They rejected their "haram" mosques and their man-made laws and presented visions of reform.. Did Ibn Taymiyyah, al-Subki and Ibn Khaldun try to save the Mamluk state?

“As for your question about time, time is people.” With this phrase, the writer Abdullah bin al-Muqaffa (d. 142 AH / 760 AD) wrote his letter on political reform to the Abbasid Caliph Abu Jaafar al-Mansur (d. 158 AH / 676 AD), speaking about four civilized times from which the path of the Islamic state will not depart: the first time - which is the best -. What the goodness of the shepherd and the subjects met in.” It is followed in preference by the second time, which is “that the imam reform himself and corrupt the people,” and after them the third time, which is characterized by “the goodness of the people and the corruption of the ruler.” As for the fourth time, it is “the evil of time [which is] what corruption combines in.” The governor and the parish" together.

It seems that a number of jurists - especially in later times - were preoccupied with presenting reform ideas that do both: reforming the shepherd and the subjects.

And through an extrapolation of three books that represent reformist pillars of the “fourth time” and whose owners appeared in the eighteenth AH / fourteenth century AD;

Here we will present some of the political and societal reform methods whose proponents tried to carry out the task of "reforming the shepherd and the parish."

What unites the three authors is that they attained the rank of Imamate in Islamic sciences, and that each of them was preoccupied with examining the problems of society without neglecting to take care of the wheels of power (fatwas, hisba, judiciary, ministry, etc.), and was afflicted by the ordeal of imprisonment when accused of harming the interests of the authority.

They also share that they wrote these reformist visions in their forties!

Moreover, they belong to a wide geographical field that represents the heart of the Islamic world: the Levant, Egypt and the Islamic West, and they represent the major jurisprudential schools prevailing at the time in this geographical space: the Hanbalis, the Shafi’is and the Malikis, although their methodological choices in belief and behavior varied between the doctrines of the hadith, the Ash’ari and the Sufis, and their approaches varied in Imagine the desired reform between a theoretical approach followed by Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH / 1328 AD), the last practical one pursued by Taj al-Din al-Subki (d. 771 AH / 1369 AD), and a third, descriptive, contemplative civilized presented by the

(d. 808 AH / 1406 AD)!

These three reform projects were brought together by very complex circumstances that accompanied the Mamluk era, which suffered from severe turmoil, a wide division of the unitary caliphate state, and fierce wars that witnessed more than a hundred large and small military campaigns, in which hundreds of thousands of warriors fought, severe division disputes, and the spread of ideas counted Jurists break the orthodox belief.

In fact, the Mamluk state - which extended from the year 648 AH / 1250 AD to the year 923 AH / 1518 AD - emerged from the womb of historical victories to rule great sultans in Egypt, the Levant and the Hijaz, and all its qualifications are military valor and valor, taking advantage of the state of severe social decline; How did the scientists react to this challenge? And how did the scientific elite think at that age? What are the theoretical and scientific approaches that you put forward to employ the rising Mamluk power in pushing for comprehensive reform?

Taymiyyah's Approach

Sultan al-Nasir Muhammad ibn Qalawun (d. 741 AH / 1340 AD) was known as one of the pioneers of institutional reform in the Mamluk era, and during his reign many bureaus and educational and health institutions appeared. Ibn Katheer (d. 776 AH / 1374 AD) - in his book 'The Beginning and the End' - warns us that a great diligent scholar contributed to pushing Qalawun towards reform and adopting some moral positions in his time, and gives an example of this by invalidating the purchase of positions by bribery (they used to call him 'Bartella'). And "the reason for that was Sheikh Taqi al-Din Ibn Taymiyyah."

It is believed that Ibn Taymiyyah wrote an important reform message for this sultan, perhaps his book entitled 'The Legitimate Politics in Reforming the Shepherd and the Subject', when he saw that the conditions in his time fell within the "fourth time" of Ibn al-Muqaffa'; This jurist tried to do two roles: reforming the authority and enlightening society, so he wrote briefly about an idea that he described as “indispensable for the shepherd and the subjects,” explaining that “when the imam and the subjects changed, it was the duty of every person to do what he is capable of.”

The idea of ​​this book is very clever and reminds us - in a way - of the

(d. 478 AH/1089 AD) to the reform project of the Seljuk state;

It looks at how to codify the position of strength and courage represented by the new ruling class (the Mamluks), while at the same time directing it towards reform.

Achieving both matters means accepting the Mamluk reality and its military glorious companions, as long as this reality will reform itself and society, and will be satisfied that the scholars are partners in power as long as “the rulers are of two types: princes and scholars.”

Hence, we understand the secret of the name “reform of the shepherd and the subjects,” which is a clear paraphrase of Ibn al-Muqaffa’s phrase “Salah the shepherd and the subjects.” It is very dangerous - according to Ibn Taymiyyah’s vision – to let this great force escape the rules of religion because “if the sultan separates himself from religion or religion On the authority of the Sultan, the conditions of the people have been corrupted.”

In principle, Ibn Taymiyyah realizes that there is no room to talk in this book about the legitimacy of a Quraysh, or even about the condition of freedom that is usual to be confirmed in Islamic political jurisprudence, and that the circumstance does not allow discussing the legitimacy of the Mamluks by repeating what Al-Izz ibn Abd al-Salam did (d. 660 AH / 1262 AD), when He supervised the sale of their princes who are not legally qualified to rule because they are “Mamluks” who are in servitude!

Circumstances exceeded that position because the Mamluks began to rule with legitimacy from the great victory of "Ain Jalut" in 658 AH / 1260 AD, which broke the sweeping tide of the Tatars, and the Abbasid Caliph Qurashi - who legalized the practices of the sultans - is in Cairo, and he himself describes the Mamluk sultan as "Sultan al-Malik al-Zahir" The long-term master, the just scholar, the mujahid, the supporter, the pillar of the world and the religion!!

A comprehensive vision

The book 'Reform of the Shepherd and the Subject' talks about the importance of optimal management of the affairs of the states and public authority institutions, the most important of which are: the Sultan and his deputy (the presidency), the emirate of soldiers (the army institution), the judiciary and hisba (the judicial authority), and the mandate of funds (the Ministry of Finance).

If the higher authority has been granted a de facto exception, this may be accepted on condition that new standards are adopted in the lesser states.

Hence, Ibn Taymiyyah spoke in his book about about nine major states that belong to the entity of the state, and about 17 states of society, and he made the Sultan to search for those who are entitled to the states from his representatives over the cities: from the princes, judges, and from the princes of soldiers and military providers, and the guardians of money: from the ministers , and the scribes (= accountants), the hard-working (= the inspectors), and the couriers (= the collectors) of the tax and alms.

This imam also demanded that the affairs of the states be cushioned away from kinship loyalty, such as kinship or “freedom loyalty,” meaning the Mamluks, as well as transcending country, sectarian, and mystical loyalty, as well as racial bias, “for a man’s love for his son or for his old man (= formerly owned) may affect him in some states, or gives him what he does not deserve, and he has betrayed his trust.

Ibn Taymiyya built his book on two verses from the Noble Qur’an, which are the Almighty’s saying: It belongs to the parish (the people), and he tried - with a very realistic theorizing - to resolve a major conflict between the values ​​of "strength" and "honesty" through these two verses.

He was aware that the ideal moment is the one in which the state is run by a "strong and honest" ruler, but "the meeting of strength and honesty in people is few", a problem that affects political legitimacy within the Mamluk era in particular. Many of the Mamluks are new to Islam, and some of them are morally challenged. They have "combined the truth with falsehood, and combined the good with the bad", as Taqi al-Din al-Maqrizi describes them (d. 845 AH / 1441 AD). They were brought as slaves from all corners of the earth, and they established their state with swords and spears, and the most important thing they relied on was their strength and valor.

The question before him was: Where can each value be employed in its place? He decided that in the state of war and the command of armies, if a conflict occurred between the strong, immoral and the weak trustee, he would present the “strong, brave man, even if he was immoral.” In the jurisdiction of the judiciary - which is an intersectional state - Ibn Taymiyyah was embarrassed that the criterion of strength was applied to it, and he said that "the most efficient is presented if the judiciary needs strength and aid to the judge more than he needs more knowledge and piety."

In fact, Ibn Taymiyyah opens the door to flexibility in the application of these values, as he says, "It is necessary... to strive to reform conditions so that the people can complete what they need from the affairs of the states, emirates, and the like."

He also proposes a creative reformist solution by calling to compensate for the lack of values ​​in individuals by complementing them in institutions. If the “strong and honest” individual does not exist, then it is possible to employ personalities, each of which combines a side of these two values ​​to be achieved by “the plurality of the guardian if the sufficiency of one is not complete.”

It is noteworthy that Ibn Taymiyyah was trying - with his usual intelligence - to implicate the institution of power by holding it directly to the religious duties of "reforming the religion of creation";

Where he obligated the Mamluk army institution - which is the actual institution of governance - to observe the two duties of "prayer and jihad", because "the Sunnah was that the one who prays Friday and congregational prayers with Muslims and delivers sermons to them: they are warlords."

Then the imam explained that the care of prayer leads to two things: the maintenance of the second pillars of religion, and at the same time the embodiment of a moral value that may lead to reforming the institution itself. Obediences".

And therefore;

Ibn Taymiyyah - in his theoretical plan to reform the Mamluk state and the society that ruled it - was moving within the condition of reality, not with the aim of falling into it, but rather to advance it;

He accepts it in order to put pressure on him towards reform.

Sheikh Muhammad Abu Zahra (d. 1394 AH / 1974 AD) noted that this approach of thinking about taking care of legitimate interests was a characteristic of that era, whether it was according to Ibn Taymiyyah or in the vision of his contemporary Najm al-Din al-Tawfi al-Hanbali (d. 716 AH / 1316 AD) related to the expansion of the authority of the interest in Islamic legislation.

Ibn Taymiyyah al-Shami wrote his book on the reform of the shepherd and the parish in Cairo, while Taj al-Din al-Subki al-Masri compiled his book 'Returner of Blessings and Exterminator of Curses' in Damascus;

The last is the second book, which represents the most prominent episode in the jurisprudential project to reform the state and society in the Mamluk era during the eighth century AH.

The 'Blessed One' differs from Ibn Taymiyyah's book by the difference of the practical author from his theoretical sanctity, although the two authors speak of a common ground based on the

;

Ibn Taymiyyah’s book was written along the lines of legal policy works that are usually exposed to the general political functions of the state, and do not care much about society and its teeming facilities and professions. and provide insights and programs to address them.

Thus, this book is a study of the practical and programmatic policy presented in our time by centers of expertise and consulting houses for decision-makers. It provides us with a deep reading of the nature of the Mamluk society in Egypt, the Levant and the Hijaz, by monitoring 113 jobs and crafts that are the basis of the life of this society at that historical moment, and they can be categorized between administrative, scholarly, and third positions related to crafts, industries, merchants and capital owners.

In all of this, al-Subki addressed the Sultan, his deputy and their assistants, the commanders of the armies, the scholars in the mosques, the Sufis in the corners, down to the people of various professions and even beggars in the streets. And therefore; The book is a rich source of data that serves the work of historians and social researchers, and all those concerned with the state system and society at the time, and how leadership and administrative functions work in the state and its service counterparts in society. It is important to note that the book falls within the field of applied legal politics, an area that researchers do not pay much attention to.

The author used a legal concept of zakat, which is the creation of “thanksgiving” to be a regulating thread for the features of his approach to political, societal and economic reform, although writing about “thanksgiving” is famous in books of chips and mysticism. What Al-Subki wrote about gratitude in the theoretical introduction to the book - and in the conclusion on the grant of the ordeal - is taken from the book “The Revival of Religious Sciences” by Al-Ghazali (d. 505 AH / 1111 AD), which was also influenced by the same treatment of gratitude that Abu Talib al-Makki gave (d. 386 AH / 997 AD); According to Ibn Taymiyyah. What is new about Al-Subki’s treatment of Shukr Allah is that he made it an entry point to talk about the restoration of reality.

Tzkoa politician

is interesting that this semantic displacement in the

movement of

concepts ,

who conducted Sobki in employing the

concept of

"Thanksgiving" Altazkoa in the

political field and Almojtmaa- was a

feature of that era. The emergence of the term “actor deputy” in grammatical studies - at the hands of the grammarian imam Ibn Malik al-Jayani (d. 672 AH / 1271 AD) - was another semantic shift, this time coming from the field of politics to coincide with what appears to be the inflation of the powers of the “deputy sultan”.

The same applies to the term “Sultan al-Sultan” which was given to the “deputy of the Sultan” with wide powers, and the dictionary of political language at that time derives it from the field of scientific authorship, especially jurisprudence.

It is this expansion of the powers of the “Deputy of the Sultan” that made Al-Subki - as well as Ibn Taymiyyah - give him many details in talking about states and powers, especially if we know that many of the sultans took power while they were under the age of puberty, so their deputies were the ones who managed, and Al-Subki encouraged them On that, they would be in the place from which the sultan administers the rule, and they would conduct the affairs of the subjects.

Al-Subki opened his book with a “question” addressed to him by a beggar asking him - the jurist and judge - to tell him about “a path for someone who has been robbed of a religious or worldly blessing, if he takes it, it will be returned to him and it will be returned to him.”

He replied that he had to do three things: to know the real reason that led to the disappearance of grace;

and to repent of the sin that caused him to lose his grace;

Then to acknowledge the benefits of the ordeal of losing grace to be satisfied.

This answer did not convince the questioner, so he asked Al-Subki for “a clear and brief explanation.” He decided that he should write a book in his answer, limiting it to “worldly blessings as they were the focus of the questioner’s goal.”

But Al-Subki decided to transfer the question from the state of the individual to the situation of the state and society, so he expanded the significance of the question about how the individual can restore the interests lost to him, to how the nation - with all its systems - and its rulers - return to the blessings and empowerment that it lost due to authoritarian and social deviations?

Al-Subki used the idea of ​​“thanksgiving” here to do several things, foremost among which is that the practice of the job and profession in the optimal manner becomes a religion by which one draws closer to God, as it is a thank you for the blessing of the owner of the job or workmanship, and this raises the level of professionalism and productivity by perfecting the work.

It was a practice of that era that industries were received with the support of their teachers, just like the legal sciences.

Sufi Entrance

Why did Al-Subki choose “thanksgiving” and not “praise”?

The answer is that praise - in its strongest definition - is a behavior of the heart. It must be the same as the human condition, whether the individual is in a blessing or a test. As for gratitude, it is only when the blessing is present.

And thankfulness is described in the Qur’an with the action “Make the family of David thankful,” which is the necessary reaction to any kindness or gift that touches a person, and therefore it is a normative idea that can be felt and seen.

When an individual or a nation asks about the reason for the disappearance of a religious or worldly blessing - such as a job, state, money, sovereignty and empowerment - it is said to him that the reason is “your violation of the rights you owe, which is gratitude, for every blessing that is not thankful is worthy of perishing.”

The defect that al-Subki means in understanding the significance of gratitude here is that any worker is devoted to making voluntary charitable acts such as fasting, alms and pilgrimage, while ignoring the tasks of his job itself, and considers that doing so leads to “thank you [the job] in a way other than the way on which it was built.” ". He gave an example of the blessing of sight and hearing, saying: “[If] you give in charity of two dirhams as a thank you to God Almighty for the blessing of the ears, and you violate every ugly thing that you hear, and you listen to every forbidden thing, you are not one of the thankful.”

And Imam al-Subki talks about practical gratitude to the sultan or ruler, saying: “If God Almighty has given you a command over creation, then you must search for the subjects, be just among them in the case, and judge them equally, and avoid whims and inclinations.” Your home is praying and weeping for your sins, you would have offended your Lord…, your King did not ask you to perform Tahajjud at night or to fast forever, but rather asks you for what we have mentioned. ".

In fact, al-Subki tries to address the extreme duality that prevailed in the Mamluk society, where the rulers believed that building mosques, schools of science, Sufism corners, feeding the poor, and establishing water fountains;

A guarantee that the sins of bloodshed, waste of money and injustice will be forgiven.

The goal of gratitude for Al-Subki is to find a free professional human being who performs his ideal duties, without falling into the servitude of the job or controlling it. Rather, it enables him to reject any force that tries to divert him from his job, its goals, its professional system, and its ideal rules. The job is not a bondage contract with the state, but rather It is a succession from God.

Al-Subki believes that whatever the options of authority that enabled you to do this job, there is a purpose and another goal for it, which is that you are useful to that authority in one aspect, as “[who appointed you] seeks to benefit himself with your benefit, and he takes you as a means to another blessing that he hopes for himself”, and therefore The sultan “if he had no purpose in giving, he would not have given you.”

This, of course, does not negate gratitude to people, but it makes it a gratitude coupled with the realization that they have conveyed the will of God to you. As for gratitude, which includes “acknowledging the grace of the one who is gracious in the face of submission,” it is for God alone.

marked by the

author of the

book boldly subtraction and courage in the

presentation of

his political and social criticism, and that virtue was a

general feature of

the Mamluk era ,

which spread the

writings and poetry critic, which is the

most famous poems of

political honor of

religion Busayri (d 696 AH / 1297 AD) His poem 'purdah' in Prophetic praise, and strong writings in addressing the rulers. This book is a model in terms of style and level of frank criticism.

It is from this that Al-Subki clearly records that one of the manifestations of the denial of the blessing of the leadership of Muslims is that the Sultan thinks that the mandate is for the president to “eat, drink and relax,” and he only took charge of the Muslims “in order to help the religion and exalt the word.” Likewise, the Sultanate is not that “[the Sultan] separates the fiefs.” Over the kingdoms he chose and adorned with all kinds of clothes and forbidden trimmings, and he was proud to ride them in his hands, and leave those who benefit Islam hungry in their homes.

He also tried to destroy the famous Sasanian custom of his time, which is kissing the land under the sultan, stating that it is a matter "of the great sins, and we fear that it is infidelity."

He also strongly criticized the extravagant behavior in building major mosques, which is one of the features of the Mamluk era, especially those that were praised for imposing taxes and looting the people's money. Almighty God forever, and God, glory be to Him, is good and only accepts that which is good.”

The Egyptian historian Ibn Iyas (d. 928 AH / 1522 AD) spoke - in his book 'Bada'i al-Zuhur' - about that behavior, and the position of scholars regarding some mosques that were built with the people's usurped money in order to deceive people, and he said that the "nice" Egyptians called a school / A mosque built by Sultan Qansuh al-Ghouri (d. 922 AH / 1516 AD) with unjust tax money, the name "The Grand Mosque". Al-Subki also criticized the behavior of the society’s elite, one of whom is keen to pray, “thanks to God Almighty for making him a powerful word for the ruler, and [y] let the oppressed be mired by injustice,” stressing that “his prayer is a curse upon him!”

The one who examines these critical details will find that they monitor the political reality that al-Subki was experiencing, and that he tried to summarize these authoritarian problems and the duplication of values ​​that accompanied them. God deprived him of the blessing. He started crying and saying: Why is my blessing gone and my days shortened?! He is said to him: O fool, did you not know the reason? Are you not the culprit against yourself?!

and having personified the tools that lead to the demise of power;

Al-Subki explained that one of the meanings of thanking the state is for the Sultan to make sure that “and the subjects are the same.”

Then he proceeded to explain the meanings of gratitude that should be characterized by the sultan in a practical way, which is “to look at the [financial] fiefdoms and put them in their places, and use those who benefit Muslims,” as well as “one of his functions is the idea (= attention) in the scholars, the poor, and other deserving people, and their lowering their homes. ".

 Then he talked about an important issue witnessed by this era, which knew many penalties in violation of Sharia under the term "politics" (such as nailing, skinning, impaling and mediating), and some Mamluks used it as a means to extend their security control. It is noteworthy that Al-Subki noted that there is a criticism of the commitment of some officials to Islamic law, as their punishments are described as soft in front of the regime of terrorism that some Mamluk authorities followed, and about this he says: To be of those whose heart has been imprinted.”

And this observation that Al-Subki recorded indicates an important idea, which is that the Mamluks were the first to establish a judiciary that ruled by positive law (the Mughal 'Yasah' law) separate from the legal judiciary, thus they preceded what Western colonialism did centuries after them.

As Al-Maqrizi says, the Mamluks “delegated to the judge of judges everything related to religious matters... and made him consider the legal issues..., and they needed in themselves to return to the custom of Genghis Khan and imitate the rule of ‘Al-Yasah’, so they set up a pilgrim to judge between them what they differed about their customs. According to what is in 'Al-Yasah'.

Among the important ideas mentioned in the book is his criticism of the Mamluk military institution, which is the institution of governance and the political elite of that era;

Al-Subki prohibited the recruitment of the helpless poor who could not pay the allowance, and also severely criticized the policy of recruiting the peasants from the conscripts in the fiefs of the army commanders, because “the farmer is free and no human can control him, and he is the ruler of himself.”

He also rejected the idea that the farmer should remain in the army for more than three years, and considered this to be among the ugly things of the military “diwan,” protesting against making military laws above the provisions of Sharia. The law of the Diwan! And the Diwan has no law for it, rather the law is for God Almighty and for His Messenger, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him. This speech leads to disbelief, and if the soul is not relieved to expiate the one who says it, then there is nothing less than striking him with whips.”

Civilian and Military

Perhaps it is really surprising in the book those long pages that he wrote to analyze civil-military relations in that period, with such accuracy that in many cases almost touches the problems of armies and civil life in the modern era.

Al-Sobki observed the feeling of contempt that characterized the behavior of the military at that time towards the scientific and cultural elite, and the restriction of their livelihood;

He said, "Among the ugly things of many princes (= military leaders) is that they do not respect the people of knowledge, and they do not know their rights for them."

He also talked about the manifestations of financial corruption that plagued the military establishment in his time, as those who belonged to it were not even characterized by the

;

His opinion was that if the gold with which their uniforms and brooches were embroidered, it was put in the public treasury and "Muslims circulated it, they would benefit from it, and goods became licensed, and money increased."

This threat to nationalize the fortunes of the military was accompanied by the details of the position of Al-Izz bin Abd al-Salam when he refused to impose taxes on the people during the preparation for the Battle of Ain Jalut, and nationalized the funds of the Mamluk leaders such as Al-Zahir Baybars and Saif Al-Din Qutuz (d. 658 AH / 1260 AD).

In his speech about the scientific community; Al-Subki talked about the blessings and curses that pervade the lives of scholars, pointing to three main functions that scholars must perform; They are: education, fatwas and general advice, and he stressed the need for the jurist to be freed from the tyranny of the world and from the captivity of its details. He was of his opinion that knowledge and reason are not the key to wealth, and the path of ignorance may be faster and more secure for those who want to get rich from behind the rule of law from the jurists; Therefore, I instruct them to join the army because it is more effective in meeting their financial ambitions.

He also monitored the purchase of judicial positions with “bartella” (financial bribery) and saw that this overturns the legal rulings of judges, refuting the allegations of those who say: “I was coerced into the judiciary,” stressing that he did not see “whom I compel the judiciary to be real coercion..., so God Almighty has shamed it.” From a sect! Then he warned against some of the scientific problems that were rampant in his time, such as the

. Addressing the jurists, he said: "As for making people adhere to one sect, it is what God does not accept from you, and only causes you to do it purely intolerance and envy. God ugliness like this jurist!"

although Ibn Khaldun wrote “The Introduction” and his history “Lessons and Diwan Al-Mubtada and Al-Khabar” before his arrival in Egypt in 784 AH / 1382 AD to settle there, even if he increased his work there a lot and revised them;

He held a chapter in his history entitled “The news about the state of the Turks (= the Mamluks) who established the Abbasid state in Egypt and the Levant after Bani Ayyub and for this covenant and the principles of their affairs and the expenses of their conditions.”

In this chapter, our historian talked about the gradation of the Turks in the ladder of Islamic society, starting with their work in trades and professions, passing through their participation in the armies as combative soldiers, their entry into the government offices as administrators and intellectual clerks, and ending with their assumption of the highest positions of military and political authority as leaders and sultans, especially in Egypt after the end of the state The Ayyubids are practically in it with the killing of the eminent King Turan Shah Al-Ayyubi in the year 648 AH / 1250 AD and its rulers took power starting with the Lady Shajar al-Durr (d. 655 AH / 1257 AD).

Perhaps Ibn Khaldun’s status in Egypt as a guest refugee and his preference for safety made him tactful in his brief talk about the Mamluks; He believes that it was “from the kindness of God Almighty to remedy the faith by reviving its soul, and to avoid the reunification of Muslims in the Egyptian lands by preserving its system and protecting its fence, by sending them from this Turkish community and its abundant available tribes lords of protection and supporters aligned.” Egypt is from the Qafjaq (= a Mongol tribe)", and giving "the kings of the Turks in Egypt... the merit and privilege for what God has bestowed on them of the immensity of the king and the honor of the state with the great mosques and the service of the Two Holy Mosques."

As for the 'Introduction';

Ibn Khaldun wrote it while he was on the verge of a history gathering his papers, as he was writing knowing that his Islamic world was standing on the edge after “the tongue of the universe in the world called for idleness” who was waiting for his civilization, and he only mentioned the Mamluk state in it when talking about the job of “the eyebrow”. And the “Al-Taraz” industry (= the decoration of sultan clothes) in a number of countries, so he mentioned what was done in them in the Mamluk state.

The 'Introduction' was a detailed answer to Ibn al-Muqaffa's four questions, but Ibn Khaldun answered them in a different way, focusing on the question of civilization and speaking about the ups and downs of states, and how the state is separated from the other by completing its life cycle, like a human being who is born, grows up, then grows old and dies. The urbanization of the earth [that is] by the collapse of humankind.”

A civilized answer

Ibn Khaldun wanted to diagnose accurately what happened to the Arab-Islamic civilization?

When the question is at the level of civilization, the answer becomes on the level of religion, revenues, politics, economics, knowledge, the nature of social construction, social formations and nervous motives. The book was full of visions about all of this, and about the relationship between the owners of capital and those in power, between the intellectuals and the military, and about the history of sciences and patterns Work jobs and industries.

The “asabiyya” was Ibn Khaldun’s golden material through which he understood how the harmful Arab state rose, and then how it weakened from within the state apparatus itself by using loyalists and slaves, observing the moment of the emergence of foreign and especially Turkish nervousness based on the legitimacy of military power, and to which the fates of governance in the Most and most important parts of Islam.

The Introduction appears as a highly condensed magnetic disk on which Ibn Khaldun paved the way for understanding that civilization is something greater than a state, a sect, and a race. A new creation, a resumed formation, and an updated world.

This was the perfect time for him to write down the story of civilization, as "for this age [people] needed someone to write down the conditions of creation, the horizons, its generations, the returns and the bees that changed."

Thus, Ibn Khaldun answered Ibn al-Muqaffa’s questions regarding the methods of “the righteousness of the shepherd and the subjects” in their fourth time, a civilized answer, going for the ruler and his people to be subject to historical norms and social rules, which are its product and they are its substance and tools of action in it.

So did our great historian Wali al-Din Ibn Khaldun al-Hadrami - from what he theorized in the 'Introduction' - to present civilized rules that the states of his reign - including the Mamluk state - and subsequent states could take to fix the deteriorating conditions, and delay the fall as long as possible - at least - If it is absolutely impossible to avoid?