The Conceptual Challenge of ʿUmrān
ʿUmrān is rather a challenging term as Ibn Khaldūn used it his own way. The term ʿumrān appears in the Qur’an, and it is associated with istikhlāf and the responsibility of humankind to carry on and actualize the call of the Qur’an. Furthermore, Ibn Khaldūn used the term ḥaḍārah in connection to ʿumrān, and at times as one of its aspects even though his own concept of ʿumrān is more comprehensive.
ʿUmrān and the Structural Settings in Ibn Khaldūn’s Thought
Ibn Khaldūn contrasted three structural settings: the natural, the Bedouin,[1] and the urbanist (the ḥaḍar). However, such mention is not simply for their substantive qualities, but rather to discern societal laws as they relate to the overall historical development of societies. Nomadism (al-badāwah) does not carry negative connotations in Ibn Khaldūn’s thought; to the contrary, it is superior in five dimensions: (1) existential, where it represents a pure state; (2) psychological, where it represents independence and chivalry; (3) social, where it is associated with solidarity and strong bonds; (4) economic, where it is associated with self-sufficiency; and (5) political, where it is associated with the readiness to defense and the rejection of arbitrary dominance. On the other hand, the urbanist lifestyle (ḥaḍar) is associated with laxity, docility, and moral corruption. Ibn Khaldūn discussed in detail the ḥaḍārī setting, where there is a great deal of complexity and integration of tasks. And in such a setting, the organic solidarity of the nomadic setting gets lost, replaced by a solidarity (aṣabiyyah) among a ruling class (almost monopolized by them) to which the common people have to submit.
The ʿUmrāni Nature of Ḥaḍārah
Yet, ḥaḍārah is not all negative from the perspective of Ibn Khaldūn. And while ḥaḍārah involves refined sensibilities, it is also the complex mode of living that Ibn Khaldūn admirably notes; it is the setting where the branches of knowledge grow, and where elaborate developments, vigorous economy, specialization, and large cities flourish. Ibn Khaldūn dedicates his effort to delineate the ʿumrāni nature of ḥaḍārah (i.e., its structural and cultural features and its place in historical development) in light of what Allah wants from humankind on earth. In some instances, Ibn Khaldūn does state that the ḥaḍārah is a high state of ʿumrān, but this is only a generic use of the term. Otherwise, ʿumrān stands for the qualities of the setting; for example, Ibn Khaldūn speaks of the nomadic ʿumrān. Furthermore, the dynamics of ʿumrān underlie the cycle of historical developments.
The Translation Problem: Ḥaḍārah and “Civilization”
To add to the challenge of reading the terms ʿumrān and ḥaḍārah, I note that many contemporary Arabic writings, interacting with the English literature, equated the term ḥaḍārah with civilization. But the term civilization stands on its own in Western language; it gained currency during the colonial project of western European countries, considering that uncivilized nations could be subjugated and their resources could be appropriated as part of the White Man’s burden to civilize the backward barbarians. Not all of the use of the term civilization is as much terrible, but it remains problematic. Furthermore, the term civilization is connected to the concept of citizenship with its specific modern context; such layer of meaning is totally incongruent with the term ḥaḍārah.
Contemporary Uses of Ḥaḍārah in Arabic Thought
The contemporary use of the term ḥaḍārah in Arabic literature falls within three camps. For modernist writers, the use of the term ḥaḍārah reflects the idea of progress and an agreeable reaction to Western cultural imperialism, and many casual writers connect it to development (tanmiyah). The second group uses the term in reference to the totality of the historical development of a cultural bloc, including language, religio-cultural aspects, philosophy, science, inventions, economic activities, etc. This choice is close to the expanded use of the term civilization in the English language.
The Islamic Civilizational Discourse on Ḥaḍārah
The third camp invokes the term ḥaḍārah with a special reference to the Islamic experience. Malek Bennabi, tracing the footsteps of Iqbal, made the term ḥaḍārah the pivot of his discourse, but he only offered a by-the-way definition that does not fit well with his own theme. Yet, Bennabi made a creative opening for the term ḥaḍārah in connecting it to ḥudūr (authentic cultural manifestation).[2] Ismail al-Farūqi, and later Mona Abul-Fadl, gave life and depth to the term ḥaḍārah, connecting it to the overall quest of the Islamic phenomenon for shaping reality along the lines of the precepts of Islam, emphasizing Islam’s unique tawḥīd worldview that is reflected in every corner of Muslim reality; so did Abdelwahab Elmessiri, but without frequently invoking the term.[3] The Islamic intellectual circles in Egypt, spearheaded by the efforts of Saif AbdelFattah and his colleagues, including Nadia Mahmoud Mostafa and Omar al-Sayyid, made the term “ḥaḍāri perspective” a title for their quest to illuminate key Qur’anic concepts that are rich in their philosophical implications, Islam’s epistemological purview, and the proper Islamically-minded approaches in social sciences.[4] Meanwhile, in the Turkish intellectual circles, Ahmet Davutoğlu worked on rehabilitating the term civilization and defined six parameters that speak of the Islamic, or the Western, civilizational worldview, and it was Ibrahim Kalın that gave civilization a clear definition as a worldview manifested and objectified in time and space.[5] Thus, in the Islamic intellectual circles, ḥaḍārah equals civilization or civilizational worldview, and almost equals ʿumrān. Indeed, this third school frequently uses the term ḥaḍārah and ʿumrān interchangeably. In general, such a use subsumes meanings associated with the term Islamicate and shares the focus of the sociology of Islam line of research.
My Use of ʿUmrān in Maqāṣid al-Sharīʿah: A Civilizational Perspective
In my book Maqāṣid al-Sharīʿah: A Civilizational Perspective, the use of the concept ʿumrān is akin to the third school with one decisive conceptual notation: ʿumrān does not simply denote substantive matters; rather, it primarily points to the internal logic of the Muslim system as it marched throughout history and the dynamics of its various institutions guided by Islam and Shariʿah universals. At its core, ʿumrān signifies the architecture of social reality and its genetic map. As such, it addresses the social system, both at the structural and cultural levels. Therefore, religion and language, social, economic, and political dynamics, as well as history and geography, all are present and considered basic ʿumrāni dimensions. ʿUmrān is not ḥaḍārah, yet at the end it points to what we refer to as civilizational aspects and patterns. While there were several attempts to coin an English equivalent to the term ʿumrān, two of them are worthy of mention: “meta-history” by Abu Yaareb al-Marzouki, and “the sociology of civilization” by Receb Şenturk. In my book, I use the original term ʿumrān, not its approximations.[6]
This article is an excerpt from: Mazen Hashem, Maqāṣid al-Sharīʿah: A Civilizational Perspective (London/Washington: IIIT, 2023), pp. xvi-xviii.
https://iiit.org/en/book/maqasid-al-shariah-a-civilizational-perspective/
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT).
Notes
[1] It should be noted that the English use of the term Bedouin with a capital is rather strange to its semantics in the Arabic language.
[2] Malek Bennabi, Mushkilat al-Thaqāfah, translated by Abdel-Sabour Shahin (Damascus: Dār al-Fikr, 1984), p. 101.
[3] Mona Abul-Fadl, “Contrasting Epistemics: Tawhid, the Vocationist and Social Theory,” American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 7, no. 1 (1990): pp. 15-39
[4] Saif AbdelFattah, “Bayn Al-Nasaq Wa al-Manhaj:Al-Manẓūmah al-Fikriyyah Li Munā Abū al-Faḍl,” in Al Taḥawwūl al-Maʿrifī Wa al-Taghiyīr al-Ḥaḍārī: Qirā’ah Fī Manẓūmat Fikr Munā Abū al-Faḍl, ed. Nadia Mahmoud Mostafa, Saif AbdelFattah, and Majidah Ibrahim (Cairo: Dār al-Bashar, 2011), pp. 78–85.
[5] Haldun Karahanlı, “Al-Tadāfuʿiyyah: Transcending the Imperial Concept Of ‘Civilization’: Recalling the Concept of Al-ʿUmrā n” (Master’s thesis, Istanbul, Turkey, Ibn Haldun University, 2020).
[6] For a detailed analysis of the concept of ʿumrān, see: Salih ibn Tahir Mushawash, ʿIlm al-ʿUmrān al-Khaldūnī wa Athar al-Ru’yah al-Kawniyyah al-Tawḥīdiyyah fī Ṣiyāghatihi (Herndon, VA: International Institute of Islamic Thought, 2012).
