Political Language of Islamic Resistance in International Politics

Islamic identification is considered as the new reality of international politics. Identity would be formed while signs of culture, discourse, and political literature are created. The political language of Islamic Resistance can be considered the rise of Islamic literature in politics and international relations. The remarkable point is that, Michel Foucault’s interpretation of the Islamic revolution in Iran as a first postmodern revolution reduced the effectiveness of positivist methodology in international politics. We are now witnessing the emergence of a new approach that are inspired, directly or indirectly by the methodology and approaches behind the Iranian revolution in a postmodern sense. In the mid-1980s, theorists such as Barry Buzan, Wior, Alexander Wendt, Kratovil sought to put critical approaches to the agenda. They emphasized the importance of norms, values, attitudes, cultural, and social symbols in international politics. Orientalism focuses on sign and symptoms of superiority of the West over other countries. The approach is based on humiliation in the position of outreach. In such cultures, inspiration from third world approaches is considered apostasy. This is why, despite many similarities of the proposed approaches in the mid-1980s after the Iranian revolution, there are no citations of them. This article seeks to explain the semiotics of Islamic identification in terms of language as political resistance in international politics. These types of signs are considered the essential core of change in analyzing the influential forces on regional and international policy. The Islamic revolution and holy war could be the main focus of the Islamic Resistance. Thus, political language of Islamic Resistance in the 1980s has became much more practical and widely used in dealing with positivist approaches of Constructivist Realism and objective symbols in international politics.