The modern global order, deeply influenced by colonial legacies and the ideational dominance of liberalism, continues to shape the geopolitics of the Muslim world. The persistent crises of identity, extremism, and terrorism in Islamic societies can be traced to the structural violence of coloniality and the ideational subjugation imposed by Western domination. These influences have manipulated indigenous paradigms and fostered divisions, creating dilemmas within dilemmas.

Colonial legacies and liberal ideational frameworks have created structural violence, hindering Muslim societies from realizing their full potential.

The West is still in control of its former colonies. These colonies are hostages at the ideational level, where they drive their ideas about society, economy, law, and politics from Eurocentric liberalism. Then, there is structural imperialism, as Johan Galtung observes that the core of the core and the core of the periphery are interconnected, and the peripheral core works as an agent of the core. This peripheral core, or peripheral elite, is mostly educated in Western ideals and, in many cases, ignorant of homogeneous ideas of the land. The result is, as Oliver P. Richmond pointed out, that the whole ideology of liberalism is Eurocentric, and when forced on the Third World, it results in more conflicts than good.

Coming back to Johan Galtung’s structural imperialism, the idea provides a definition of violence and peace. Galtung defines peace as “the absence of violence is peace,” but he differentiates peace into positive and negative peace to understand the negative and positive peace. We have to understand violence, which, according to Galtung, is “a situation where human beings are prevented from realizing their full potential, whether physically or mentally.”

Galtung further explains, “Violence is any physical, emotional, verbal, institutional, structural, or spiritual behavior, attitude, policy, or condition that diminishes, dominates, or destroys others and ourselves.” Galtung points out three main types of violence: direct violence, which is a physical or verbal act resulting in harm; structural violence, where systemic inequalities are embedded in social structures, for example, economic systems that perpetuate wealth disparities, limiting access to basic needs like healthcare, education, and housing; and cultural violence, which we see in the West, where Muslims are seen as hostile and freedom of expression becomes unlimited when it comes to insulting Muslim values like the hijab.

Third-world countries are victims of structures that colonizers left and hence are victims of structural as well as cultural violence which is not allowing their masses to reach their potential. This epistemic violence is resulting in brain drain and extremism in these societies.

Islamic movements often respond reactively to external stimuli, making them vulnerable to manipulation by neocolonial forces.

Today, by observing closely, we can see that this cultural and structural violence prevalent in the Third World has roots in coloniality, where the Third World elite is either finding it impossible or does not want to come out of coloniality or is not aware of how coloniality affects their policies.

Mignolo challenges the universalist claims of Western modernity, which posits itself as the sole bearer of rationality, progress, and civilization. He argues that this universalism is, in fact, a form of particularism that marginalizes and erases non-Western forms of knowledge and existence. The elite’s ideals and their wish to follow Western modernity are causing poverty and suffering for their masses. Their ideological alignment is also the reason for confusion, directionlessness, and radicalism in their society, as Western ideals do not necessarily match indigenous ideas, norms, social patterns, and beliefs.

The historical rift between Afghanistan and Pakistan, for example, serves as a distressing illustration of how colonial manipulation sowed seeds of discord that persist to this day. Extremism, too, has been employed and reinterpreted over time, often aligning with the strategic interests of Western powers rather than the authentic spirit of Islamic jurisprudence or morality. By examining these phenomena, it becomes evident that much of what is labeled “Islamic terrorism” does not originate within Islam itself but emerges from a complex interplay of external provocations and internal vulnerabilities.

Two prominent ideologies in the Middle East—the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafism—highlight the problematic relationship between Islamist movements and the ideational framework of liberalism. Both ideologies, despite their focus on enforcing Sharia, often neglect the deeper moral and philosophical dimensions of Islam. The essence of Islamic jurisprudence emphasizes character-building, moral values, and the comprehensive paradigm revealed through the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Yet, these aspects are overshadowed by ideological rhetoric and performative enforcement. Such reductionist interpretations fail to capture the holistic essence of Islam and leave these movements vulnerable to manipulation by external forces.

Reclaiming intellectual sovereignty rooted in Islamic philosophy is essential to counter the challenges posed by coloniality and modernity.

Applying Newton’s third law of motion to geopolitics, one can argue that Islamist movements are often compelled to react to external stimuli, leaving their natural sphere of operation to engage in a realm dictated by others. This predictable reactivity enables external actors to anticipate and exploit these responses, serving colonial and neocolonial interests. By instigating and steering such reactions, these external forces consolidate their geopolitical agendas, all while further entrenching divisions within the Muslim world.

This dynamic underscores the pressing need for Islamic societies to transcend the ideational frameworks imposed by liberal hegemony and colonial legacies. Developing indigenous paradigms rooted in Islamic philosophy and morality is imperative. Only by reclaiming their intellectual sovereignty and resisting the instrumentalization of their movements can Muslim societies address their problems and get freedom from coloniality and modernity which scrooges their growth and ideational independence.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They do not represent the views, beliefs, or policies of the Stratheia.