Two Concepts of Political Philosophy: Ibn Rushd and Ibn Khaldun

Abstract

This paper starts with the assumption that it is possible to do a comparative study of political conceptions of Ibn Rushd and Ibn Khaldun, both from the point of view of similarities and differences in their teachings.

As far as the intellectual assumptions of Ibn Khaldun’s work are concer- ned it is certain that the most important place belongs to the group of thinkers called the falasifa. It is through this intellectual movement that a significant relationship between these two thinkers can be established.

Bearing in mind that Ibn Khaldun had an autstandingly critical mind, it is exactly this critical attitude which he inherited from Ibn Rushd, although his criticism is of a different nature compared to that of Ibn Rushd. In this sense Ibn Khaldun approaches Ibn Rushd in dealing with the phenomenon of pro- phetship as well. Thus both thinkers held that the State can be created and established without the sacred investiture, i.e., vvithout the sacred or revealed Law. Unlike Ibn Rushd, Ibn Khaldun was not interested in the problem of what society ought to be like but in how it ought to be realized in reality, what its essence is, what are the constitutive elements of society, sociality and the State.

Ibn Rushd created the opportunity for Ibn Khaldun to form an esentially historical and realistic theory of society and its history. From the conflict of religion and philosophy Ibn Khaldun was able to draw two important con- clusions: 1. that the philosophical concepts which attempted to overcome the conflicts within society in an ideal way cannot really explain the problem and issues so urgently imposed by his era, and 2. that a true study of society and sociality must be critically oriented, vvhether toward theology or tovvard history and philosophy.

The individual also occupies an important place in the vvorks of both thinkers. However, there is an essential difference betvveen them here, beca- use Ibn Rushd’s treatment of the individual and his role is more philospohi- cal, if not more theological, whereas Ibn Khaldun’s is more realistic and more sociological.

Taken on the whole, political philosophy does not form an integral part of the theories of Ibn Rushd and Ibn Khaldun. As far as the basic themes of political philosophy are concerned, the most obvious difference lies in the treatment of the Law. To the Law, whether it be revealed or not, Ibn Rushd attributes a much larger signifıcance, whereas Ibn Khaldun emphasizes wâzica, riyösa and ‘aşabiyya.

Ibn Rushd and Ibn Khaldun start from the fact that an ideal State is in fact the Islamic State of the first caliphs, established on the revealed Law. The difference is in that that Ibn Rushd believed in the possibility of constituting such a State which, in his opinion, would be identical to Plato’s ideal State. Ibn Khaldun as a thinker who had an extraordinary sense of history did not believe in the possibility of regression. According to him, the time of the ideal State had passed.

In addition, Ibn Khaldun strongly emphasizes the importance of the eco- nomic factor, vvhereas in Ibn Rushd it is not at ali noticeable.

The author concludes that the similarities betvveen Ibn Rushd and Ibn Khaldun are most frequent in their initial positions, vvhereas in further devel- opments their ideas diverge. Ibn Rushd certainly had an influence on the crea- tion of Ibn Khaldun’s critical orientation, on his attitude tovvard the Prophet and the Khalif, but the author of the Muqaddima surpassed him in just those ideas vvhich look tovvard the real social problems.