Two Concepts in Political Philosophy

Abstract

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

As far as the intellectual assumptions of (Ibn Ḫaldūn's work are concerned it is certain that the most important place belongs to the group of thinkers called the philosophers. It is through this intellectual movement that a significant relationship between these two thinkers can be established.

Bearing in mind that Ibn Ḫaldūn han an outstandingly critical mind, it is exactly this critical attitude which he inherited from Ibn Rušd, although his criticism is of a different nature compared to that of Ibn Rušd. In this sense, Ibn Ḫaldūn approaches Ibn Rušd in dealing with the phenomenon of prophetship as well. Thus, both thinkers held that the state can be created and established without the sacred investiture, i. e., without the sacred or revealed law. Unlike Ibn Rušd, Ibn Ḫaldūn was not interested in the problem of that 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 Rušd created the opportunity for Ibn Ḫaldūn to form an essentially historical and realistic theory of society and its history. From the conflict of religion and philosophy Ibn Ḫaldūn was able to draw two important conclusions: l. that the philosophical. Concepts which in an ideal way attempted to overcome the conflicts within society cannot really explain the problems and issues so urgently imposed by his age, and 2. that a true study of society and sociality must be critically oriented, whether toward theology or toward history and philosophy.

The individual also occupies an important place in the works of both thinkers. However, there is an essential difference between them here, because Ibn Rušd's treatment of the individual and his role is more philosophical, if not more theological, whereas Ibn Ḫaldūn's is more realistic and more sociological.

Taken on the whole, political philosophy does not form an integral part. of the theories of Ibn Rušd and Ibn Ḫaldūn. 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 Rušd attributes a much larger significance, whereas Ibn Ḫaldūn emphasizes wazi, rijasi, and asabijja.

fun Rušd. and Ibn Ḫaldūn start from the fact that an ideal state is in fact the Islamic state of the first khalifs, established on the revealed Law. The difference is in that that Ilbn Rušd believed in the possibility of constituting of such a state which, in his opinion, would be identical to Plato's ideal State. Ibn Ḫaldūn 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 Ḫaldūn strongly emphasizes the importance of the economic factor, whereas in Ibn Rušd it is not at all noticeable.

The author concludes that the similarities between Ibn Rušd and Ibn Ḫaldūn are most frequent in their initial positions, whereas in further developments their ideas diverge. Ibn Rušd certainly had an influence on the creation of Ibn Ḫaldūn's critical orientation, on his attitude toward the Prophet and the Khalif, but the author of the Muqaddima surpassed him in just those ideas which look toward the real social problems.