A complete history of Islamic political thought from early Islam to the present Now in its 2nd edition, this textbook describes and interprets all schools of Islamic political thought, their origins, inter-connections and meaning. It examines the Qur'an, the early Caliphate, classical Islamic philosophy and the political culture of the Ottoman and other empires. It covers major thinkers such as Averroes and Ibn Taymiyya as well as a number of lesser authors, and Ibn Khaldun is presented as one of (...) the most original political theorists ever. It draws on a wide range of sources including writings on religion, law, philosophy and statecraft expressed in treatises, handbooks and political rhetoric. The new edition analyses the connections between religion and politics, covering the most recent developments in Islamic political thought and the most recent historical scholarship. It ends with a critical survey of reformism and Islamism from the late-19th century up to the present day. (shrink)

Duncan Black made a significant contribution to the development of public choice theory during his lifetime. Upon his death it became apparent that much of his scholarship and critique of economics was never published. Formal Contributions to the Theory of Public Choice is a collection of Duncan Black's unpublished works, representing his continuing contribution to economics and political science. It provides an insight into Black's intellectual endeavors and introduces some new ideas and extensions of earlier (...) work. (shrink)

Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406) is said to be the first scholar to make history and society the direct objects of a systematic science. This paper will examine the role of occasionalism in his thought. This question is interesting because a perennial objection to occasionalism has been that it denies any real natural order, and therefore precludes the possibility of any systematic natural science. If Ibn Khaldun was an occasionalist, then it would mean that one of the earliest pioneers in (...) attempting to apply a systematic scientific method to the study of history and society did so on the basis of an occasionalist understanding of nature and natural order. Then the question of whether and how his scientific methodology is compatible with occasionalism is of interest for both historical and theoretical reasons, in particular for theists who are exploring occasionalism as a potential framework for a coherent understanding of the natural world (including, in this case, its human and social dimensions) as both the manifestation of divine providence and creativity, and as an object of systematic empirical science. (shrink)

Understanding cooperative human behaviour depends on insights into the biological basis of human altruism, as well as into socio-cultural development. In terms of evolutionary theory, kinship and reciprocity are well established as underlying cooperativeness. Reasons will be given suggesting an additional source, the capability of a cognition-based empathy that may have evolved as a by-product of strategic thought. An assessment of the range, the intrinsic limitations, and the conditions for activation of human cooperativeness would profit from a systems approach combining (...) biological and socio-cultural aspects. However, this is not yet the prevailing attitude among contemporary social and biological scientists who often hold prejudiced views of each other's notions. It is therefore worth noticing that the desirable integration of aspects has already been attempted, in remarkable and encouraging ways, in the history of thought on human nature. I will exemplify this with the ideas of the fourteenth century Arab-Muslim historian Ibn Khaldun. He set out to explicate human cooperativeness - "asabiyah" - as having a biological basis in common descent, but being extendable far beyond within social systems, though in a relatively unstable and attenuated fashion. He combined psychological and material factors in a dynamical theory of the rise and decline of political rulership, and related general social phenomena to basic features of human behaviour influenced by kinship, expectation of reciprocity, and empathic emotions. -/- . (shrink)

In A Thousand Plateaus, Deleuze and Guattari pose the question, ‘What is a collective body?’ This leads them to differentiate between bodies and organisms, attributing esprit de corps to bodies and âme d’organisme to organisms. Deleuze and Guattari oppose esprit de corps to âme d’organisme as nomadic to sedentary, the war machine to the State apparatus, and the smooth to the striated. Their point of entry to the notion of esprit de corps is a discussion of Ibn Khaldûn’s fourteenth-century Muqaddimah (...) and his concept of ‘asabiyya, which is often rendered as ‘esprit de corps’ or ‘group feeling’. They argue that Ibn Khaldûn associates ‘asabiyya with nomadism and contrasts it with the sedentary, but Ibn Khaldûn’s primary distinction is not between the nomadic and the sedentary but between rural life and urban life, and ‘asabiyya is an essential component of both forms of life. Deleuze and Guattari also claim that ‘asabiyya is secret rather than public; that it involves lineages that are pure and mobile, as opposed to impure and rigid; and that it is opposed to autocratic values. All of these claims are problematic. Ultimately, Deleuze and Guattari creatively appropriate Ibn Khaldûn for their own purposes, and though they distort his thought, they do illuminate it by isolating unresolved issues in Ibn Khaldûn’s understanding of the dynamics of leadership among nomads and the origins of state power. (shrink)

L'année 2006 coïncide avec le sixième centenaire de la mort d'Ibn Khaldûn. Figure marquante et attachante de la culture arabe classique, ce philosophe de l'histoire fut principalement le lecteur critique de phénomènes socio-économiques récurrents et endémiques, qui sont encore, même sous de nouvelles formes, parmi les causes de notre retard historique : segmentarisme et esprit de corps tribal, despotisme, pauvreté et corruption, etc. En tirant les conséquences de son analyse de l'œuvre khaldûnienne, l'auteur pense que le désir de modernité dans (...) le monde arabe d'aujourd'hui a besoin, pour s'exprimer et se réaliser, de la médiation démocratique, entendue dans sa double articulation politico-économique. Cette médiation ne permet pas seulement de faire l'histoire de l'exploitation de l'homme par l'homme, de ses effets et ses retombées, mais aussi de penser sa fin. Par le seul fait que l'œuvre khaldûniennne balise de bout en bout le parcours du Maghreb précolonial, elle mérite notre sollicitation et notre attention. Et même si par bonheur cette région parvenait à rompre effectivement avec sa genèse médiévale, ladite œuvre restera pour les historiens et les penseurs une source d'information et de méditation intarissable de premier plan. (shrink)

Ibn Khaldun: An Intellectual Biography By IrwinRobert, xxi + 243 pp. Price HB £24.00. EAN 978–0691174662.

Most studies on Ibn Khaldūn have emphasized the similarities between his thought and the ideas and models of the modern social sciences. It is these similarities and parallels that lie at the root of the high esteem in which he is held in both the East and the West today. But the differences between his thought and the modern social sciences are perhaps more fecund, offering a new window onto the great thinker with the potential to improve our understanding of (...) the man and to reveal alternative frameworks to the entrenched social-scientific models of our age.In this context, one of the most noteworthy characteristics of Ibn Khaldūn's thought, and one that distinguishes it from mainstream... (shrink)

Ibn Khaldun's groundbreaking sociological investigations led to the development of the concept of group feeling ( asabiyyah), responsible for describing not only the basis of all social cohesion, but also to explain the cyclical rise and fall of communities in a philosophical theory of history. We will analyze Malešević's naturalistic anthropological interpretation of the nature of group feeling and complement it with a phenomenological interpretation of the subjective experience of asabiyyah. We will rely on Stein's insights into the problem (...) of empathy and Schütz's phenomenological investigations into the structure of social relationships. We expose Ibn Khaldun's concept of asabiyyah, followed by Malešević's analysis of the concept. Afterwards, we analyze how Malešević uses group feeling to explain the formation of group solidarity in nationcentric States. After showing how phenomenology can answer the open-ended questions posed by Malešević in his article, we lean on Stein’s and Schütz's investigations in order to describe asabiyyah phenomenologically. (shrink)

La moderna riscoperta del lavoro di Ibn Khaldūn da parte degli studiosi arabi si è sviluppata attorno a una vera e propria dicotomia: alcuni hanno descritto Ibn Khaldūn come un pensatore originale e anomalo tenendo conto del suo contesto e del suo tempo, o l’unico e più alto rappresentante del pensiero arabo-islamico, legittimando gli interessi di coloro che puntavano a mettere in ombra la restante parte della tradizione. Dall’altra parte si è assistito al tentativo opposto di ridimensionare la sua originalità (...) rispetto al contesto evidenziando la sua piena appartenenza alla tradizione storiografica e di pensiero islamica. Questo contributo intende approfondire le interpretazioni di quattro importanti esponenti del pensiero marocchino contemporaneo che hanno dedicato a Ibn Khaldūn importanti studi: si tratta di Mohammed Aziz Lahbābi, Mohammed Abed al-Jābrī (importante esponente della scuola filosofica di Rabat), il noto intellettuale Abdallah Laroui, e il letterato Bensalem Himmich. Si fa riferimento in primo luogo a M.A. Lahbābi e al suo allievo più noto, M.A. al-Jābrī, al primo perché ha dato sicuramente un impulso importante allo studio dell’autore ed è tra i fondatori della _scuola di Rabat_, al secondo per la sistematicità e importanza della sua proposta teorica di critica della ragione araba. L’analisi proposta da A. Laroui, anch’egli rappresentante della _scuola di Rabat_, mette in luce caratteristiche diverse dell’opera di Ibn Khaldūn rispetto ai primi due studiosi, concentrandosi sui temi della modernità e dello Stato. Si è dato spazio infine a un’altra lettura, quella proposta da B. Himmich che all’autore ha dedicato uno studio e una biografia romanzata, a dimostrazione della sua attitudine a intrecciare ricerca accademica e letteratura. Si tratta di autori che hanno avuto grande riscontro e risonanza nel mondo arabo e che sono ben noti anche in quello occidentale, in particolare Laroui. The modern rediscovery and re-appropriation of Ibn Khaldūn’s work by Arab scholars has largely developed along the following dichotomy. On the one hand, some have described Ibn Khaldūn as an original and atypical thinker for his context and time, and as the only or highest representative of Arab-Islamic thought – thus partly reinforcing the view of many Western scholars who had minimized the role of the tradition to which he belonged. On the other hand, there has been an opposite trend that demotes his originality, by highlighting his complete adherence to the Islamic tradition of historiography and thought. This contribution studies four prominent contemporary Moroccan scholars who have systematically addressed Ibn Khaldūn’s philosophy: Mohammed Aziz Lahbābi, Mohammed Abed al-Jābrī, Abdallah Laroui, and Bensalem Himmich. The essay first considers Lahbābi and al-Jabri, Lahbābi’s most renowned pupil; the former due to his contribution to the advancement of the study of Ibn Khaldūn in general, and as one of the founders of the _school of Rabat_, and the latter due to the theoretical importance and systematic nature of his critical approach to Arab thought. Laroui, another representative of the _school of Rabat_, offers an analysis which highlights different characteristics of Ibn Khaldūn’s work, compared to the first two scholars, by focusing on the subjects of modernity and the State. Finally, the chapter examines Himmich’s reading. Himmich has written both an academic work as well as a literary/fictional biography of the Maghrebi figure in focus. All these four scholars have made a substantial impact on the Arab world, whilst also being wellknown in the West, Laroui in particular. (shrink)

This book, first published in 1957, is the study of 14th-century Arab historian Ibn Khaldun, who founded a special science to consider history and culture, based on the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle and their Muslim followers. In no other field has the revolt of modern Western thought against traditional philosophy been so far-reaching in its consequences as in the field of history. Ibn Khaldun realized that history is more immediately related to action than political philosophy because it (...) studies the actual state of man and society. He found that the ancients had not made history the object of an independent science, and thought it was important to fill this gap. A factual acquaintance with the conclusions of Ibn Khaldun's reflections on history is not the same as the full comprehension of their theoretical significance. When these fundamental questions are answered, it becomes possible to pose the specific question of the relation of Ibn Khaldun's philosophy of history, or his new science of culture, to other practical sciences and, particularly, to the art of history. After an exposition of the major trends of Islamic historiography, part of this book attempts to answer this question through the analysis of the method and intention of the sections of the 'History' where Ibn Khaldun himself examines the works of major Muslim historians, shows the necessity of the new science of culture, and distinguishes it from other practical sciences. (shrink)

The historian Ibn Khaldūn (d. 1406) is most often treated by historians of philosophy as part of the story of political philosophy in the Islamic world. While this is perfectly legitimate, it may be misleading when it comes to the question of the method he proposes for the historian. This paper argues that that method is in fact based on a different branch of (Aristotelian) science: natural philosophy. After rendering this proposition initially plausible by noting frequent references to "nature" in (...) the _Muqaddima_, the paper discusses a number of parallels between natural philosophy and history as Ibn Khaldūn conceives it. Ultimately it is suggested that this method is legitimated insofar as history is for Ibn Khaldūn a study of human nature. (shrink)

A partir des idées sur les changements dans l´historie exprimées par Ibn Khaldun dans Muqaddima à propos de l´usage de l´analogie et la comparaison comme instruments pour les rendre reconnaissables et sur le caractère impératif de l´ecriture historique face au grand phénomène du changement, l´article suivant propose une réflexion sur ce sujet du point de vue de l´historie des mentalites. La pensée theorique d´Ibn Khaldun, mais aussi ses differentes attitudes vis-á-vis des transformations en cours des societés qu´il connaissait (...) , sont donc comparées aux attitudes mentales sur d´autres catégories d´erutites contemporains. avec una référence particulière a l´Egypte du siècle VIII/XIV. Par exemple, les auteurs de Kutub al-bida? et des guides de pèlerinage réagirent de manière différente à propos des changements qu´ils percevaient dans les habitudes aussi bien religieuses que non religieuses de la société musulmane de leur temps. La pensée d´Ibn Khaldun est donc examinée dans le cadre des mentalités et des transfor-mations qui ont marqué la période historique qu´il vécut. (shrink)

This article undertakes a comparative examination of the social ontologies, or theories of civilization, proposed by John Searle and Ibn Khaldun. It suggests that a careful juxtaposition of Searle and Ibn Khaldun's social ontologies yields complementary perspectives on the emergence and nature of social reality. They both delineate a distinction between two categories of entities: human-independent and human-dependent. The former makes up the natural world, while the latter constitutes the social world. Both scholars attempt to understand the second (...) category of entities, which Searle refers to as human civilization and Ibn Khaldun calls ʿumrān. Although Searle and Ibn Khaldun share a common understanding regarding the importance of human activity in shaping social reality, their perspectives diverge when it comes to elucidating the mechanisms behind this phenomenon. Does the social world arise primarily from cognitive processes, or is it predominantly a consequence of linguistic expressions and speech acts? Searle asserts that language forms the basis of social reality, whereas Ibn Khaldun puts forth a social ontology based on reason. While Ibn Khaldun's social ontology explains the construction of tangible social entities such as buildings, Searle's theory can explain how is it that a mere physical structure transforms into an epistemologically objective fact—a university. Ultimately, this paper suggests that viewing the social world through the lenses of these two theories provides an intriguing and holistic perspective. This article suggests that the juxtaposition of these two ontological frameworks enriches our comprehension of the processes that give rise to the ontological-physical and epistemological-institutional dimensions of social entities. (shrink)

I am most grateful to Philosophy East and West for publishing a special issue on philosopher Ibn Khaldūn. The time is particularly propitious since his ideas are currently permeating the political and cultural climate of his native North Africa. The team contributing to the present issue comprises six authors from four different continents. Ridha Chennoufi and Mehdi Saiden are philosophers from the University of Tunis, the city in which Ibn Khaldūn was born. M. Akif Kayapınar is a political scientist teaching (...) at Istanbul Sehir University, while Jeremy Kleidosty does research at the Centre of Excellence on Reason and Religious Recognition, University of Helsinki... (shrink)

Ibn Khaldûn has often been presented as a precursor of historical materialism: the Machiavelli or the Arab Marx of the 14th century. He is undeniably materialistic in his methodology: the origin of power is thought to stem from the need to force men to cooperate so they can reproduce their material existence. But from his anthropological study of tribal societies and state societies, he developed an original analysis of power and of its corollary: violence. Politics can be conceived of, from (...) the work of Ibn Khaldûn (his Muqaddima in particular), as the organisation and coordination of violence. Violence is a vector of social unity, thanks to the esprit de corps in tribal societies, because it is directed outwards: the attack of enemy tribes and the defence of the community. In state societies, the weakening of the esprit de corps requires the establishment of a political authority (wazi’), which directs violence inwards to regulate natural aggressiveness. Far from being the negation of politics, violence is consubstantial with politics: it is the condition to the possibility of preserving a totality and a social unity. When a social group loses its capacity for violence, the community collapses, just like the city of Damascus ravaged by the troops of Tamerlane before the helpless eyes of the philosopher. (shrink)

The Spanish philosopher José Ortega y Gasset was puzzled about how the community of Melilla remained a Spanish enclave on the coast of North Africa, isolated from the surrounding countryside. He had become aware of the city's existence as a youth during the first war of Melilla. By 1927, Spain had solidified its hold on northern Morocco and Ortega was a prominent philosopher in his mid-forties.1 Several books on the history and culture of North Africa were published about this time; (...) in one of these Ortega encountered the name of Ibn Khaldūn.2 For several months, Ortega read Ibn Khaldūn's3 voluminous foreword to his major work in its French translation.4 He determined that Ibn... (shrink)

This article argues against the depiction of Ibn Khaldūn as someone whose preoccupation and credulity regarding mysticism or the occult diminish the rationalism and reformism of his thought, rendering it irrelevant to our concerns today. Instead, it argues that he consistently tries to steer his readers away from such pursuits by exposing them as fake when possible, or—in cases where their reality is attested to by unimpeachable religious sources—by highlighting the dangers they pose to both religion and state.