Comparative Political Theory: An Islamic Fundamentalist Critique of Rationalism

Abstract

In this manuscript I analyze the political theory of an influential Islamic fundamentalist theorist. From this analysis I argue that the fundamentalist insistence on divine sovereignty must be understood, in part, as a rejection of and rebuttal to modern theories of political sovereignty and the rationalist epistemology that justifies them. This suggests that fundamentalist ideas should not be dismissed as either irrational or purely epiphenomenal. Fundamentalist political thought needs to be understood as an apparently compelling (albeit potentially dangerous) ethicopolitical vision for the future, one that, furthermore, is part of a broader critique of rationalism and modernity that we in the West not only recognize, but in which we often participate. This particular analysis and comparison with Western thought is also an occasion to elaborate the possibility of and conditions for comparative political theory in general, that is, the introduction of non-Western perspectives into familiar normative debates about the problems of living together.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 62 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.