Comparative-Critical Study of the Western Foundations of State Independence in the International Order from the Perspective of Contemporary Islamic Political Philosophy

Introduction: The concept of state independence, as a fundamental pillar of international order, has historically been subject to evolution and reinterpretation. In the current transitional phase of the international system, critically examining its justificatory foundations is of paramount importance. While Western political thought has constructed a coherent secular framework for state sovereignty, it has rarely faced a foundational critique from an external philosophical tradition rooted in a distinct metaphysical worldview. The central problem is that the dominant secular conception of independence lacks the necessary capacity to establish a just global order and respond to the needs of civilizations based on spirituality. Hence, redefining independence not as a self-sufficient value but as a doctrinal concept and instrument in service of monotheistic ends is an unavoidable necessity. This article addresses this gap by proposing a comparative-critical study of the Western conceptual architecture of independence from the perspective of contemporary Islamic political philosophy. For alternative civilizational projects, such as the Islamic one, achieving meaningful agency in the international arena is contingent upon a radical redefinition of independence beyond its modern secular confines.

Methods: This study employs a comparative-critical textual analysis method in two sequential phases. First, through analytical-interpretative examination of key Western political, legal, and international relations texts, it identifies and extracts three principal conceptual justifications for state independence in the dominant Western discourse: national sovereignty as the legal foundation and guardian of collective identity; the right to self-determination as the source of popular legitimacy; and strategic efficacy within interdependence as the practical justification. In the second phase, adopting a confrontational-comparative approach, each of these pillars is subjected to a critical evaluation based on the core concepts of contemporary Islamic political philosophy—such as divine sovereignty, doctrinal independence, justice as the ultimate aim of governance, duty-centricity versus right-centricity, and the negation of domination

Results and Discussion: The comparative analysis reveals two fundamentally distinct, often opposed, intellectual and civilizational projects regarding independence. The Western model is built upon a secular, terrestrial, and state-centric rationality, where independence is an end in itself for preserving and enhancing the nation-state within the existing international order. In contrast, the Islamic reading, while accepting some concepts in practical appearance, fundamentally transforms their conceptual architecture. In this view, national sovereignty is subordinated to divine sovereignty and reinterpreted as a divine trust and duty. The right to self-determination is reconceived not as a self-grounding right but as a fiduciary responsibility before God. Strategic efficacy and national interest are redefined within the framework of the interest of the Islamic system and justice, rejecting the management of interdependence as a covert form of domination and proposing civilizational self-sufficiency and dignified, selective interaction as the alternative strategy.

Conclusions: The outcome of this confrontation is the formation of two opposing political and civilizational projects. The Western project seeks to stabilize, manage, or gradually reform the existing order. Conversely, the Islamic project, by fundamentally denying the legitimacy of the domineering nature of the current order, aims at a profound transformation and the establishment of an order based on monotheistic values and justice. This divergence stems from the distinct ontology, anthropology, and teleology of the two traditions. This confrontation is not merely a theoretical dispute but has evolved into a geopolitical and civilizational fissure that will shape the behavior of actors, future alliances, and conflicts within the international system. Therefore, studying independence today is, in essence, studying the paradigmatic battle over the meaning of sovereignty, legitimacy, and the ultimate end of collective life on the global stage.