Article in International Studies · April 018 doi: 10. 1177/0020881718790687 citations reads 4,427 author: Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects

The Road to IR Theories: Western versus Islamic 

Robert Cox drew wide intellectual attention by stating that theorizations take place in specific 

historical contexts and every theory has a specific purpose – to facilitate, promote and defend the 

interests of the country of the theorist(s) in question (in this case a powerful or the most powerful 

state). He asserted: “Theory is always for someone and for some purpose” (Cox 1981, p. 128) 

and was specifically referring to the Western positivist and universalist IR theories of 

realism/neorealism and liberalism/neoliberalism, which apparently appear neutral but inherently 

seek to sustain the power, interests and dominance of the West over the non-West (Acharya and 

Buzan 2010, p. 3

)

. Cox attempted to counter them by introducing readers to his own brand of 

critical theory in IR, built on Marxian and Gramscian thoughts. Cox’s axiom equally applies to 

non-Western international theories, including Islamic IR theories, though this latter category of 

theories largely shuns reason and positivism but still claims to be universal theories.  The Qur’an 

declares Islam a universal religion with its distinct codes of ethics, morality and laws to be 

applicable to all humans in the world. The political ideas that historically developed in tandem 

with the religious teachings of Islam have hence a clear universalist claim reflected in Islam’s 

basic worldview, a view that has sought, and still seeks, to establish an Islamic state by bringing 

all Muslims (the umma) within its fold to fully implement Sharia, expand the Islamic moral 

order globally and reestablish Islam as a global force to lead the world (

Khan 2004)

.  

 

Both Western and Islamic IR theories, with their respective universalist claims, are premised on 

their distinctive ontological foundations and epistemological approaches conditioned by their 

historical and cultural contexts. Western IR theories take the nation-state as a given – the basic 

ontological foundation and focuses on how states interact with each other and how the 

international system affects state behavior. Basic concepts that shape and govern this interactive 

behavior are the concepts of power, national interests and balance of power. In the process, 

Western IR has developed a secular character with an emphasis on scientific reasoning and a bias 

for positivistic approaches to explain the matrices of interstate relations, though in the last two to 

---

6 

 

three decades the positivism-inspired scientific endeavors have come under serious scholarly 

scrutiny (See, for example, George 1994; Lapid 1989; Peterson 1992; Smith, Booth and 

Zalewski 2002). Islamic IR theories, in contrast, do not recognize the states as independent units; 

Islam accepts and acts on the concept of the whole world as a single order and attempts to define 

and order relations between the Muslims and the non-Muslims from a systemic perspective. That 

means the Islamic worldview emphasizes an inside/outside division of the world – the inside is 

the Dar Al Islam (abode of peace) and the outside is dubbed Dar Al Harb (abode of conflict/war) 

(Bsoul 2007).  

 

Islamic jurists and scholars differ on the exact nature and patterns of relationships between the 

two abodes of Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb; they have principally developed two distinct 

approaches – traditional and modernist on this issue over the course of hundreds of years of 

Islamic history, with the violent anti-West jihadist perspective being a recent addition. In Islamic 

IR theories, according to the traditional approach and the jihadist perspective, there is no scope 

for positivistic traditions, the state and religion are inseparable, and the primary sources of 

knowledge are the Qur’an and the Hadiths (sayings and practices of Prophet Muhammad) – the 

ontological base of Islamic IR theories. The modernist approach, in contrast, accommodates 

scientific reasoning and is open to encounters with other civilizations while remaining committed 

to the original texts. Below I explain how historical and cultural contexts have conditioned the 

distinct evolution and development of the ontological and epistemological approaches of the 

Western and Islamic IR theories and how they maintain their differentness propped up by their 

respective theoretical traditions.