http://arabnews.com/collapse-ibn-khaldoun%E2%80%99s-theory
The collapse of Ibn Khaldoun’s theory a.. Khaled Al-Dakheel Monday 10 September 2012 Modern Arab political thought has, for the most part, relied heavily on the theories of Ibn Khaldoun to explain whatever concerns the “modern Arab state” has, from its birth, historical events and the way it has conducted its affairs to the changes and transformations it has undergone. Ibn Khaldoun’s theory about the state was highlighted in his famous Muqadimah (introduction) which appeared in a book in the 14th century. The Muqadimah has thus maintained its methodological validity for seven continuous centuries. Yet throughout this dated period, Arab culture has, for all intents and purposes, failed to produce a work that would complement such a comprehensive methodology or come up with a new different theory about the roots of the modern state and its birth in accordance with changing historical phases. If we adopt the valid hypothesis that Arab thought, with all its manifestations, is just a reflection of reality, we can arrive at the conclusion that the stalemate of modern Arab political thought and its inability to come up with a political theory that can replace Ibn Khaldoun’s theory and respond to contemporary requirements is a reflection of the stagnation of Arab political reality itself. This hypothesis should nevertheless not take us back to the actual enigma of the relationship of thought with reality. It is sufficient to say that this relationship in its very nature is a narrative in which the two parties will reciprocate influence according to the nature and circumstances of the phase through which they are passing. Accordingly, the dialectical relationship between the two sides should breed a new product which is different from the two of them. It is almost as if Ibn Khaldoun was referring to the very political stagnation we have been suffering over the centuries as reflected in his work. Arab thought, on the other hand, might have succumbed to the constraints of the reality by numerous justifications. May be also the pressures of the reality were too harsh and enigmatic to leave room for the thought to move outside the traditional boundaries of Ibn Khaldoun’s theory. Modern Arab thought is not an exception in its dependence on old legacy and its loyalty to the familiar. On the contrary, religious thought provides an ideal example of inevitable traditional submissiveness. In fact, an Arab religious scholar cannot be recognized as a scholar unless he mortgages himself to what the old Ulema were unanimous upon. He is obliged to recognize the old pioneers of religious thought, most notably Imam Shafie, Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal, Ibn Taimiyyah and others, and to strongly adhere to what such scholars have left for the Ummah. Paradoxically, traditional religious thinkers criticize advocates of modern thought for their Western inclinations, which they claim have been created by their submissiveness to the West and its intellectual literature. On their part, the followers of the modern thought blame the advocates of traditional religious thought for being captives to the past, unable to emancipate themselves from what old scholars had proclaimed without any consideration to the differences in time and place and which therefore makes them unable to compete with the contemporary age. Upon close scrutiny, however, we will find that there isn’t a substantial difference between the mentalities of the two. They both have the tendency to copy from others whether these others are from the Arab past or the non-Arab contemporary age. The mentality that replicates is by nature a traditional one. The Arab present has thus been marginalized by the two parties though in different degrees and for different reasons. Consequently, it is safe to say that the scenario we are faced with is almost complete: a political reality which has been reproducing itself for centuries in different geographical regions and in various forms, be it in the form of monarchy, empire, a kingdom or a republic. Like political thought, religious thought has also been reproducing itself, going around repeatedly in a circle devoid of substance. Accordingly, can we argue that history itself has remained the same from one era to the other or that it has been repeating itself in accordance with the prevailing politics, political thought and geopolitics of the time? Not necessarily. The important thing to note here is that adherence to Ibn Khaldoun’s theory remained intact until the end of the first decade of this century when five popular revolutions broke out in five Arab republics. The fact that these are republics does not preclude any other form of government from the repercussions of these new historic developments. History will bear witness to the fact that since the start of the second decade of the 21st century, Arab thought has ceased to rely as heavily on Ibn Khaldoun’s theory visa-a-vis the formation and history of the Arab state. Why? Because the political and social realities on which the theory was based have since begun to vanish from the framework of Arab politics. Ibn Khaldoun has based his theory on a number of factors, most notably that human unity is a necessity and that the integrity of a society entails the presence of a deterrent or a ruler. This will not be possible unless the ruler has a supreme and justifiable power to deter. The “esabiya” (clannishness or partisanship) has been the most prevalent mechanism for domination to date and as such the most pivotal mechanism for imposing deterrence and reprisal. Ruling has thus become an end and a goal for the “esabiya.” Ibn khaldoun says “this supreme authority assumes an executive role which is much more substantial than a leadership role. The president is the head of a regime with followers and subjects. He does not, however, have coercive power over his subjects. The king has absolute power and he can rule with coercion. Thus, domination can only be achieved by gang rule.” In another chapter of the Muqadimah, Ibn Khaldoun says the Arabs can only institute monarchy insofar as religion has sanctioned domination to tame uneducated communities and to facilitate leadership of such a community. He also proclaims that religious “dawa” (call to faith) cannot be achieved without esabiya. Conversely, the Moroccan thinker Abdullah Al-Arawi noted that the origin of monarchy or the state is political and that religion will only add stamina to it but cannot serve as a substitute for it. Ibn Khaldoun also further adds “any matter on which the majority of the people are unanimous, must have the esabiya signature on it.” He quoted the hadith that says: “Allah has not sent any prophet except to protect his people.” Ibn Khaldoun’s theory appeared after the end of the rule of the Caliphs and the beginning of the Umayyad rule. I have said in a previous article that the theory of Ibn Khaldoun was an explanation to the emergence of authoritarian rule which imposed itself on the path of history. This theory is thus a direct and honest expression of the structure of the Arab society within which the balance of power was based on “esabiya” and religion. In other words, the “esabiya” had political ownership while religion constituted its ideological base. The popular revolutions in five Arab countries is a prelude to the cancelation of this political equation and a precedent for bringing people back to the political process. Therefore the esabiya on which Ibn Khaldoun had relied has either diminished or on its way to wither out. We can safely say the theory has completed all its purposes and that its validity has expired. We cannot ignore the strong presence of religious ideology in recent Arab revolutions. What will this say of Ibn Khaldoun’s opinion on the relationship between the religion and the esabiya? Does the political factor still take priority as Ibn Khaldoun has prescribed? Such is a debate worthy of further scrutiny to be resumed. — Courtesy of Al-Hayat newspaper [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
