diplomacy on the regional and international levels.
Since the JDP ascension to power in 2002, Davutoğlu formulated a Turkish foreign policy in accordance with an Islamic worldview, referred to as “Neo-Ottoman principles.” Based on his critiques of Western civilization’s “dominant” normative foundations and “unjust” practices, he denoted the importance of rectifying the normative and legal deficiencies of the global order. Also, he underlined the necessity of adopting an Islamic civilizational paradigm through the implementation of strategic depth in Turkey’s foreign policy (Davutoğlu, 2001). Strategic depth manifests a Turkish–Islamic synthesis, highlighting the importance of the Islamic culture and norms in enhancing Turkey’s position on the international level. Besides, it considers the Ottoman legacy as the main source of its relations with neighbours on the regional level.
Both Qutb’s and Davutoğlu’s contributions created an inter-subjective worldview that reflected an Islamic collective identity and highlighted a common interest in adopting an Islamic paradigm to ensure a better position for Muslims in world politics. Their emphasis on the presence of an Islamic collective identity emanated from a dual consciousness that triggered common interest in establishing a communitarian Islamic worldview as an alternative IR theory. The first one is the assertion of Islam’s cultural and normative superiority over the existing civilizational norms and the second is the awareness of the negative aspects of the Western domination in IR both as a discipline and a practice. Their point of departure in highlighting collective identity and common interest was their emphasis on the “superiority” of Islam as a normative and legal framework in opposition to the domination of Western civilization in contemporary world politics. For them, there is a common interest in adopting Islam as an emancipatory framework that liberates Muslim nations and individuals all over the world from the vices of Western civilization and its dominant aspects.
In this regard, Qutb posed Islamic civilization as the sole model of development that would claim cultural and normative superiority over Western paradigm. He considered Islam as the righteous, divine and perfect system for any society in contrast to the Western model as indicated in his books the Battle between Islam and Capitalism (1951), Islam and Universal Peace (1951), Social Justice in Islam (1948) and Islam and the Problems of Civilization (1962). In these books, notably Islam and the Problems of Civilization, he depicted Western civilization as a deteriorating model that led to humanity’s destruction and moral degradation. He questioned the ontological foundations of Western civilization by denouncing the domination of science as a positive normative paradigm of development. He asserted that science is an ontological foundation with limited ability in explaining the reason for existence. Because of its material nature, lack of morality and adoption of deduction as a methodology for reasoning, Western civilization is not able to depict the world’s transcendental aspects such as human beings’ nature, mission and psychology, in addition to the origin of existence. He added that materialism, as a dominant feature in Western civilization and a founding basis of its epistemology in deducing regulatory norms, has suppressed humanity. It prevented the West from keeping up with changes and understanding the different humanitarian needs and universal aspects. In Social Justice in Islam, Qutb asserted this assumption and warned against dominant materiality in Western civilization that is, according to him, reflected in the struggle between communism and capitalism over power since the end of the Second World War.
In his book Alternative Paradigms, Davutoğlu highlighted the ontological and epistemological contrast between the Islamic and Western models of civilization in their perception of space, time, man’s relation to knowledge, nature, God and others. Accordingly, civilizations are classified in the following prototypes: strong and rigid, strong and flexible, strong and local, weak and rigid and weak and flexible. By identifying the Muslim and Western civilizations to a strong and flexible prototype and a strong and rigid one, respectively, Davutoğlu underlined the need for an Islamic approach that acts as an alternative paradigm in order to enrich the global order premises and inspire states’ foreign policies.
According to Davutoğlu, the international practice is influenced by the Western unequal perception of space that distinguishes between a privileged centre and a submitted disadvantaged periphery (Davutoğlu, 1993). This distinction marginalized the Muslim community through various control mechanisms, such as exploitation, opportunity hoarding, emulation and adaptation that sustained differences among nations. The US hegemonic order led to the entrenchment of a binary structure in international relations: the intra-textuality versus the extra-textuality that reflected two distinct worlds with different hierarchical relationships. The first refers to Western societies dominated by liberal assumptions emanating from their self-referential paradigm, and the other is the Muslim world dominated by realistic assumptions imposed by the global order exigencies. The self-referential standards of the European model of state maintained this inequality by controlling access to the source of values and to solutions for problems on the basis of a categorical system of closure, exclusion and control. It resulted in categorical institutions, such as the Convention of Human Rights, peace treaties and gender empowerment provisions, as submissive tracks that reduced states’ capacity of choice and power. In opposition to this “unfair” conception of space, Davutoğlu indicated that by considering the Muslim civilization norms, the notion of space would gain a more homogeneous and egalitarian dimension.
In opposition to the Western linear view of history, Davutoğlu introduced Islam as an alternative vision. While Western civilization claims its monopoly over time based on its achievements in science, technology and other fields, the Islamic civilization asserts that man has no influence on time but deploys the necessary effort to improve his condition. In his article “Conflict of Interest: An Explanation of World Disorder,” Davutoğlu criticized Fukuyama’s end-of-history theory and its tenets about the supremacy of European values by underlining their inability to adapt to religious and ethnic diversities and sensitivities (Davutoğlu, 1998). He added that man’s relationship to knowledge in the Muslim civilization is not based on one source. Unlike Western civilization, which solely relies on science in the interpretation of world reality, the Muslim civilization acknowledges the complementary relation between revealed (faith-based) and rational knowledge. Following his condemnation of the Western domination on IR theories and politics, Davutoğlu emphasized the necessity to consider the norms and traditions of the majority of people in the world who don’t live in the West and to develop a complementary framework that conceals the global order’s deficiencies. He advocated for the reconsideration of the international order institutions, especially the UN. The aim is to develop collective security mechanisms that effectively deal with what he called “the global powers adventurism strategy” and to ensure peaceful coexistence among different cultures and ethnicities without domination.
Man’s relationship to nature in the Muslim civilization is based on the responsibility to protect, which is, according to Davutoğlu, different than the West’s, which legitimizes man’s domination and exploitation of nature. As for man’s relationship to God, it is integral and harmonious in the Muslim civilization as human self-perception is inseparable from God’s perception (Davutoğlu, 1993). However, this is no longer the case in Western civilization where state substitutes for divine centrality in the individual’s self-perception, lifestyle and worldview. In this regard, Davutoğlu developed a further critique of the modern state as the main material premise of Western civilization. For him, challenging modern state through the production of an alternative paradigm is related to the fact that IR theories are based on modern state speech and practices that limit political action. They resulted in an unjust international order based on the respect of sovereign states as a colonial strategy of encirclement in a challenging global order where what is applied to Western states is not to others, notably Muslim ones. Therefore, states, by adopting the Islamic paradigm, should be able to disseminate moral and religious values, influence the global structure and adapt to its provisions. Starting from the national level and the contestation of the modern state foundations, Davutoğlu called for a change in the systemic order on the political, economic and social levels in order to enhance its organizational structure in terms of resource allocation and attainment of favourable conditions. As a result, interchangeability follows between the abandon of absolute power in space management and nonterritoriality as a strategic and geopolitical reality that increases state capacity to exceed the system limits and to introduce new principles.
As for the relationship between men, Davutoğlu asserted that Western civilization doesn’t grant equal status to all individuals contrary to Islam, which perceives all human beings on one ontological equal status in the absolute. He added that this inequality in Western civilization is reflected in the global order where Western nations have privileged political and economic status and adopt biased policies vis-à-vis other nations (Davutoğlu, 1993). Accordingly, the New World Order established since the end of the Cold War has solidified the US hegemony, stigma-tized cultural and civilizational differences and monopolized them. Islamic threat has been manipulated by the US and the Western world to justify cultural domination and ensure the persistence of the established order. According to him, this order was reluctant to deploy the UN’s collective security mechanisms to prevent ethnic cleansing against Muslim Bosnians in Europe. For Davutoğlu, this reluctance showed to what extent the West welcomed ethnic cleansing against Muslims in Europe, which incited him to criticize the ideological categorizations propelled by the US favouring Western civilization over the rest of the world.
Qutb and Davutoğlu emphasized the presence of a collective Islamic identity tied to a communitarian consciousness of Islamic superiority and the drawbacks of Western domination. This incited a common interest for developing an alternative Islamic paradigm in IR. Both thinkers presented an Islamic worldview as a shared knowledge that provides a practice for Muslim societies in resistance to Western domination through the introduction of two operational concepts “al hakimiyya” and “alternative paradigms.”
Qutb developed “al hakimiyya” as the operational concept of his theory about man, society and knowledge. He conceived this concept as a normative framework that constitutes a “shared knowledge” among those who seek salvation and ultimate happiness. To achieve this aim, al hakimiyya incites people to follow human instinct “fitra”2 by obeying God’s commands as a permanent “practice” to move from the ignorant “jahili” society in which they live to the moral order of the Muslim society (Qutb, 1964). Denying the progress of knowledge from antiquity to the revelation era, Qutb criticized Muslim societies of his time by comparing them to the pre-Islamic order of “jahilliyya,” where the absence of God’s worship and disobedience to divine teachings led to the prevalence of an immoral and vicious society. In this regard, he presented al hakimiyya as a model vision of Islamic governance based on the rule of Sharia where the ruler is only abiding by the Islamic jurisprudence to establish a just order.
Qutb conceived the notion of al hakimiyya based on his theory of man, society and knowledge that articulates the “practices” that have to be followed to create and sustain an obedient Muslim society. For him, man has an instinct “fitra” that compels him to accept the reality of belief by acting out the word of God as revealed in the Quran and transmitted by the Prophet’s sayings and the “Sira.”3 Thus, it is through fitra that man would understand himself and his nature. By respecting these instinct impulses, man would reach a balanced state of happiness since by following God’s regulations and norms, man will act good towards nature and will not violate it. From the idea of respecting fitra stems man’s freedom of action according to the all-encompassing will of God. As a result, individuals’ will become the means for fulfilling and implementing God’s will and creating a society of believers where man can reach the ultimate level of happiness.
By asserting in Signposts in the Road that the moral and religious rejuvenation of any society is the only way for its salvation, Qutb articulated the “Islamic solution” for setting the right course for every nation. He emphasized Islam as the true universal order that ensures a balance between materiality and spirituality and indicated that the civilizing mission is dedicated to all mankind for nations’ salvation. For the development of an Islamic society, the growing Islamic community has to be isolated from the prevailing jahili order where nominal Muslims live in nominally Muslim countries with nominal Muslim rulers. Once this community grows stronger, it has to struggle for the implementation of the Islamic norms in society. In contrast with Social Justice in Islam, where Qutb called for a gradual reform and change, in Signposts in the Road, he called for a struggle against sedition fitna through the cultivation of right religious belief, the removal of obstacles in the way of fulfilling oneself and exhortation. He asserted that the establishment of an Islamic order won’t happen unless society adopts the means of original success, which are the use of human capabilities to follow divine instructions and their fulfilment by any means. Thus, man has to follow fitra through the belief in his conscience and action to accomplish the human mission on earth as the caretaker of God’s creation since belief incites man to act towards definite goals in compliance with God’s instructions.
Qutb also conceived Islam as a form of revolution “the ultimate world paradigm shift” that aims to radically change societies from jahilliyya that manifests itself in an Islamic society dominated by a corrupt order to the Islamic society. Through al hakimiyya, he aimed to reinstate God’s authority as the sole means for ensuring human happiness and to assert that man can’t forgo God’s guidance in life, otherwise, dignity denigration and cruelty would result. He criticized states’ hegemony over citizens by questioning states’ authority and prerogatives. Human beings are central to Islam as a worldview and a social paradigm that is compatible with anything that brings happiness to humanity. However, the ontological difference between humans and other creatures, on one side, and God, on the other, implies man’s obedience and submission to God. Accordingly, man, starting from rulers, should acknowledge his inability to realize self-fulfillment without God’s guidance because of human mysterious nature, its need to trust in God and to learn that the purpose in life is to act good.
As for Davutoğlu, he introduced the concept of “alternative paradigms” as a normative framework that resists Western domination in international relations, notably US hegemony in the global order. He conceived alternative paradigms as a “shared knowledge” that gave birth to “strategic depth” that should inspire Muslim nations in order to revive their self-perception and alleviate global injustice inflicted on them. Through alternative paradigms, Davutoğlu called for the revival of the Muslim world “Region of Old Civilizations” that is subject to competition among Western powers because of its geostrategic importance and possession of eight strategic straits controlling vital sea passages (Davutoğlu, 1994b). This region that extends from the northern Caucasus to Kuwait and the southern region of Central Asia manifests a homogeneous cultural continuity where borders don’t reflect its communitarian reality. It also has an unfavourable position in the current world order where it is deprived of the capacity to formulate an anti-systemic strategy that challenges the Western world.
Inspired by Ibn Khaldun in his analysis of nations’ consciousness, Davutoğlu underlined the necessity of developing an Islamic paradigm in IR based on the individual self-perception and the formulation of a shared worldview within a community. He formulated “alternative paradigms” starting from a psychological perspective that goes deeper into communitarian bonds to understand individual self-perception as the main element of the community’s self-perception and civilizational revival. Psychology, according to Davutoğlu, is the starting point for building civilizations since it develops the community social order from the ontological paradigm anchored in each civilization (Davutoğlu, 1993). Through his ontology as a human being, the individual develops a worldview and shares it with others as a common self-perception to be later integrated into the self-perception of a collectively developed civilization. Based on the ontological foundation of civilization in creating a worldview, individuals create a consolidated self-perception that is disseminated over the time within society. The community’s intellectual reproduction emerges through the individual’s psychological ontology and sociological ontology on the historical level. The first ontology answers the questions, Who I am? and What do I represent? By answering these two questions, continuity will be established among nations in the Region of Old Civilizations “kadim medeniyet” and will evolve into a communitarian sense of belonging.
This paradigm would increase communitarian consciousness and positively affect the nation’s internal and external behaviour (Davutoğlu, 1994b). According to Davutoğlu, every nation develops a self-narration to conceptualize its relations with others in conformity with its perception of strategic importance and cultural specificity against a hegemonic domination. By addressing the interaction between religion and culture, Davutoğlu contended that, based on the dominant culture’s idioms, nations produce and perpetuate power relations and adopt a speech favouring the emergence of a hegemonic assabiyya4 and counter-narrations based on religious nationalism. It is a community renaissance that aims to review people’s identity, thoughts, history and experience. Every nation has priorities, agendas, interests and views expressed by a narrative and a conceptual design that act as a language used to express, represent and reflect the community’s worldview. Facing each nation’s priorities, data are organized, ordered and interpreted differently among nations about international and global issues. In this sense, Western and Islamic classical traditions have differently acknowledged similar issues, such as war, peace, security, order, power, the international system and state role.
Based on this view, Davutoğlu asserted that the permanent transformation of civilizations through openness and adaptation towards a new synthesis of their ontological and sociological foundations makes them persist (Davutoğlu, 1993, 1994a). Accordingly, there is continuity in history that was interrupted by waves of colonization in the 19th century. In this sense, civilizations have a life cycle. First come self-perception formulation and development through interaction with other civilizations, then its expansion until reaching the peak of its intellectual originality and paradigmatic consolidation on the political level. Once intellectual expansion stops and turns into a political paradigm, civilizations start witnessing the beginning of their decline.
Davutoğlu underlined that both the Islamic and Western civilizations started to decline during the Ottoman era and by the end of the 20th century, respectively, because of their intellectual stagnation and ideological saturation as an uncontested political paradigm. From the stage of maturity and stability, Western civilization went into intellectual stagnation and became a politically uncontested paradigm, which signalled both the peak of civilization, notably its superiority, and the beginning of its decline. The same was confirmed about the Muslim civilization. Davutoğlu distinguished between two periods in the modernization of Muslim societies: the premature period of modernization and the civilizational resurrection that took place at the beginning and at the end of the 20th century, respectively (Davutoğ lu, 1994b). During the first period, Muslim modernizers aimed to preserve their Islamic identity against colonizers. However, this position was reconsidered during the second period by the adoption of secularization as the main trajectory of political development. In response to the failure of secularization, the ontological and existential historical facts of the Islamic civilization have strongly emerged.
In light of this analysis, Davutoğlu rejected any hierarchy or classification among civilizations that has no raison d’être since they should engage in a process of exchange based on normative interdependence. He contested Western centrality, as the only predominant world civilization, and considered it an illusion levered to trigger a crisis in the peripheries’ self-perception. Unlike pragmatic postulates put forward by Western intellectuals about the conversion of civilizations to the Western model, Davutoğlu contended that civilizations’5 authenticity – thanks to its core – sustains and persists (Davutoğlu, 1993). This core is the self-perception, the foundation of an intellectual prototype, and is based on a worldview: “Weltanschauung.” In this sense, for a civilization to be eliminated, it is necessary to destroy its self-perception and Weltanschauung and replace them with new ones. Civilizations’ power resides in maintaining a link between self-perception and lifestyle, in other words, “Lebenswelt,” which is the meaning of life.
To overcome the Islamic paradigm’s intellectual crisis, Davutoğlu highlighted the need to develop new ethics in a new intellectual framework conceiving classical and fundamental principles. For this purpose, he coined the notion of strategic depth as a practice derived from his theory of “alternative paradigms” in order to enable Turkey to contribute to the formulation of a new paradigm for the Muslim civilization (Davutoğlu, 2001). Strategic depth consists of the investment of Turkey’s Ottoman history and cultural legacy shared with neighbours and the adoption of a multi-dimensional policy that equally interacts with neighbours, Western allies and new partners in Asia, Africa and Latin America. It reconsiders Turkey’s geography and history and stipulates the implementation of five principles in its foreign policy: multidimensionality, zero problems with neighbours, economic interdependence, political dialogue and rhythmic policy.
The adoption of this practice in Turkey’s foreign policy enables Turkey to restore its self-confidence and Islamic self-perception (Dağı, 2005). According to Davutoğlu, Turkey, as a “torn state,” would give the example of a country that overcame the state of crisis by capitalizing on its central position, socio-economic and cultural assets and multi-identity character. It would also revive communitarianism in the Region of Old Civilizations as a direct critique to Westernization and secularization in Muslim states. Through the investment of history and geography and the reconsideration of modernization that was imposed on its society, strategic depth enables Turkey to account for its capabilities, role and position in a changing international conjuncture (Davutoğlu, 2008). In light of its position between different zones of influence, hinterland, the source of its diversified ethnicity and Islamic legacy, it would look forward to becoming a central state by acting as a regional power and global actor.
Through the metamorphosis of strategic depth as a practice in Turkey’s foreign policy, the aim is to highlight the possibility of recreating the Muslim community as part of a transnational dynamic that transcends the Western nation-state model, forges collective consciousness on the identity and socio-cultural levels and bypasses ethnic and national differences. It also strives to create a historical responsibility among Turkish decision makers with regard to neighbouring regions where Turkey can intervene and act according to strategic depth principles for assistance, conflict resolution and the development of interdependence mechanisms.
As Islam became a global issue in international politics and contemporary world affairs, this chapter highlights two attempts of presenting an Islamic alternative paradigm in IR. It elaborated political thoughts that constituted the main drives of action for various actors and states and that acquired a transnational dimension in response to global injustice. One example is the emergence of violent transnational Islamic actors, such as the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, as a worldwide influential phenomenon that paved the way for the consideration of religious values, notably Islamic ones, in world politics.
Although many studies emphasized the need for a non-Western theory in order to understand world affairs and interpret its dynamics, Islamic thoughts lacked conceptualization and didn’t interact with the existing body of Western theories. They didn’t present complementary frameworks and concepts for a better understanding of international practices that Western theories were unable to depict or interpret.
Sayyid Qutb and Ahmet Davutoğlu were the only thinkers who provided operational concepts inspired by an Islamic normative framework while drawing on the four pillars of constructivism. Al hakimiyya and alternative paradigms presented a normative worldview and an operational concept for how Islam perceives world politics and interprets Western domination in world politics through globalization, international institutions, power structure and nation-state. They presented an alternative worldview and a contrasting normative foundation based on an Islamic self-consciousness, collective identity and a common interest in providing a complementary epistemology that constitutes a shared knowledge and provides perpetual practices among individuals and nations. By developing a collective identity and triggering a common interest in the formulation of an Islamic normative framework and operational concepts that constitute a shared knowledge and practice for Muslim nations, both Qutb and Davutoğlu interacted with the existing body of Western theories and borrowed analytical tools from constructivism.
1 States’ identity refers to their self-perception, conception of their roles, values, norms and references while interests mean the goals and ends they strive to achieve on the international level. When states interact together based on their self-perception and in light of their goals, they develop a shared knowledge, which is an understanding of values, norms and principles that they should abide by in their practices, interactions and foreign policies.
2 Fitra is an Arabic word that means “human instinct”/“intuition.”
3 Sira is an Arabic word used for the various traditional Muslim biographies of the Prophet Muhammad.
4 Assabiyya is the Arabic word coined by that stands for the psychological bond connecting a community together based on a common worldview, values, norms, interests and identity.
5 According to Davutoğlu, civilization is a nation’s cognitive production based on a common identity (self-perception), values and norms that are reflected into practices and actions within the community and with other nations.
Abdelkader, D., Adiong, N. M. and Mauriello, R. (2016). Islam and International Relations: Contributions to Theory and Practice. London: Palgrave.
Acharya, A. and Buzan, B. (2010). Why Is There No Non Western International Relations Theory? An Introduction in A. Acharya and B. Buzan, eds., Non-Western International Relations Theory Perspectives on and Beyond Asia. London: Routledge, pp. 1–25.
Adiong, N. (2013). International Relations and Islam Introduction in N. M. Adiong, ed., International Relations and Islam: Diverse Perspectives. NewCastle-Upon-Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 1–8.
Adler, E. (1997). Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics. European Journal of International Relations, (3), pp. 319–364.
Bouzid, A. (1998). Man, Society and Knowledge in the Islamist Discourse of Sayyid Qutb. Blacksburg, VA: The Virginia Polytechnic Institute.
Dağı, I. (2005). Transformation of Islamic Political Identity in Turkey. Turkish Studies, 1(6), pp. 21–37.
Davutoğ lu, A. (1993). Alternative Paradigms: The Impact of Islamic and Western Weltanschauungs on Political Theory. Lanham-New York-London: University Press of America.
Davutoğ lu, A. (1994a). End of History or Civilizational Transformation and the Muslim World. Istanbul: Bilim ve Sanat Vakfi.
Davutoğ lu, A. (1994b). The Civilizational Transformation and the Muslim World. Kuala Lumpur: Mahir Publications.
Davutoğ lu, A. (1998). The Clash of Interests: An Explanation of the World (Dis)order. Perceptions: Journal of International Affairs, 2(4), available at: http://sam.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/AhmetDavutoglu3.pdf
Davutoğ lu, A. (2001). Strategik Derinlik: Turkiye’nin Uluslararası Konumu [Strategic Depth: Turkey’s Role and Position on the International Scene]. Istanbul: Küre Yayınları.
Davutoğ lu, A. (2008). Turkey’s Foreign Policy Vision: An Assessment of 2007. Insight Turkey, 10(1), pp. 68–97.
Deutsch, K., Burrell, S., Kann, R. and Lee, M. (1957). Political Community and the North Atlantic Area. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Finnemore, M. (1996). National Interest in International Society. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Gözaydın, I. (2013). Ahmet Davutoğlu: Role of an Islamic Scholar in Shaping Turkey’s Foreign Policy in N. M. Adiong, ed., International Relations and Islam: Diverse Perspectives. NewCastle-Upon-Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 91–110.
Mohomed, C. (2016). “The Parting of the Ways”: A Qutbian Approach to International Relations in D. Abdelkader, N. M. Adiong, and R. Mauriello, eds., Islam and International Relations. London, UK: Palgrave, pp. 165–183.
Popper, K. (1982). The Place of Mind in Nature in R. Elvee, ed., Mind in Nature. San Francisco: Harper and Row, pp. 31–59.
Qutb, S. (1948). Social Justice in Islam. New York: Octagon Books.
Qutb, S. (1951). Islam and Universal Peace. Oak Brook, IL: American Trust Publications.
Qutb, S. (1951). Maaraqa bayn al-Islam wal Raasmaliya [The Battle between Islam and Capitalism]. Beirut: Dar al-Shuruq.
Qutb, S. (1962). Al Islam wa Musshqilat ul-Hadara [Islam and The Problems of Civilization]. Beirut: Dar al-Shuruq.
Qutb, S. (1964). Maalim fil Tariq [Signposts in the Road]. Qom: Dar al-Kitaab al-Islami.
Sabet, A. (2008). Islam and the Political, Theory, Governance and International Relations. London: Pluto Press.
Tadjbakhsh, S. (2010). International Relations Theory and the Islamic Worldview in A. Acharya and B. Buzan, eds., Non-Western International Relations Theory Perspectives on and Beyond Asia. London: Routledge, pp. 174–196.
Wendt, A. (1987). The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory. International Organization, 41(3), pp. 335–370.
Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics. International Organization, 46(2), pp. 391–425.
Wendt, A. (1995). Constructing International Politics. International Security, 20(1), pp. 71–81.