Contrasting Political Theory in the East and West: Ibn Khaldun versus Hobbes and Locke

Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
Recent developments in our globalized world are beginning the scholarly world to answer the question pertaining to the relationship between Islam—a “faith”—and politics and governance. In order to understand the Islamic worldview from the perspective of Ibn Khaldun, with whom many modern Islamists would agree with, a comparison is made with early progenitors of liberalism and the social contract, John Locke and Thomas Hobbes. By understanding the fundamental differences between the theorists, and how Ibn Khaldun’s is completely separate from the western tradition, it becomes easier to understand exactly why Islamic models of governance are at direct odds with the west. The main difference between the two models of governance is the use of a fundamental criteria determining right from wrong, as opposed to Hobbes’ and Locke’s theories being based purely on assumption that the validity of their respective arguments is based upon the theory’s acceptance among the people. In other words, western political theorists lack the consistency and justification for their theories, at least from the Islamist point of view.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
ISLCPT
Upload history
Archival date: 2016-10-14
View other versions
Added to PP index
2016-10-14

Total views
361 ( #12,453 of 51,430 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
63 ( #8,225 of 51,430 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.