An Appraisal of Ibn Khaldun's Defense of Mu'awiya: The Dynamics of Asabiyyah, Mulk and the Counter-Revolution in Al-Muqaddimah

Abstract

Mu’awiyah ibn Abu Sufyan was one of the pivotal and most controversial persons in the history of Muslims. His genius as a ruler has not been disputed, but whether his role and approach were Islamic and consistent with the principles and values of the Qur’an on one hand and the legacy of the Prophet Muhammad and the Khulafa al-Rashidoon (the Rightly-Guided Caliphs) on the other have been subject of much controversy. Muslim historiographers had to deal with Mu’awiyah and his role in shaping the legacy of Islam. Ibn Khaldun, a historian from among the muta’akhkhirin (later generations), had also dealt with Mu’awiyah and his legacy. Ibn Khaldun is of particular interest, because as the founder of modern historiography or sociology, he was among the rare few who were not tradition-bound and had a critical bent of mind. Avowedly, he did not accept the treasure of information and scholarship in a blind manner. His unique distinction was of course in pioneering the legacy among Muslims in developing theories to understand and explain the behavior of nations in the framework of group solidarity or group loyalty (asabiyyah) and “royal authority” (mulk). In his trailblazing work, al-Muqaddimah, Ibn Khaldun attempts to rationalize the role of Mu’awiyah in the conflict between him and Ali and in appointing his son Yazid as his successor. In this paper we document his position based on his own work and evaluate it in terms of consistency of his position with the principles of scholarship and inquiry he himself has laid out in his magnum opus. Examining his application of the concept of “group solidarity” and “royal authority” in the same context of Mu’awiyah, the paper shows how Ibn Khaldun failed to properly assess the nature and impact of the counter-revolution, recognize the lapse of the Muslim societies to develop a proper process for succession and transfer of power, distinguish between power/authority vested in individuals and in institutions, and to identify the importance of checks and balances in the exercise of power and authority.