www.wansaiful.com

VISIT www-my-islamic-state.com FOR FURTHER DETAILS

This is an excellent video which discusses some basic ideas of classical liberalism. It is a collections of thoughts by those who attended the recent Freedom Week at Sydney Sussex College, University of Cambridge.

I think the best description of classical liberalism was given by Dr Mark Pennington at around minute 18 in this video. He argues that classical liberalism is about being able to be nice to others without being coerced. He said that doing a good deed because you feel forced to do so is, in fact, not really a “good deed” as such. A real good deed is when you do it because you want to do it. Translating that to “Muslim-speak”, a good deed must be accompanied by ikhlas / sincerity. Otherwise, it will not be rewarded as a good deed.

(more…)

I have to write this one in Malay as I think this is the best way to reach my aims.

Satu surat terbuka

Assalamualaikum,

Pagi tadi saya mendengar satu ceramah bertajuk “Pandangan Islam terhadap Liberalisme” yang ustaz sampaikan. Alhamdulillah ini merupakan satu ceramah yang amat baik, jauh lebih baik daripada beberapa ceramah atas yang sama yang pernah saya dengar sebelum ini. Izinkan saya mengimbas kembali beberapa isu penting yang Ustaz sampaikan, dan saya harap Ustaz boleh betulkan jika saya tersalah dengar.

(more…)

Ibn Khaldun Seminar 2 went very well. The attendance was at least double what we expected.

Rather than providing comments on a seminar in which I was the main presenter, it would be better if you read the comments by Nik Nazmi and Tricia Yeoh

Some pics below:

Ibn Khaldun showed that wealth is something that should not depsised. Rather, early Muslims accumulated a huge amount of wealth and that helped propel them to greateness.

Ibn Khaldun said:

The group feeling of the Arabs was consolidated in Islam through the prophethood of Muhammad… They then advanced advanced against the Persians and Byzantines and … confiscated their worldy possessions. They amassed enormous fortunes. It went so far that one horseman obtained … about 30,000 gold pieces.

Ibn Khaldun further added:

Al-Masudi said: “In the days of Uthman, the men around Muhammad acquired estates and money. On the day Uthman was killed, 150,000 dinars and 1,000,000 dirhams were in the hands of his treasurer. The value of his estate in Wadi l-Qura and Hunayn and other places were 200,00 dinars. He also left many camels and horses. The eights part of the estate of az-Zubayr after his death amounted to 50,000 dinars. He also left 1000 horses and 1000 female servants. Talhah’s income from the Iraq was 1000 dinars a day, and his income from the region ofash-Sharah was more than that. The stable of Abd-ar-Rahman b. Awf contained 1000 horses. He also had 1000camels and 10,000 sheep… Az-Zubayr built himself a residence in al-Basrah and other residences in Egypt and al-Kufah and Alexandria…

It is obvious therefore that the pious great Muslims were wealthy. Wealth therefore is not something Muslims should despise. In fact, if the companions were to be examples, wealth is something to be aimed for. Ibn Khaldun went on to say:

Such were the gains people made. Their religion did not blame them for amassing so much, because, as booty, it was lawful.

(source: The Muqaddimah, translated by Franz Rosenthal (2005), p. 162-163)

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.

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)

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.