Ibn Khaldun discussed how continous oppression can eventually lead to submission. On pages 95- 96 of The Muqaddimah, translated by Franz Rosenthal (2005), he said:
Not everyone is master of his own affairs … As a rule, man must by necessity be dominated by someone else. If the domination is kind and just and the people under it are not oppressed by its law and restrictions, they are guided by the courage or cowardice that they possess in themselves … Self-reliance eventually becomes a quality natural to them … If, however, the domination with its laws is one of brute force and intimidation, it breaks their fortitude and deprives them of their power of resistance as a result of the inertness that develops in the souls of the oppressed.
Indeed man is “by necessity … dominated by someone else”. There is always someone who lead and others who follow. Ideally, leaders are democratically elected, although this is not always the case. But, whether democratically elected or not, there are always people who lead, and, therefore “dominate”.
If the “domination” is through “brute force and intimidation”, meaning that draconian or restrictive laws / rules are put in place to control people, the people will eventually obey and submit. The rules may be enforced by means of force, or through psychological pressure. At the early stages the people may question the laws or resist but eventually they realise how difficult it is for them to go against the authorities / the system. Eventually it becomes a norm for them to not resist or question.
(NB: ever heard about ‘kita perlu ada ISA untuk memastikan keharmonian negara’ or ‘kritik mesti dengan cara yang betul demi rahsia jamaah’? And what do you do? You obey…because you are intimidated by a bigger problem if you do not obey – negara kucar kacir or jamaah tidak selamat. Who intimidates you? The people with vested interest.)
If, however, the “domination” is “kind and just”, meaning that the rules do not prevent the people from being themselves, then the people will become self-reliant and able to think and act for themselves. This is the quality of a society that will progress.
But, if the rules do not stop people from doing certain things, how do we ensure society behaves morally? Do we not need restrictions so that the people only do the right things and avoid wrong things? To this, Ibn Khaldun tells the story of the Prophet’s companions. He argued that the companions did not face restrictive rules, but they still acted morally. They were guided by their own personal self-control and they make up their own mind based on their own thinking. The Prophet showed them the values they should live their lives by. He did not forcibly impose restrictions. Ibn Khaldun said thus:
It is no argument that the men around Muhammad observed the religious laws, and did not experience any diminution of their fortitude, but possessed the greatest possible fortitude. When the Muslims got their religion from Muhammad, the restraining influence came from themselves, as a result of encouragement and discouragement he gave them in the Quran … Their fortitude remained unabated, and it was not corroded by education or authority … Umar’s desire was that everyone should have his restraining influence in himself. (p. 96)
But why is it that we now have become dependant on laws? Such that an ‘Islamic’ state is defined almost totally by its legal system, and not so much by its value system? Ibn Khaldun provided an answer:
(The influence of) religion, then, decreased among men, and they came to use restrictive laws. The religious law became a branch of learning and a craft … People … assumed the character trait of submissiveness to law. This led to a decrease in their fortitude … Clearly, then, governmental and educational laws destroy fortitude, because their restraining influence is something that comes from outside. The religious laws, on the other hand, do not destroy fortitude, because their restraining influence is something inherent. (p. 96-97)
People become reliant on the text of the law when they start to forget the values brought by religion (or the purposes of the law – maqasid syari’ah). Rather than aiming for the values meant by the laws, they made the laws itself as the aim. This not only destroys the value of the laws, it also destroys the people’s ability to rely on themselves to make decisions.
Note that Ibn Khaldun said “(The influence of) religion, then, decreased among men, and they came to use restrictive laws”. By implication, this quote shows that the more we become reliant on laws, the further we are from religion.
The last quote also points to why a small government is better than a big one. A big state tends to exert control on every aspect of human life, which eventually destroy the people’s “fortitude”. If we want society to progress, we need a small government – one which does not control our lives, but, rather, allows us to use our own “restraining influence” as desired by Umar, and encourages us to be self-reliant.
Filed under: Misc
Thank you for citing Ibn Khaldun’s views and further elaborating them. It refreshes my memories studying history and sociology and referring to his works. Sad to say not many of us Muslims know Ibn Khaldun or any other Muslim scholars and their literature in fields related to politics, economy and human sciences, thus, we’re lacking great ideas buried in our past history. Islam has always been explained through what it permits and forbids, curbing the true essence of the way of life from prevailing. Allahua’lam.