Third hypothesis 3
The dynamic relationship between causes and effects:
A reader of the Muqaddimah will notice that Ibn Khaldun did not present his economic explanations in a rigid manner. To demonstrate this, we will cite his analysis of phenomena into causes and effects as one of the new methods he applied in studying human civilization and political life.
Although his analysis was pioneering in this field, he did not view cause and effect in a static way, as if to assume, for example, that causes will always remain causes and effects will always remain effects. The true significance of Ibn Khaldun’s methodology cannot be fully grasped unless an additional, dynamic factor is revealed in relation to the subject of research. By this factor, we do not simply mean acknowledging Ibn Khaldun’s contribution in discovering the method of analyzing causes and effects. What truly draws attention to the Muqaddimah is that we cannot find causes on one side and effects on the other. Such a polarization is alien to Ibn Khaldun’s thought, which is unfamiliar with this empty abstraction. On the contrary, he saw the relationship between the economic background and the influence of the elements of civilization as an inextricably linked process, constantly moving in a series of reciprocal reactions. Furthermore, he did not treat the elements of civilization as forces of equal influence, each having the same impact on the course of events. This is particularly noticeable in his views on religion, which sometimes occupy the heart of the discussion. In fact, the great advantage of his approach is its scientific character, which excludes the possibility of any single factor having an absolute nature or quality, and instead assumes the existence of a relative influence and reciprocal reactions.
One of the many examples that can explain such interaction is the intricate relationship between lifestyle, mode of thought, and the spread of knowledge. Every material development brings a corresponding reaction in social relations and in varying approaches to temporal and religious matters. It has already been noted that this material development leads to an increase in professions and a division of labor, and each profession affects the psyche and mind, broadening intellectual horizons. This encourages the further spread and flourishing of knowledge, which in turn increases human intelligence and enlightens thought through the multiplicity of faculties acquired by the soul . In this dynamic analysis, we cannot find any arbitrary separation between cause and effect. If the advancement of science and knowledge is a result of a material cause, then the same
This outcome then acts as a cause at a higher stage: the transformation and refinement of one’s way of thinking. The chain of reciprocal reactions does not end there; for the evolved thought that resulted from a previous interaction now acts as a cause, becoming a catalyst for satisfying new material needs and a comfortable life commensurate with the level of development attained by the individual possessing this thought.<sup>1</sup>
Another example that can reinforce this methodological hypothesis is the role of tribal solidarity in both nomadic and settled societies. In nomadic societies, the harsh nature of life and its austere conditions imbue tribal solidarity with several characteristics, most importantly that it is a unifying force, full of activity and vitality, capable of defending the group and striving to achieve its goals against other tribal factions, resolving internal disputes among its members, and acting as a tool to propel development towards a more advanced form of material life. While tribal solidarity, with its strong structure, dynamic characteristics, and significant role in bringing about change, is considered a consequence of this difficult nomadic lifestyle, it also acts as a cause and an instrument of change when material conditions are favorable. This occurs when the group, through its tribal solidarity, eliminates the very conditions it created, as when the group, through its solidarity, conquers a neighboring state and establishes a new king in its place, who abandons nomadic life and transitions to urban life.
Under civilization, a new phase of mutual influences—albeit less intense—begins between urban living conditions and the components of social cohesion, particularly its role, which loses much of its justification. In terms of defense, the new life of the community in cities protected by walls and guards—instead of living in the open—gives rise to new and unfamiliar feelings: feelings of security, reassurance, and dependence on the state.
In terms of protection, the new systems and procedures of the settled governing environment replace the authority of the tribal chief in resolving internal problems and punishing those who violate the established order. Furthermore, the adoption of earlier civilizations and the acquisition of easier professions and means of livelihood replace the raiding, plundering, and conquest that primitive groups resorted to for the necessities of life. Thus, the king’s authority, after the establishment of urban life, assumes the functions previously performed by the tribal group, and its structure is affected. The bonds that united its members dissolve, and it loses its distinctive characteristics such as dynamism, vitality, and a love of combat.1 Although the significant decline in the structure, characteristics, and role of the tribal group is also a result of the prevailing lifestyle in this urban environment, the group’s weak response to these influences is incomparable to the dynamic response of the tribal group in nomadic life. Regardless of its role in transferring political power between different branches of the same group—changes that are insignificant—the weakened tribal group becomes practically incapable of effecting fundamental political change in the manner in which it transitioned the group’s life from nomadism to civilization.
If we apply what was mentioned at the beginning of this methodological hypothesis regarding the dynamic nature of Ibn Khaldun’s discussions, we will also not find a rigid polarization of causes and effects in his study of the phenomenon of ‘asabiyya (group solidarity) in both nomadic and settled societies. ‘Asabiyya, in its active, primitive stage, with the characteristics previously explained, is a result of the harsh lifestyle under nomadic rule. When material conditions improve, we observe that it becomes the cause of a transformation from this aspect of social life to a completely different one under settled civilization. The interaction and exchange of roles between causes and effects continues under the comfort and luxury of urban life, which this time becomes the cause of many harmful influences.
