A Philosophical Inquiry into the Limits of Constructing Western-Centric International Relations Theory in Islam

This study investigates whether Islam can develop a Western-centric modern international relations (IR) theory from a philosophical perspective. Employing Stephen Toulmin's model of argumentation, it examines the ontological, epistemological, methodological, and axiological disparities between Islamic and Western paradigms. It explores whether Islamic thought, rooted in tawhid (the unity of God) and revelation-based epistemology, can align with the secular, rationalist, and materialist assumptions underpinning Western IR theories. Ultimately, the study identifies significant theoretical incompatibilities while highlighting how Islamic principles might contribute to global discussions on justice, equality, and pluralism. Unlike conventional research, this study employs a philosophy-based argumentative approach. Toulmin's model -consisting of claim, data, warrant, backing, rebuttal, and qualifier- analyzes the theoretical underpinnings of both paradigms. Toulmin's model of argumentation consists of six key elements: claim, which represents the central point of the argument; data, the evidence supporting the claim; warrant, the logical bridge connecting the data to the claim; backing, additional information reinforcing the warrant; rebuttal, addressing counterarguments; and qualifier, which indicates the strength of the claim. This model systematically examines the ontological, epistemological, methodological, and axiological foundations of Islamic and Western paradigms, highlighting their incompatibilities. These components are critical in understanding the conceptual frameworks and fundamental differences between Islamic and Western international relations theories. Central concepts in Western IR theories, such as the nation-state, sovereignty, and power, are compared with Islamic notions like ummah (community of believers), divine sovereignty, and moral power. These comparisons underscore the theoretical impossibility of integration. The study finds that Islam’s tawhid-centered ontology is inherently incompatible with the secular ontology of Western IR theories. While Islamic ontology emphasizes divine sovereignty and the interconnection of spiritual and material realms, Western theories prioritize state-centric and materialist paradigms. Similarly, Islamic epistemology, which integrates revelation (wahy) with reason (‘aql), contrasts sharply with Western empiricism and rationalism, which often exclude metaphysical dimensions. These foundational differences result in divergent interpretations of reality and approaches to addressing global challenges. Methodologically, Western IR theories are rooted in scientific positivism and post-positivism, emphasizing empirical observation and experimentation. In contrast, Islamic methodology relies on interpretation (ijtihad) of revelation and the sunnah (practices of the Prophet Muhammad). This divergence further reinforces the paradigmatic incompatibility. Axiologically, Islamic thought places morality and justice at its core, deriving values from divine principles. Western IR theories, however, often adopt value-neutral stances, prioritizing power and pragmatism over ethics. These axiological differences hinder seamless integration between the paradigms. The study critiques the Westphalian model, foundational to modern IR, which emphasizes state sovereignty, secular governance, and national interests. This model stands in stark contrast to Islam’s holistic governance approach, which prioritizes moral and ethical principles. Moreover, post-modern and post-secular IR theories advocating pluralism and relativism are inconsistent with Islam’s theocentric worldview and absolute moral values. Despite the impossibility of integration, the study highlights how Islamic principles can enrich discussions on justice, equity, and pluralism. For example, the Islamic concept of justice (adl) emphasizes fairness and responsibility, offering a moral framework for addressing power imbalances and economic disparities. By applying Toulmin’s model, the study demonstrates the structural and philosophical incompatibilities between the paradigms while identifying shared values such as justice, ethical governance, and pluralism as potential areas for collaboration. Although full integration is unattainable, these shared principles can foster dialogue between Islamic and post-secular frameworks and contribute meaningfully to global governance strategies. The study underscores the importance of evaluating Islamic political theory within its own framework rather than attempting to fit it into Western paradigms and calls for recognizing the unique contributions of Islamic values to international relations discourse.