The Origin, Notion, and Function of the State in Political Philosophy: Aristotle vs. Ibn Khaldun

This study compares Aristotle's and Ibn Khaldun's theories of the state, highlighting their similarities and differences. Aristotle focuses on the origin of the city-state (polis) as a natural association based on man's economic needs, which leads him to associate justice with the state. For Aristotle, the state is an organic entity that benefits its citizens as the ultimate society. Further, he believes that the state's teleological function is to guarantee security, justice, and citizen well-being and that the state’s origin is a natural consequence of human social nature. Ibn Khaldun, on the other hand, considers the state the culmination of dynastic rule that is a product of social and historical dialectical processes by the tribal power called "Asabiyyah" (a bond of tribal solidarity). The state is thus rational and just, as it is a product of historical development to realize the virtue of justice. The origin of the state, for Ibn Khaldun, is man's inherent desire to meet his rational and religious demands, with Asabiyyah being the prime motivator in state creation. Moreover, Ibn Khaldun asserts that royal authority (power) is a human trait that comes naturally and is essential for humanity. Religion can also strengthen the state but can only be sustained with Asabiyyah. Secondly, while Aristotle and Ibn Khaldun agree that the state serves the common good and seeks justice, they disagree on the underlying process. Aristotle finds justice through a teleological process of natural law, whereas Ibn Khaldun finds it through royal authority to imply superiority and the right to rule by force through Asabiyyah. Lastly, Aristotle provides a realistic framework to explain why the city-state evolves in a cyclic pattern, and Ibn Khaldun does the same for the dynastic-state.