After the “War on Terrorism” was concluded, America began to help the Iraqis rebuild their country. On the top of Iraq’s list of things needed, there is a line that says independent government. However, the topic the Honors students had on this subject considered only two philosophers/political scientists in its analysis of  the reconstruction of the Iraqi government: Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Unfortunately for this analysis, Thomas Hobbes was a Christian and so was John Locke. Considering that Iraq is Islamic, this could pose a problem on a secular and spiritual level, because most Islamic people will not be willing to accept a theory for a government based on a Christian writer. So, instead of Hobbes and Locke, I decided on an Islamic political scientist, Ibn Khaldun, to help analyze the path Iraq should take in its government.

To begin with, who is Ibn Khaldun and where does he come from? According to Islamic Resources, “Ibn Khaldun, Muslim historian and political philosopher, was one of the greatest intellects of his age and one of the most outstanding thinkers of all times.” Khaldun was born in Tunis on May 27, 1332. Over the course of his childhood, Khaldun memorized the Koran, as most well-off children did at the time and still do today. At the age of 19, a plague struck the area, but Khaldun survived. With the decimation of the surrounding area, Khaldun received his first government posting: he was to be the seal bearer for one of the sultan’s captives. In this setting, Khaldun began sowing the seeds for his political theories.

Within three years, he had gotten himself locked up for plotting against the current sultan, who then died before Khaldun was set free.  As soon as the new sultan, Wazir Omar, freed him, he went back to scheming and was part of a successful plot to

overthrow Omar. The victory didn’t last very long, however, because, Wazir Omar regained control and Khaldun ran away to work for another sultan in Granada. He stayed at this position for about eight years, then, he grew restless and moved on to North Africa at the age of 32. This is where he began his epic work, Al-Muqddimah, the introduction to his version of his universal history at 45. At the age of 50, he angered local rulers with his tendency to switch loyalties whenever it suited him, so he left and went to Egypt.

Khaldun would finally settle down in Cairo, the city he would call home until he died. He lectured at schools because of his writings. He was appointed a judge by the local sultan and attempted to destroy corruption. Conspiracies against him meant that he was continually fired, then rehired, and then fired again. When he finished his Universal History, he was showered with even more acclaim. Khaldun even met Tamerlane, the Mongol conqueror, at the ripe old age of 71. Ibn Khaldun died three years later.

Now, while that’s fascinating by itself, the reason I’m choosing to talk about Khaldun as an option is because of the concepts covered in his book Al- Muqddimah. When I looked at his ideas, I found them ahead of their time, especially since they were written in the late fourteenth century. In the book, Khaldun comments that “The sovereign exists for the good of the people ... The necessity of a Ruler arises from the fact that human beings have to live together and unless there is someone to maintain order, society would break to pieces…” Sound familiar? Hobbes echoes the same idea in Chapter Twenty-Five of Leviathan, where he states that a sovereign has a responsibility to his or her people, because they willingly went

under his protection and the people trust the sovereign to maintain order. Khaldun also wrote about “there is a constant tendency in an oriental monarchy towards absolutism, towards unlimited power, so undoubtedly the tendency of the oriental governors was towards greater and greater independence of central authority.” He discusses the schism by the elite ruling class, who want to rule with unlimited power, and the rest of the citizens, who want freedom. This is also covered by other Christian philosophers at a later date. Khaldun discusses his belief that as soon as a society hits its peak, it begins to deteriorate, no matter what. Even if just people try to reform the empire, if it is in the setting stages, all they are doing is prolonging the inevitable. Even religion has no realistic solution. However, Khaldun recognized the necessity of religion for the founding of a powerful state. In fact, Khaldun was a very strict Muslim; his strict intolerance of corruption and injustice as a judge cost him a lot of potential allies. He even brought up the fact that corruption could be rampant throughout the Islamic empire; as Mohammad predicted, his heirs governed justly for only thirty years before corruption sank in.

Now, what in the world does this all mean? To me, it means that the Islamic people in Iraq have a guide to rebuilding a government if they choose to look for one. What no one seems to realize is that even if the best Christian political scientist went against the worst Islamic political scientist in a predominantly Islamic society, the winner would probably be the Islamic candidate. This is the reason that Americans shouldn’t help to rebuild the government; we should have “freed” them and gotten out as fast as possible. We’re only pushing Iraq towards more extremist views with our continued presence.