www.wansaiful.com

It has been two months and I am still waiting forthe next instalment. Some update here.

On page 158 of The Muqaddimah, translated by Franz Rosenthal (2005), Ibn Khaldun stated:

It is not possible to appoint two men to the position (of imam) at the same time. Religious scholars generally are of this opinion, on the basis of certain traditions. Others hold that (the prohibition againts two imams) applies only to two imams in one locality, or where they would be close to each other.When there are greatdistances andthe imam isunable to control the farther region, it is permissible to set up anotherimam there to take care of public interest.

Note that the word ‘imam’ in the above quote refers to the person leading an imamate, not an imam who leads prayers.

Ibn Khaldun went on to say, on the same page,:

The pre-requisites gverning the institution of (the imamate) are four:(1) knowledge, (2) probity, (3) competence, and (4) freedom ofthe senses and limbs from any defect that might affect judgement and action. There is a difference of opinion concerning a fifth pre-requisite, that is (5) Qurashite descent.

Once again I worry about the increasing friendliness between PAS and socialists. This time after reading my copy of Harakah printed edition (16-30 June 07). On page 18 of the English section, in the report ‘More parties needed for one logo opposition front’, PAS’ election director said:

A party that might join our coalition has yet to be registered. A party that is friendly to us, Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM) has yet to be approved for registration.

Over the last few years the influence of socialism became more apparent in PAS. I suppose this is not really news because PAS has been happily working with DAP for quite some time. But socialist voices are becoming stronger. Two examples:
1. This article is clearly arguing for socialism.
2. This article is about a PAS leader speaking in socialistic / pro state-planning tone.

Why is the latter socialistic?

Well, read this quote: “Inilah dia kerajaan yang berjiwa rakyat, kerajaan yang menjaga kebajikan rakyat, kerajaan yang boleh memberikan kesejahteraan kepada rakyat dan inilah kerajaan yang boleh dipanggil ‘kuli rakyat’, patutnya rakyat menjadi tuan bukannya menjadi kuli”. When the state tries to “memberikan kesejahteraan kepada rakyat”, how will they define “kesejahteraan”? Whose definition would they use? Will the state define what is sejahtera and what is not? The quote worryingly indicates a bigger state, where the state determines what is good for her citizens.

And then there was this quote: “Arab Saudi apabila harga minyak dunia naik, harga minyak dalam negaranya diturunkan dan gaji kakitangan dinaikkan, inilah pemimpin yang berjiwa menolong rakyat, kita negara pengeluar minyak sepatutnya dalam negeri murahlah.” When oil price increased globally, prices should go up everywhere. Compare the economy of Saudi Arabia with other countries that do not control prices. Compare the level of state corruption in Saudi with other countries that do not control prices. Do we want to make Saudi a role model? Ergh…

Perhaps the increasing influence of socialist ideas is not realised by many. But unfortunately the ‘crusade’ against Liberal Islam is turning some people into Socialist Islam.

I would reject both the Islam Liberal interpretation of Islam, as well as the pro-socialist ideas of some Islamists. As a matter of principle, Islam tells me that choice should be given back to the people, and competition should be encouraged. The state should be small and the institutions within our society should be strengthened.

Ibn Khaldun reiterated the need for us to use our own minds and make our own decisions. He said:

It often happens that people are (incredulous) with regards to historical information, just as it also happens that they are tempted to exaggerate certain information, in order to be able to report something remarkable … Therefore a person should look at his sources and rely upon himself. With a clear mind and straightforward, natural (common sense) he should distinguish between the nature of the possible and the impossible. (source: The Muqaddimah, translated by Franz Rosenthal (2005), p. 146)

Ibn Khaldun believes that dynasties, just like human beings, have a natural life span. While an individual geneally lives for around 120 years, the life span of dynasties isaround three generations. Ibn Khaldun said:

In the opinion of physicians and astrologers, the natural life span of individuals is one hundred and twenty years … Within the same generation, the duration of life differs according to the conjunctions. It may be either moreor less that one hundred and twenty years … The life span of a Muslim lasts between sixty and seventy years… The same applies to the life span of dynasties. Their duration may differaccording to the conjunctions. However, as a rule no dynasty lasts beyond the life span of three generations. A generation is identical with the average duration of the life of a single individual, namely forty years, the time required for growth to be completed and maturity reached.

Ibn Khaldun then went on to describe the nature of each generation of the dynasties:

The first generation retains the desert qualities, desert toughness and desert savagery … The strength of group feeling continues to be preserved among them. They are sharp and greatly feared. People submit to them …

… Under the influence of royal authority and a life of ease, the second generation changes from the desert attitude to sedentary culture, from privation to luxury and plenty, from a state in which everybody shared in the glory to one in whch one man claims all the glory for himself while the others are too lazy to strive for glory, and from proud superiority to humble subservience … People become used to lwoliness and obedience …

… The third generation, then, has (completely) forgotten the period of desert life and toughness, as if it had never existed … Luxury reachesits peak among them … Group feeling disappeared completely … People forget to protect and defend themselves and to press their claims … until God permits it to be destroyed, and with it goes everything it stands for …

As one can see, we have there three generations. In the course of these three generations, the dynasty grow senile and is worn out. Therefore it is in the fourth generation that(ancestral) prestige is destroyed.

(Quotes source: The Muqaddimah, translated by Franz Rosenthal (2005), p. 136-137)

You want to see how 9 years can make a person change?

Then try comparing my previous post on Lina Joy and my other comments with what I wrote back in 1998.

Hmmm…..

On the issue of political leadership, Ibn Khaldun says

One of those people must be the leaders who has superiority among them (Ed: ie among the people). He is singled out as leader of all the various group feelings, because he is superior to all the others by birth. When he is singled out for (leadership), he is too proud to let others share in his leadership and control or to let them participate in it, because the qualities of haughtiness and pride are innate in animal nature. Thus, he develops the quality of egotism, innate in human beings.

The above quote reflects the situation when Ibn Khaldun was alive - an era when governments were formed of dynasties rich with familial ties. The leadership of those dynasties were usually passed on from one family member to another as if power was inherited along familial lines. Democracy may have existed at that time (I don’t know), but it was not as widely established, and certainly not as we understand it today. It is therefore understandable, and perhaps even expected, for scholars during the era wrote to defend such form of government.

Ibn Khaldun was spot on when he said “the qualities of haughtiness and pride are innate in animal nature”. This is a disease that infects many leaders. The form of government we now call democracy is an attempt to circumvent that “innate nature” of mankind - there is now a mechanism to remove leaders who have become too egoistic.

Ibn Khaldun went on to say

politics requires that only one person exercise control. Were various persons, liable to differ among each other, to exercise it, destruction of the whole could result.

Quotes source: The Muqaddimah, translated by Franz Rosenthal (2005), p. 132.

Ibn Khaldun argued that when property rights are not protected, civilisations quickly run into ruin. His appreciation of the importance of property rights is clear if we look at his discussions on how places that succumb to the Bedoiuns were quickly ruined. Ibn Khaldun believes that the ruin is caused by the Bedouins’ lack of respect for property rights.

In talking about the Bedouins, Ibn Khaldun said:

…it is their nature to plunder whatever other people possess … They recognize no limit in taking the posessions of other people. Whenever their eyes fall upon some property, furnishings, or utensils, they take them. When they acquire superiority and royal authority, they have complete power to plunder (as they please). There no longer exists any political (power) to protect property, and civilization is ruined. (The Muqaddimah, translated by Franz Rosenthal (2005), p. 118 - 119)

The lack of respect of property rights is best exemplified by countries with socialistic, central-planning values (statism). In such countries, the government ‘nationalizes’ whatever they want as they please. Of course, they would say it is for the benefit of the country as a whole. But, we should look at the facts. Countries whose governments do not respect property rights have almost always failed to ensure prosperity for their citizens. The way forward, for any ambitious and visionary developing country, is to protect property rights.

I did not quote Ibn Khaldun fully in this post (towards the end of the post).

Check out the very last sentence in this full quote:

(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. Therefore, governmental and educational laws … weaken their souls and diminish their stamina (source: The Muqaddimah, translated by Franz Rosenthal (2005), p. 96-97)