Contemporary Islam 1 (1999), 1:1–13

SSttuuddiieess iinn CCoonntteemmppoorraarryy IIssllaamm Volume 1 Number 1 Spring 1999 SSttuuddiieess inn Coonntteemmppoorraarryy Issllaamm Editorial Advisory Board ZAFAR ISHAQ ANSARI SULAYMAN NYANG International Islamic University, Howard University Islamabad GABRIEL PALMER-FERNANDEZ RALPH BRAIBANTI Youngstown State University Duke University WILLIAM B. QUANDT FREDERICK M. DENNY University of Virginia University of Colorado, Boulder ABDULAZIZ SACHEDINA JOHN L. ESPOSITO University of Virginia Georgetown University ANWAR H. SIDDIQUI ALI A. MAZRUI Allama Iqbal Open University, State University of New York, Islamabad Binghamton JOHN E. WOODS SEYYED HOSSEIN NASR University of Chicago George Washington University Editors MUMTAZ AHMAD MUSTANSIR MIR © 1999 Center for Islamic Studies, Youngstown State University Contents Articles Paradigm Shifts in Muslim International Relations Discourse 1 Farhang Rajaee Understanding the Political Behavior of Islamists: The Implications of Socialization, Modernization, and Rationalist Approaches 14 Anas B. Malik Redeeming the Nation: Redemption Theology in African-American Islam 29 Timur Yuskaev Jailhouse Religion: The Challenge of Corrections to the American Muslim Community 62 Frederick M. Denny and the Late Olga Scarpetta Democracy on Trial in Malaysia 72 Mumtaz Ahmad Book Reviews Review Essay History of Bangladesh: In Search of a More Flexible Narrative Prasenjit Duara, Rescuing History from the Nation: Questioning Narratives of Modern China and India; Joya Chatterji, Bengal Divided: Hindu Communalism and Partition 1932–47; Richard M. Eaton, The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier 1204–1760; Peter Van der Veer, Religious Nationalism: Hindus and Muslims in India. 82 By M. Rashiduzzaman Kenneth Cragg, Muhammad and the Christian and Jesus and the Muslim. 86 By Shabbir Akhtar i Bruce Lawrence, Defenders of God: The Fundamentalist Revolt Against the Modern Age and Shattering the Myth: Islam Beyond Violence. 90 By Thomas D. Tellner Omar Khalidi, Indian Muslims Since Independence. 97 By Theodore P. Wright, Jr. Abdulkader I. Tayob, Islamic Resurgence in South Africa: The Muslim Youth Movement. 99 By Imtiyaz Yusuf Mushtaqur Rahman and Guljan Rahman, Geography of the Muslim World 102 By Dilnawaz A. Siddiqui ii Studies in Contemporary Islam 1 (1999), 1:1–13 Paradigm Shifts in Muslim International Relations Discourse Farhang Rajaee* The fall of the Soviet Union, the rise of new international players, and, most important, the impact of globalization are significant indicators inviting scholars to reexamine the very foundations of the still prevalent Westphalian international system and its dominant theories. Until recently it was assumed that there was little or no international theorizing outside the Westphalian paradigm. It was under the spell of this paradigm that Kal Holsti in a recent survey of the sources used in the discipline in eight countries made the bold claim that “international theory barely exists outside the anglophone countries.”1 Considering the ontological assumptions of modernity and its polity, the modern state, this statement suggests that if a theory is not based on the concept of interest defined in terms of the atomized “self,” and, by implication, in terms of the independent, sovereign “state,” it may not be called a theory. But a careful reading of the Westphalian international theory reveals a built-in contradiction. On the one hand, the theory represents an exclusive approach because it takes into consideration only theories based on utilitarian rationality, ignoring other forms of rationality. On the other hand, it claims that modernity-based theories present eternal rules that have universal applicability. A different premise would, however, lead to a different conclusion. Fortunately, critical theories within the Western intellectual tradition rightly question the modernist discourse, criticizing it for overreliance on a particular construction.2 The present essay has a twofold purpose. First, it aims to show that non-Westphalian discourse, such as that of Islam, has produced sophisticated international relations theory. Second, it captures the current debate among Muslims on the same issue. The latter objective cannot be * Farhang Rajaee taught in Iran from 1985 to 1996, and currently is a Scholar-in-Residence in the College of the Humanities at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada. A draft of this paper was presented at the International Studies Association annual meeting of 1998 in Seattle, Washington. 1 K. J. Holsti, The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory (Boston: Allen, 1985), p. 127. 2 In revisiting the prevalent Westphalian international relations theories, Jim George brings out these basic presuppositions. See his Discourse of Global Politics: A Critical (Re)Introduction of International Relations (Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1994). 1 Studies in Contemporary Islam achieved without a proper appreciation of the evolution of the intellectual debates in Islamic history. Methodologically, the two aims are interconnected, and a comprehensive treatment of the state of the international Muslim discourse shows the sophisticated nature of non-Westphalian theorizing. Muslim debate over issues related to “international” and “foreign” affairs falls into three phases, the present being the last within a broader Islamic intellectual discourse. The first phase began after the Islamic polity reached a state of maturity and sophistication in the ninth century and was centered on the question of how this polity should interact with others. A comprehensive Shari‘a-based politics was formulated that not only regulated the life of its subjects within the boundaries of the polity but also had an elaborate set of rules for foreign relations and international politics. The juridical nature of the Islamic polity made its international relations (IR) theory, too, juridical in terms of a duality between “the abode of Islam” and “the abode of war.” The polity was, however, an inclusive one in that it was based on the “general interest” of humanity. Everyone, regardless of creed, had rights and duties within the bounds of the Shari‘a, and those rights and duties were properly balanced. This phase may be termed the phase of “Muslim politics,” occurring within the framework of a polity constructed in accordance with the Islamic revealed message. The second debate occurred as a result of the encounter of the Islamic world with modernity, particularly during the age when modernity and imperialism joined forces. Suffering a major setback in this encounter, the Islamic world lost its internal confidence. Modernity presented the centrifugal axis around which various trends emerged, ironically labeling themselves Islamic. Feeling that the totality of Islam was threatened, Muslims were mostly reactive in the general form, and even in the content, of their responses. This inaugurated the second debate, led to the flourishing of various Islamic movements, and contributed to the radicalization of Islamic international theory. The world was divided into two realms: one was the realm of Islamic revolutionaries and the other— comprising the rest of the world—of those living in a state of unbelief and decadence. Muslim politics was transformed into Islamic movement. The logic of the evolution of Muslim history not properly construed, this phenomenon was termed “Islamic fundamentalism,” “militant Islam,” “Islamic revival,” “Islamic menace,” and the “Islamic threat.” Then came the third debate, which, though still in its formative phase, is very significant. On the one hand, it gives evidence of the restoration of confidence in an important segment of the present Muslim world. On the other hand, it shows that Islamic revival has enormous potential for the formation of a renewed Islamic IR theory. The failure of secular ideologies on the one hand and the consequences of the globalization process, which encourages multiculturalism, multiplicity of voices, and the growth of a global open and civil society, on the other hand, have given this new debate an important momentum. The three sections of this paper outline the core concepts of each phase. 2 Rajaee: Paradigm Shifts I The First Debate Islam invites submission to a righteous way of life that is meant to regulate human beings’ life both in this world and in the hereafter. In both worlds or realms, the same objective is pursued—salvation. Indeed, throughout the Qur’an, the two worlds (ad-Dunya wa’l-Akhira) are cited together (for example, 2:130, 200, 220; 3:22, 45, 56, 145, 148). Unlike Christianity, which emphasizes orthodoxy, but like Judaism, Islam insists on orthopraxy—hence the centrality of the juridical approach to understanding the role of Islam in Muslim politics. But while Judaism is not a missionary religion, universalism constitutes one of the tenets of Islam. Islamic Law—the Shari‘a—is both comprehensive and universalistic. Any “Islamic polity” ought thus to be based on the Shari‘a. The Shari‘a consists of two main parts: acts of worship (‘Ibadat, which regulate human beings’ relation to God for the purpose of eternal salvation) and transactions (Mu‘amalat, which regulate human beings’ relations with one another, ensuring smooth conduct of worldly affairs and thus paving the way for eternal salvation). Both are devotional acts, whether one recites the Word of God or whether one makes a business transaction with another person. Herein lies the root of the overstated claim of the inseparability

Load more