Westphalian Sovereignty and Islamic Fundamentalism
Ruben Nagesparan Chandrakumar, BS
Westphalian sovereignty and the Westphalian system, the crux of the liberal world order, are severely threatened by Islamic fundamentalism. Within the Westphalian framework, each state has exclusive sovereignty over its own territory. While this has evolved over time with the nuances of international law, including the right to self-determination and the accompanying laws of independence and war, the core philosophy insists on the rights of each state and its peoples.
Islamic fundamentalism relies on several tenets that are incompatible with the philosophy of Westphalia. These include the concepts of infidels, sharia law, jihad, and a global caliphate. In accordance with a utopian vision, fundamentalists subscribe to the dogmatic and narrow-minded doctrine that all infidels must be converted through a global jihad that forms a global caliphate under sharia law; by doing so, they believe they can bring the Kingdom of God to humanity and eliminate all evils.
While many Muslims do not believe in this doctrine, there are several countries and peoples who are possessed by these ideas and fervently work to bring about the caliphate. While this is not a complete picture of Islamic fundamentalists—who are also influenced by political, cultural, environmental, economic, and psychological factors—the core of the belief system can be understood through the desire to deify Muhammad as the greatest and last messenger of the truth, by force.
Under the Westphalian system, this doctrine poses an incredible threat. While Islam is not the only religion to have posed a threat to the liberal world order, the modern age is significantly threatened by the religious dogmatism of Islamism. The millions of believers in Islamic fundamentalism must be addressed if the world order is to be maintained and kept alive. The only hope is for reform; however, the explicit teachings of Muhammad make this very difficult. The belief in the punishment for apostasy being death, for example, is impossible to reinterpret or frame in another context. This challenges the core of Islamic doctrine; perhaps, this is why any criticism of Muhammad is met with violence and the threat of death. Perhaps this is why Islamic fundamentalists deny free speech in its entirety and see no utility in it. Regardless of the reason, those who believe in a free world with the right to disagree, the right to religion, and the right to speech must be aware and prepared to defend their principles.