KHALED AL-DAKHEEL
Monday 10 September 2012 ARABNEWS

Modern Arab political thought has, for the most part, relied heavily on the theories of Ibn Khaldoun to explain whatever concerns the “modern Arab state” has, from its birth, historical events and the way it has conducted its affairs to the changes and transformations it has undergone.

Ibn Khaldoun’s theory about the state was highlighted in his famous Muqadimah (introduction) which appeared in a book in the 14th century. The Muqadimah has thus maintained its methodological validity for seven continuous centuries. Yet throughout this dated period, Arab culture has, for all intents and purposes, failed to produce a work that would complement such a comprehensive methodology or come up with a new different theory about the roots of the modern state and its birth in accordance with changing historical phases.

If we adopt the valid hypothesis that Arab thought, with all its manifestations, is just a reflection of reality, we can arrive at the conclusion that the stalemate of modern Arab political thought and its inability to come up with a political theory that can replace Ibn Khaldoun’s theory and respond to contemporary requirements is a reflection of the stagnation of Arab political reality itself.

This hypothesis should nevertheless not take us back to the actual enigma of the relationship of thought with reality. It is sufficient to say that this relationship in its very nature is a narrative in which the two parties will reciprocate influence according to the nature and circumstances of the phase through which they are passing.
Accordingly, the dialectical relationship between the two sides should breed a new product which is different from the two of them. It is almost as if Ibn Khaldoun was referring to the very political stagnation we have been suffering over the centuries as reflected in his work. Arab thought, on the other hand, might have succumbed to the constraints of the reality by numerous justifications. May be also the pressures of the reality were too harsh and enigmatic to leave room for the thought to move outside the traditional boundaries of Ibn Khaldoun’s theory.

Modern Arab thought is not an exception in its dependence on old legacy and its loyalty to the familiar. On the contrary, religious thought provides an ideal example of inevitable traditional submissiveness. In fact, an Arab religious scholar cannot be recognized as a scholar unless he mortgages himself to what the old Ulema were unanimous upon. He is obliged to recognize the old pioneers of religious thought, most notably Imam Shafie, Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal, Ibn Taimiyyah and others, and to strongly adhere to what such scholars have left for the Ummah.

Paradoxically, traditional religious thinkers criticize advocates of modern thought for their Western inclinations, which they claim have been created by their submissiveness to the West and its intellectual literature. On their part, the followers of the modern thought blame the advocates of traditional religious thought for being captives to the past, unable to emancipate themselves from what old scholars had proclaimed without any consideration to the differences in time and place and which therefore makes them unable to compete with the contemporary age.

Upon close scrutiny, however, we will find that there isn’t a substantial difference between the mentalities of the two. They both have the tendency to copy from others whether these others are from the Arab past or the non-Arab contemporary age. The mentality that replicates is by nature a traditional one. The Arab present has thus been marginalized by the two parties though in different degrees and for different reasons.

READ MORE HERE: