Comparative Analysis of the Metatheoretical Foundations of Islamic International Relations Theory and Critical International Relations Theory

Abstract

Following the fourth debate, the field of International Relations has become deeply engaged in metatheorizing. Within this context, some scholars have emphasized the construction of universal theories, while others have focused on developing indigenous or civilizational-cultural theories. A third group has advocated for theoretical pluralism, considering both approaches to be compatible. One of the significant areas within this discourse has been the development of an Islamic civilization-based theory. Although this approach gained prominence after the rise of constructivist perspectives in the 1990s, it was Firouzabadi who, within the Persianate civilizational sphere, systematically formulated Islamic metatheory and gave special attention to Islamic International Relations theory. This occurred at a time when critical theories had established their position as alternatives to mainstream International Relations theories. The present study aims to compare Islamic International Relations theory with Critical International Relations theory. The central research question is: What are the key similarities and differences between these two theories at the metatheoretical level? Employing a qualitative research method, this study reviews and interprets relevant library-based sources. The findings indicate that the two theories share ten similarities and exhibit eight differences. While the quantitative balance between similarities and differences suggests near equivalence, a qualitative analysis reveals that the differences are relatively minor. It appears that Islamic International Relations theory encompasses nearly all the claims made by Critical International Relations theory—except for the notion of the international actor—and even extends beyond it. Moreover, from a teleological perspective, Islamic International Relations theory pursues broader and more comprehensive goals compared to Critical International Relations theory.