Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
The idea of a collective consciousness comes into play here. In order to ensure the survival
and functioning of a society, the totality of such beliefs and sentiments is spread over each
and every thread of society. Everyone is expected to subscribe to a common framework,
providing no conflict between things that are considered sacred, or immoral, or lawful. But
what happens when this totality grows into a tyranny which limits the individual?
In order to explore this, we must look at the works of two sociologists, Ibn Khaldun and Emile
Durkheim.
One way to escape the tyranny of the majority, in a social context, is to spread the idea of
individuality and encourage the development of personalities that are not similar to one
another. Every member of the society must have enough space for the free play of his or her
initiative, and should not be punished for being different. Unless we are aiming to drop back
into primal times, we need to adopt such ideas of progress. When we truly learn to
appreciate each other’s differences, we shall enjoy the fruits of progress, and create an
environment of respect and tolerance.
At the root of this distinction is the human ability to think. Human beings’ ability to think leads
to the accumulation of knowledge. We aren’t born with knowledge. In fact, quite the
opposite: we’re born devoid of knowledge. He argued that we must acquire knowledge
through learning, and this requires thinking.
Concept of Asabiyya (Social Solidarity): (Memorize) (Important)
Asabiyya:
Asabiyya means social solidarity, social integration, and social cohesion. It can be broadly
defined as the state of mind that makes individuals to identify with a group and subordinate
their own personal interests to the group interests.
Asabiyya or social solidarity is the core of Ibn Khaldun’s thought concerning the rise and
decline of the civilisation. Ibn Khaldun in his al-Muqaddimah postulates the necessity to have
asabiyya in constructing a strong civilisation. A main source of prosocial attitudes is
biological, based on common descent in families and tribes.
Expansion of Asabiyya:
Although common descent in tribal communities is the source of solidarity, it is extendable to
large anonymous groups, in particular, when those who feel oppressed follow the
revolutionary call of a charismatic leader. However, such extended asabiyya is potentially
unstable, and this, in turn, is a main cause of the rise and fall of political systems. Asabiyya
in larger communities leads to a concentration of power, often resulting in kingship. In the
long run, this power - unless used with atypical moderation and consideration - destroys the
solidarity within the people subject to rule, and eventually causes the fall of the dynasty.
Causes of Fall of a Civilization:
Ibn Khaldun argues that each dynasty (or civilization) has within itself the seeds of its own
downfall. He explains that ruling houses tend to emerge on the peripheries of great empires
and use the much stronger asabiyya present in those areas to their advantage, in order to
bring about a change in leadership. This implies that the new rulers are at first considered
“barbarians” by comparison to the old ones. As they establish themselves at the center of
their empire, they become less coordinated, disciplined and watchful, and more concerned
with maintaining their new power and lifestyle and at the center of the empire—i.e. their
internal cohesion and ties to the original peripheral group, the asabiyya, dissolves into
factionalism and individualism, diminishing their capacity as a political unit. Thus, conditions
are created wherein a new dynasty can emerge at the periphery of their control, grow strong,
and effect a change in leadership. Hence all civilizations undergo cyclical transformations
with periodic growth, expansion and inevitable decline.
END
“Sedentary culture is the goal of civilization. It means the end of its life span and
brings about its corruption”. Ibn Khaldun (Muqaddimah)
END
“Sedentary culture is the goal of civilization. It means the end of its life span and
brings about its corruption”. Ibn Khaldun (Muqaddimah)
Sovereign powers have about 120-year life spans which take three generations. The reason
for this is that over time, generations change and when the time passes, the coming
generations forget about the previous generations’ motivations and values gradually.
Fundamental principles and values of sovereign powers are established by first generations.
The second generations just follow former. The third generations forget all the values of their
ancestors causing the sovereign powers to collapse. But the sovereign powers may continue
to live more if the reasons which destroy the states do not take place in 120-year life spans.
Also, Ibn Khaldun explained periods or stages which sovereign powers experience in their
life spans. There are five historical stages of dynasties and every stage has main traits
Former US President Ronald Regan once quoted Ibn Khaldun to support his economic
policy “At the beginning of the empire, the tax rates were low and the revenues were
high. At the end of the empire, the tax rates were high and the revenues were low.”
Five general historical stages of Ibn Khaldun on the rise and fall of sovereign powers:
The Foundation:
Nomadic, barbarian tribes move in to occupy a sedentary, “civilized” culture by force or
infiltration. They implant themselves and influence the pre-existing culture in a variety of
ways.
Stagnation:
As wealth and power grow, a slow but sure weakness begins to creep into the hearts of the
citizenry. The binding force of religion begins to lose its hold on the minds of men.
Human beings need a leader to look after their wellbeing and guide them through
difficult situations. Human beings always search the means of livelihood.
They live together, coordinate and cooperate, which lead towards the creation of a
state. However, mentioned traits lack in animals
Ibn Khaldun has described two types of societies in his book “Badvi” and “Hazri”.
According to his theory “Badvi” is a rural society whereas, “Hazri” is an urban society.
Individuals living in Badvi society are united and have strong force of Al-Asabiyya. They
have robust physical structure, live in deserts where satisfying basic needs are quite difficult.
However, they have to struggle hard for their survival, therefore, they are physically strong.
The traits and description provided by “Ibn Khaldun” of the individuals, living in Badvi society,
are similar to those people who live in villages and small valleys or rural areas. On the other
hand, people living in “Hazri” society are described; similar to those people, who lives in
urban society. They are unlike the people of “Badvi” society. They cannot defend themselves
against, external aggression; individuals of “Badvi” society are dependent on state security.
They are not physically strong for the reason that, basic needs of life are easily available to
them. In Hazri society, individuals do not have to struggle hard for their survival.
Badvi Society:
He says that the tribes live in the nomadic life which is of rural type. He says that in this type
of society the group life is found at the highest. The tough life of desert enables them to face
and defeat the enemies on the other hand when the tribes become sedentary the group life
become weak and this society according to Khaldun is called urban. To explain the concept
of badawa in his typology, Khaldun argued that primitive people are tied to the desert
because of their agricultural life style. Since settled areas do not provide wide fields and
pastures for animals, their social organization is organized upon bare subsistence.
END
Ibn Khaldun Evolutionary Theory: (Memorize)
When someone hear about the theory of evolution, English scientist Charles Darwin is
probably the first person who comes to mind. 'Muslim scholar', on the other hand, is the last
thing to be associated with the theory. But, Muslim scholars beg to differ.
While Darwin is greatly credited for putting forth the theory of evolution in the 18th
century, Muslim scholars had suggested similar theories centuries before Darwin was born.
Because their ideas are often deemed to be more religious or philosophical than scientific,
medieval Muslim scholars have neither been credited as evolutionists by Westerners, nor
have they received due attention for their theories.
“One should then look at the world of creation. It started out from the minerals and
progressed, in an ingenious, gradual manner, to plants and animals. The last stage of
minerals is connected with the first stage of plants, such as herbs and seedless plants. The
last stage of plants, such as palms and vines, is connected with the first stage of animals,
such as snails and shellfish which have only the power of touch. … The animal world then
widens, its species become numerous, and, in a gradual process of creation, it finally leads
to man, who is able to think and to reflect. The higher stage of man is reached from the
world of the monkeys, in which both sagacity and perception are found, but which has not
reached the stage of actual reflection and thinking. At this point we come to the first stage of
man after (the world of monkeys). This is as far as our (physical) observation extends.”
Stages of Evolution:
Ibn Khaldun most clearly professed his belief that humans themselves evolved specifically
from an ape/monkey ancestor–a concept that a majority of both Muslims and people of other
religions, including Christian creationists, find particularly difficult to accept.
“It is also the case with monkeys, creatures combining in themselves cleverness and
perception, in their relation to man, the being who has the ability to think and to reflect …
plants do not have the same fineness and power that animals have … Animals are the last
and final stage of the three permutations. Minerals turn into plants, and plants into animals,
but animals cannot turn into anything finer than themselves.”
Ibn Khaldun believed, as his predecessors did, in the evolution of life over time. Shanavas
suggests (Creation And/or Evolution: An Islamic Perspective) Ibn Khaldun stated
“that transmutations of one species into another over a long period of time resulted in the
gradual evolution of life, from primitive organisms into a bush with numerous branches.
Thus, life forms are not independently created but are evolutionary products from ancestral
species.”
“[There also is regard of the fact that physical circumstances and environment] are subjected
to changes that affect later generations; they do not necessarily remain unchanged. This is
how God proceeds with his servants … And verily, you will not be able to change God’s
way.”
Evolution in Islam:
Several Islamic figures have argued in favor of the theory of evolution, asserting that it does
not contradict Islamic teachings.
Such Muslim scholars and preachers cite Quranic verses that suggest that the universe was
not created all at once, but rather in stages.
"Allah has created every [living] creature from water. And of them are those that
move on their bellies, and of them are those that walk on two legs, and of them are
those that walk on four [...]." (Quran 24:45)
Another verse is interpreted as saying that man was created out of clay, which later evolved
to human beings. Similarly, Surat Ghafir states, "[We] formed you and perfected your forms.
END
Father of Sociology:
Despite the fact that social thinking is as old as man himself, however, the study of human
communities has not become a topic for a science until a later stage. The concepts, subject
matters and aims of Sociology were first identified by Muslim scholar Ibn Khaldun, who put
the basics of this new science and innovated it.
Ibn Khaldun said in clear-cut sentences that he has explored an independent science that no
one of his ancestors had talked about. He says: “Such is the purpose of this first book of
our work. (The subject) is in a way an independent science. (This science) has its own
peculiar object- that is, human civilization and social organization. It also has its own
peculiar problems- that is, explaining the conditions that attach themselves to the
essence of civilization, one after another. Thus, the situation is the same with this
science as it is with any other science, whether it be a conventional or an intellectual
one.”
Ibn Khaldun, five centuries before Darwin discovered the specific features of evolution, he
wrote that humans developed from ‘the world of the monkeys’ through a widening process in
which ‘species become more numerous’. Nearly half a millennium before Karl Marx sketched
the systematic implications of the labor theory of value, Ibn Khaldun wrote that "labor is the
real basis of profit." Four hundred years before Auguste Comte’s ‘invention’ of sociology, Ibn
Khaldun unveiled his ‘science of culture’. His contribution to history is marked by the fact
that he emphasized sociological factors governing the apparent events. His contributions
accorded him with the title ‘the real father of sociology’. In his three volume Study of History,
Arnold Toynbee calls Ibn Khaldun's philosophy of history "the greatest work of its kind
that has ever been created by any mind in any time or place.”
History remembers French August Comte as the founder of this science and totally ignores
the real founder of this science, who made it clear that he was the first one to explore this
science.
Cohen stated that Khaldun “discovered and mastered the fundamentals of sociology some
five centuries before Auguste Comte coined the word”.
Moreover, the originality of Comte’s theories has been critiqued. Some theorists contend that
“Comte made very few original contributions: almost all of his ideas can be traced back to
numerous predecessors”. Arguably, Comte’s major accomplishment was to systematically
synthesize and abridge several of the disparate, inarticulate doctrines of his time.
Muqaddimah:
It can be suggested that the Muqaddimah is essentially among the greatest sociological
work, sketching over its six books it explored different branches of sociology including
general sociology; a sociology of politics; a sociology of urban life; a sociology of economics;
and a sociology of knowledge. The work is based around Ibn Khaldun’s central concept of
‘asabiyya social cohesion. For instance, Prof. Gum Ploughs and Kolosio consider
Muqaddimah as superior in scholarship to Machiavelli’s The Prince written a century later.
Conclusion:
Ibn Khaldun is still the most important figure in the field of Sociology in Muslim History. He is
one of those shining stars that contributed so richly to the understanding of Civilization. His
theory about Asabiyya (group feeling) and the role that it plays in societies is insightful. His
theories of the science of Umran (sociology) are all pearls of wisdom.
END
Social Transformation:
Another similarity between the two theorists appears in their theories of social
transformation. Khaldun stated that societies rise and fall in three stages, and the cycle
recurs from primary stage and settlement to senility. Comte asserted that social progress is
classified human knowledge which passes through three stages: the theological, the
metaphysical, and the positivistic stages.
Historical-empirical method:
A third similarity between Khaldun and Comte is illustrated in their explanation of historical-
empirical method. Comte maintained that the most important aspect of human development
would come through observation, experimentation and comparison accurate enough to give
explanation to all experiences in terms of natural cause and effect. Like Comte, Khaldun had
a similar historical-empirical method to analyze the society during his time
Division of Labour:
Both Comte and Khaldun discussed specialization, occupations and professions, focusing
on inequality. Khaldun stated, “Differences of conditions among people are the result of the
different ways in which they make their livings”. Comparable to Khaldun’s idea regarding the
division of labor Comte focused on the principle of cooperation. The division of labor creates
interdependence among members of the society. Society ultimately benefits from a properly
functioning division of labor. As societies become more complex, the division of labor is the
only means to properly adjust to that complexity.
Role of Religion:
Another similarity is that Khaldun and Comte shared the belief on the intervention of religion
in the creation of civilization. Comte asserted that religion provides energy and power, and
helps people to accomplish their life objectives. He established a secular religion, the
“Religion of Humanity,” and a secular worship system. In Comte’s perspective, “religion
was to be divorced from super-nationalism and transformed into a collective emotion building
force supporting secular reforms and social justice”.
In Khaldun’s perspective, religion is the most significant player to solidify society, followed by
kinship. He believed religion was capable of generating prominent feelings of social
solidarity.
Comte analyzed society as “an organism where the whole is better known and more
important than the part”.
END
Idealistic Perspective:
Unlike Khaldun’s perspective, Comte’s theory of the three stages of societal progress was
idealistic because Comte’s basic principle extended from ideas, rather than economic
dynamics. Therefore, according to Comte, society evolved from theological phases to
philosophical phases, and finally to positivist phases in mental orientation.
Sociological Goal:
Comte’s sociological goal was the improvement of human society. Conversely, Khaldun was
interested in describing human society.
END
Positive stage:
In this “mature” period, only logical explanation is sanctioned; all evidence other than the
material world will be refused. The laws of nature are not “justifications,” but “descriptions” of
nature. There are no ultimate causes. The question asked should not be “why?” but “what?”.
There are no absolutes or universals. The only absolute is that “Everything is subject to
change and is relative.” In this stage, science achieves dominance over philosophy.
Furthermore, Comte believed that positivism could both advance science and social change.
He argued that the upper classes of his time were far too conservative to advance to the
positive stage. Comte applied science to explain sociology from a positivist perspective. On
this issue, Comte departed from Khaldun.
END
Social Organization:
Khaldun noted that “human beings cannot live and exist except through social organization
and cooperation”. This concept was similar to Durkheim’s notion that “society cannot exist
if its parts are not solidary”.
Division of Labour:
Khaldun discussed the well-developed division of labor in urban areas, and proposed that
division of labor occurred as a result of a transition in lifestyles from rural to urban society.
This idea was quite similar to Durkheim’s for the rise of the division of labor, caused by a
transition from mechanical solidarity to organic solidarity.
Role of religion:
In Khaldun’s perspective, religion is the most significant player to solidify society, followed by
kinship. He believed religion was capable of generating prominent feelings of social
solidarity. Khaldun’s association of religion with primitive society presented the same idea as
the function of religion in Durkheim’s mechanical solidarity which minimized individual
differences signifying that “ideas and tendencies common to all the members of the society
are greater in number and intensity than those which pertain personally to each member”
Furthermore, like Khaldun, Durkheim pointed out that “higher societies can maintain
themselves in equilibrium only if labor is divided”.
END
Khaldun’s Contributions that are Divergent from Durkheim:
(Memorize)
Social Solidarity in rural and urban Societies:
Khaldun stated that rural societies can possess only mechanical solidarity, whereas more
complex urban societies, characterized by greater division of labor, possess the potential to
show signs of organic solidarity. However, Durkheim saw mechanical solidarity as a
substandard form of social cohesion, as opposed to organic solidarity.
Durkheim’s conception of social solidarity was developed by contrasting mechanical and
organic solidarity, whereas Khaldun only identified mechanical solidarity. Khaldun was
aware of ‘organic’ civilization, and he held it to be the necessary and essential requirement
of civilization.
Khaldun perceived complex societies as undermined by their lack of common will, Durkheim
perceived complex societies as fortified by their domestic interdependence.
END
Ibn Khaldun considered the following four points worthy of consideration in studying and
analyzing historical reports:
But Ibn Khaldun's work was more than a critical study of history. It was, in fact, a study of
human civilization in general, its beginning, factors contributing to its development, and the
causes of its decline. Thus, unwittingly, Ibn Khaldun founded a new science: The science of
social development or sociology, as we call it today.
In Muqaddimah, Ibn Khaldun argued that all people strive to accumulate things and make
a profit, that is, income acquired by labor, not by mere chance. And when people pool their
labor, it results in greater profits.
If this profit corresponds to needs and necessities, it will constitute a person’s livelihood. If it
exceeds his needs, he will begin to accumulate capital.
At the root of this distinction is the human ability to think. Human beings’ ability to think leads
to the accumulation of knowledge. We aren’t born with knowledge. In fact, quite the
opposite: we’re born devoid of knowledge. He argued that we must acquire knowledge
through learning, and this requires thinking.
END
MCQs
1. Who gave the science of sociology its name?
August Comte (The French Philosopher August Comte is called the Father of Sociology. He
used the term Sociology in 1838 to refer to the scientific study of society.
Karl Marx
Max Weber
Karl Marx is called as the founder of ‘Class Struggle theory’. His thoughts on working class and
labourers led to a new direction in labour struggle.