The Founder of Many Disciplines: Ibn Khaldun

Today, disciplines such as economics, sociology, historiography, and demography are rigorous disciplines that help us break down and organize information about our complex world in the hopes that we gain a deeper understanding of social phenomena or even improve our material conditions. Though indispensable disciplines now economic and sociological thought never surpassed a surface-​level analysis for most of history until very recently. Modern economics was founded by figures like Adam Smith, while sociology was pioneered by Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, and Max Weber. However, this narrative is deeply flawed because it only takes into account western thinkers. Before all of these thinkers, Ibn Khaldun, a 14th-​century Andalusian of Arabic descent pioneered what he called his “new science”. After a turbulent career in politics, Ibn Khaldun settled down to write a history of the Arab and Berber peoples. But before undertaking this monumental task, he wrote the Muqaddimah. In this introductory book where he aimed to explain the laws of history in a manner no thinker western or eastern had ever done before. Now Ibn Khaldun is recognized by scholars as the proto-​founder of economics, sociology, demography, and historiography. No small feat for one man in the 14th-​century living through turbulent political conflicts and the Black Death.

Ibn Khaldun was born on May 27th, 1332, in Tunis, the capital of the Hasfid empire in Northern Africa. Ibn Khaldun’s full name was, and this isn’t a joke, Abdurahman bin Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Al-​Hasan bin Jabir bin Muhammad bin Ibrahim bin Abdurahman bin Ibn Khaldun al-​Hadrami. For obvious reasons, he was generally known and referred to as Ibn Khaldun. He was born into an upper-​class family that traced their lineage back to one of the companions of the Prophet Muhammad. Thanks to his family’s pedigree, Ibn Khaldun was well educated, receiving a classical Islamic education studying the Quaran and Arabic linguistics. Ibn Being a dedicated student, memorized the Quran off by heart. But Ibn Khaldun also studied matters outside of religion such as logic, mathematics and had a particular interest in philosophy, extensively reading Avicenna and Ibn Rushd.

In Northern Africa, where Ibn Khaldun lived as a child, there were many stunning ruins from ancient civilizations like Carthage and Rome. Growing up surrounded by the ruins of the old world, it was apparent that the region had once been much more prosperous and heavily populated than Khaldun’s era. As he grew up, it became more and more apparent that the glory days of the Arabic powers were over and that the Berbers and Turks were poised to take their place. Growing up in the shadow of ancient empires, while experiencing the death of another, the devout young Muslim might have recalled the words of the Qur’an, “To every nation a term; when their term comes they shall not put it back by a single hour nor put it forward.” All things die, even nations, an idea that would fascinate Ibn Khaldun later in life.

At the age of 17, the Bubonic plague, or as it was then known, the black Death, struck Tunis. Much of his family and beloved teachers were struck by the plague and died. Ibn Khaldun’s father, who had inspired him to think independently, tragically died alongside Khaldun’s mother. Ibn Khaldun later described the plague writing,​”civilization both in the East and the West was visited by a destructive plague which devastated nations and caused populations to vanish. It swallowed up many of the good things of civilization and wiped them out.” From this point on, we will be chatting about Ibn Khaldun’s political career however, there is a big caveat. Ibn Khaldun’s career was ridiculously complicated because of the ever-​changing political scene. I will just be covering the broad strokes because otherwise, we could be here all day. So you have been warned this is only a quick sketch of his life. We will be focusing on his ideas more so than his career.

The already unstable state of North African politics was worsened further by the black death. By twenty, Ibn Khaldun began his political career under the Tunisian ruler Ibn Tafrakin as a seal bearer. His primary duty was to write official documents in ornate calligraphy. An easy position, but one that did not challenge his intellect or drive. The Muslim world was ruled by a bureaucratic technocracy composed of well-​born and well-​educated aristocrats throughout the Muslim world who offered their services to kings and sultans.

Unhappy with his position, Ibn Khaldun left Tunis, moving to the city of Fez in Morocco. The Marinid Sultan Abu Inan Fares gace him a position as the writer of royal proclamations. While this was a step up career-​wise, he was still not satisfied. Angling for a better position, Ibn Khaldun began to scheme, however, he was quickly accused of participating in a rebellion and was thrown in prison, only to be released after two years when Abu Inan died and was replaced by the Vizier al-​Hasān ibn-​Umar. Though freed and reinstated to his former position, Ibn Khaldun began to scheme yet again for a better position by siding with Abu Salem, who promised Ibn Khaldun a ministerial post worthy of his ego. But Abu Salem never followed through on his promise.

After exhausting all of his political ties and capital, the frustrated Ibn Khaldun moved to Granada in Southern Spain, which was under Muslim rule. By cashing in on a favor owed to him by the Nasrid Muhammad Sultan of Granada, Ibn Khaldun was given a crucial diplomatic mission to convince the King of Castile Pedro the Cruel to agree to a peace treaty. While in Sevilla negotiating the treaty, Ibn Khaldun witnessed his ancestor’s old lands in the formerly Muslim conquered Sevilla. Eventually, a peace treaty was agreed upon. In the process, Ibn Khaldun had greatly impressed Pedro the cruel who offered Ibn Khaldun a position in his court as well as restoring his ancestral homelands, with the only caveat being that he abandoned Islam and converted to Christianity. A devout Muslim, Ibn Khaldun declined the offer.

Upon returning to Granada, Khaldun became increasingly close with Nasrid Muhammad and tried to mold him into a Platonic philosopher-​king. Nasrid’s vizier grew suspicious of Khaldun, leading to his eventual departure. Nasrid did not become a famed philosopher-​king, an outcome that deeply saddened Ibn Khaldun, leaving a shame-​induced gap in his usually extensive and descriptive autobiography.

He traveled back to Tunisia to serve under the Hasfid sultan Abu Abdallah who he had met while imprisoned years previous. Abdallah made Ibn Khaldun his prime minister and assigned him the difficult and challenging task of collecting taxes from the local Berber tribes. While amongst the tribesmen, Ibn Khaldun grew to appreciate and respect their way of life, plain simplicity, and loyalty to their fellows. He grew to understand their way of life much more than any of his Arabic contemporaries. When Abdallah died, Ibn Khaldun swapped his allegiances yet again to serve under the Sultan of Tlemcen Abu I-​Abbas. After a few years of service, Abu I-​Abbas was overthrown by a political rival, and Ibn Khaldun found himself yet again in a prison cell. After all of his hard work, plotting, and scheming, he was back to square one. Ibn Khaldun had started to realize politics was a futile career.

Eventually, he was employed again under the new sultan of Tlemcen until he moved to Fez. By now, Ibn Khaldun had made a name for himself as a skillful administrator but especially for his knowledge and relationship with the fierce Beber tribes. After completing his duties under the sultan of Tlmencen, Ibn Khaldun decided to free himself from all preoccupations and spend his time putting pen to paper on what he had learned after a lifetime of political wrangling. One of the Beber tribes welcomed Ibn Khaldun and allowed him to stay peacefully in the town of Qalat Ibn Salama. While here, Ibn Khaldun aimed to write a history of the Arabs and Berber people, but he felt it necessary before diving into his book to explain his methods, something few historians before him had ever deemed necessary. This introductory book is today known as the​Muqaddimah.

Ibn Khaldun believed that societies, cities, states, economies, and all endeavors are caught in an inescapable cycle. From humble beginnings, a group might rise to a powerful position until after a decedent peak, they corrode and decline. The dynamics of history mirror biological life in that all things have life spans, and all things die on a long enough timeline. Ibn Khaldun theorized that great dynasties and empires begin on the peripheries of other great empires. Through their unity, what he called asabiyyah, they conquer the internally divided great powers. But as these new rulers establish themselves at the center of their new empires, they become lazy and more concerned with their lavish lifestyle than ruling properly. A new power will emerge on the frontier and invade the ailing former empire, or it will decline slowly “like a wick dying out in a lamp whose oil is gone.” An empire can complete this whole cycle in the span of three or four generations. This cycle is inescapable. It can be delayed but will eventually be fulfilled by the dynamics internally created by any great empire.

But in the Muqaddimah, Ibn Khaldun did not only focus on this cycle. He also noted many other social phenomena, most pertinently for classical liberals and libertarians, the nature of the state, the division of labor, and the optimal rate of taxation.

Ibn Khaldun was a devout Muslim, and he believed philosophical thinkers like Al-​Farabi and Ibn Sina who theorized about the perfect state were wasting their time. God’s law or sharia has already been revealed, which embodies the best life in the here and now and the afterlife. But sharia was rarely followed, so Ibn Khaldun focused on the second-​best state, one which is based on justice and consideration of the public welfare, although this state would not guarantee one a peaceful afterlife.

Though devout Ibn Khaldun was not blinded by his faith, he observed that “People who have a divinely revealed book and who follow the prophets are few in number in comparison with all the Magians who have no divinely revealed book. The latter constitute the majority of the world’s inhabitants. Still, they too have possessed dynasties and monuments, not to mention life itself.” Following the words of Aristotle, Ibn Khaldun believed man is a political animal by nature that cannot live without some form of social organization. Without some form of law to protect people, each person will stretch out his hand for whatever he needs and try simply to take it, since injustice and aggressiveness are in the animal nature.” The aggrieved will try to prevent this theft. However, they will be motivated “by wrathfulness and spite and the strong human reaction when one’s own property is menaced.” This would trigger hostilities that would cause immense bloodshed. Thus Ibn Khaldun writes, “human beings need someone to act as a restraining influence and mediator in every social organization, in order to keep the members from fighting with each other”, this mediator is the state.

For Ibn Khaldun, the state establishes law and order so economic activity can take place; he writes that “Attacks on people‟s property remove the incentive to acquire and gain property… When attacks on (property) are extensive and general, affecting all means of making a livelihood, business inactivity, too, becomes general.” Hundreds of years before Thomas Hobbes, Ibn Khaldun had described what Hobbes would refer to as the war of all against all. In the same manner, Ibn Khaldun expressed sentiments that Locke would later share ‘about the impracticalities of every man being judge, jury, and executioner in the state of nature leading to hostilities. He also predated Locke in emphasizing the state’s essential role in protecting private property. Today, Hobbes and Locke are thought of as crucial thinkers who changed how western philosophers viewed the state. Yet Ibn Khaldun predated them by three hundred years.

Another topic where Ibn Khaldun predates a western thinker is Adam Smith. In his famous book, the Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith described how the division of labor in pin factories exponentially increased outputs. Today Smith is thought of by many as the father of economics. Ibn Khaldun noted that “The power of the individual human being is not sufficient for him to obtain (the food) he needs and does not provide him with as much food as he requires to live.” He explained that even something as simple as bread can only be obtained by grinding, kneading and baking. Even simply planting and harvesting the wheat for bread requires tools made by blacksmiths. Cooking the bread requires utensils made by potters. Ibn Khaldun summarizes what would be later known as the division of labor perfectly when he writes through co-​operation, the needs of a number of persons, many times greater than their own number, can be satisfied.‟ Yet again, Adam Smith, the father of economics, was predated by Khaldun.

Another aspect of economic thought where Khaldun was well ahead of the curve was taxation. The state exists to protect property, and to do this, some form of taxation must exist to fund the states’ activities. The big question is how much should the state tax its citizens? He believed that the only taxes imposed in the early stages of an empire were those permitted by religious law, the charity tax, poll tax, and land tax. He noted that in the initial stages of his cycle, the austere lifestyle of the peripheries inoculated respect for other people’s property and a disdain for appropriating it without dire need. In these circumstances, he noticed business thrived.

However, as those on the peripheries come to power and form their own empire through conquest conditions change. Ibn Khaldun observed that “A large civilization yields large profits because of the large amount of avaliable labour.” This economic growth leads to an ever-​expanding market for luxury goods. Rulers who used to be austere get a taste for luxuries and start to fund their lifestyles using others’ property through taxation. Another factor at play for an increase in spending is maintaining an army. Previously on the peripheries, through social unity and loyalty, people fought for their leader voluntarily. But by the zenith of a dynasty, soldiers expected wages to fight for an increasingly alienated leader. Thankfully, a large and urbanized population causes tax revenue to increase dramatically, at least initially. However, rulers tend to push their luck and with a taste for the high life, they raise taxes “beyond the limits of equity.” This results in decreased economic activity because, in ibn Khaldun’s words, “(When) the taxes are too heavy, and the profits anticipated fail to materialize… the incentive for cultural activity is gone.” Taxation and tariffs create disincentives for productive work, and as a result, the economy inevitably contracts, contributing to the aforementioned cycle when great empires decline and perish. He explains that “It should be known that at the beginning of a dynasty, taxation yields a large revenue from small assessments. At the end of the dynasty, taxation yields a small revenue from large assessments.” Higher taxes dissuade people from wasting their time, money, and effort to make a profit that will be mostly taken from them through taxation.

In 1978, supply-​side economist Arthur Laffer theorized lower taxation rates could yield higher revenue using the same logic of Ibn Khaldun. In fact, Arthur Laffer explicitly stated he was not responsible for inventing the idea as thinkers like John Maynard Keynes, Adam Smith, and the earliest of them all, Ibn Khaldun, had already outlined the basic gist of his theory. Hundreds of years before modern economics, Ibn Khaldun already saw the relationship between taxation, economic growth, and incentives.

After three years of work in isolation, to finish the rest of his history of the Arabs and Berbers, Ibn Khaldun needed an extensive library. He returned to Tunis, which was now under the control of a new leader Abby I-​Abbas who took Ibn Khaldun into his service. However, due to Ibn Khaldun’s dicey track record Abbas understandably did not fully trust his newest employee. Ibn Khaldun left Tunis before things got ugly and relocated to Cairo in Egypt, the most opulent and populous city of the Islamic world at the time. Ibn Khaldun was impressed by Egypt writing, “He who has not seen it does not know the power of Islam.” Unlike the rest of the Islamic world, Egypt had avoided internal and external conflicts leading to a flourishing of high culture and learning.

While in Cairo Ibn Khaldun was appointed by the sultan of Egypt as a professor of jurisprudence at a Madrasah, the Islamic version universities. After two brief periods of falling out with the sultan over misunderstandings, Ibn Khaldun was appointed as chief judge of the Mālikī rite, one of the four recognized rites of Sunnite Islam. As a judge, his strict attitude was unwelcome amongst the Egyptians. He eventually abandoned his work as a judge to teach as a professor, spending his time lecturing, reading, and making constant revisions to his Muqaddimah.

.

By the year 1400, the last of the great Mongolian conquerers, Tamerlane invaded Syria. The new Sultan OF Egypt responded by gathering a military force to rebuff Tamerlane’s invasion. Ibn Khaldun was interrupted from his studies to accompany the military expedition. However, the sultan of Egypt had no stomach for battle and quickly returned to Egypt with his army leaving Ibn Khaldun stranded in Damascus besieged by Tamerlane.

Being a skilled diplomat, Ibn Khaldun was lowered by ropes from the city walls to negotiate peace terms with the fierce warlord. Surprisingly, the warlord Tamerlane was greatly impressed by Ibn Khaldun’s intellect and allowed safe-​conduct for the civilians remaining in Damascus before he sacked the city and tragically burnt to rubble its great mosque. Returning to Cairo, Ibn Khaldun spent the next five years writing his autobiography, adding more revisions to the Muqaddimah, all while performing his duties as a professor and judge. At the age of 73 in 1406, Ibn Khaldun passed away.

Throughout his life, he had served under multiple administrations met powerful world leaders, kings, generals, and tribesmen. He was easily one of the most experienced and knowledgeable statesmen of his era, but what surprises me most is that he advised rulers not to seek out the advice of scholars. He believed and with good reason that academics are trained to see universals rather than particulars and could become easily blinded by own fantastic theories. After traveling the Muslim world and spending years conversing with the most educated men of the eastern world, concluded, the best advice comes from “ordinary, sound men of average intelligence.”

Sadly, there is little evidence that In Khaldun had much impact on Arabic thought following his death besides a small cadre of scholars. During the 17^th-century, Turks under the Ottoman empire examined his thought, hoping to extend the lifespan of their own empire. His works were introduced to Europe by 1697 but were mostly read by specialists. The 19^th-century Scottish philosopher Robert Flint gave Ibn Khaldun very high praise stating that “as a theorist of history he had no equal in any age or country until Vico appeared, more than three hundred years later. Plato, Aristotle, and Augustine were not his peers, and all others were unworthy of being even mentioned along with him”. Nowadays, scholars are amazed that such a forward-​thinking man existed in the 14^th century. Yale professor Franz Rosenthal wrote of the Muqaddimah,“​It can be regarded as the earliest attempt made by any historian to discover a pattern in the changes that occur in man’s political and social organization.” Arnold Toynbee, the economic historian, described The Muqaddimah, as “undoubtedly the greatest work of its kind that has ever yet been created by any mind in any time or any place‟ But beyond the world of academia in 1981 when discussing his economic policies, Ronald Regan of all people cited Ibn Khaldun.

Ibn Khaldun was by no means a classical liberal or even a vaguely liberal-​minded person. He had an aristocrat’s disdain for commerce as, at best, a necessary evil. His lifestyle was austere, and he grew to hate cosmopolitan city life. The rough, rugged, and virtuous lives of nomadic tribes at the beginning of his historical cycle appealed to him, not the luxurious urbane lifestyle. In terms of social attitudes, he was a devout and strict Muslim from the 14^th century. He unquestioningly believed women were the property of their husbands and homosexuality should be punished by death in accordance with his religious principles. So Ibn Khaldun isn’t a liberal by a longshot, however, there is still a great value to discussing and reading Ibn Khaldun.

He corrects the all too common west is best attitude. His theories predate numerous prominent western thinkers hundreds of years before they were even born. There is a certain danger in adopting what is called the Whig view of history. Whig history presents history as a journey from a dark unenlightened past to a miraculous present. Thinkers like Ibn Khaldun can discover important ideas like the division of labor but they do not have the same impact of influence as thinkers later theorists such as Adam Smith. Though ideas are important and change the world, they must be received in the right environment before being implemented. In many ways, Ibn Khaldun was a man both deeply of his time but also far ahead of it intellectually. So far ahead, few could see where he was going until we could fully appreciate his works hundreds of years later. Ibn Khaldun was no liberal, but he pioneered ideas and disciplines that would become key in the liberal case for a free society.