Introduction

The concept of civil society has been acclaimed as a global trend (Chandoke, 2010). Perceived as a concept that re-emerges in the modern West, this concept spreads around the globe. Subsequently, it offers insights for people in non-Western countries to create their own format, conception, and definition of civil society that is based on their own cultural and historical context. However, I argue that the consensus formed about this global concept has always been determined by Western dictates. Thus, it limits the breadth of civil society discourse that may include non-Western civilizations.

The concept of civil society has always referred to the dominant Western literatures and traditions (Wiarda, 2009). As the concept was developed in Western historical and cultural contexts, the Western approach has been used as a template to explain the civil society phenomenon all over the world. However, because of this dominant perspective, it has marginalized others’ conception of civil society derived from non-Western historical and cultural contexts (Wiarda, 2009).

Islamic civilization has become one of the ‘other' realms that is marginalized and under-represented in civil society discourse. This has occurred as it has been argued that civil society is incompatible with the Islamic tradition (Hall, 1995). This understanding is based on a notion that civil society is the prerequisite of democracy (Carothers & Barndt, 2000; Ferguson, 2008). At the same time, democracy is perceived to be incompatible with the Islamic tradition (Potrafke, 2012; Rowley & Smith, 2009). As a result, Islamic civilization has been excluded from the historical timeline of the development of civil society discourse. This essay will contest the notion that Islamic civilization is incompatible with the idea of civil society and will, instead, offer a new insight to civil society discourse. In elucidating the matter, this essay will focus on Islamic civilization in its earliest period and the emergence of Islamic scholarly literature prior to the era of the modern West’s literature on civil society.

Methodology and theoretical approaches

In this essay I propose that Ibnu Khaldun, an Islamic scholar from 14^th century Islamic civilization, should be included in considering the development of civil society discourse. Khaldun introduced the concept of 'asabiyya' or group solidarity (Ibn, Rosenthal, Dawood, & Lawrence, 2005). I will discuss asabiyya and explain its connection to the concept of civil society. Furthermore, I will relate these two concepts in elucidating the earliest period of Islamic civilization under Muhammad’s leadership in Medina (622 to 632 CE). This period is chosen as it is claimed to be the Islamic model of civil society (Madjid, 2000).

This method will elucidate the very existence of civil society discourse in Islamic civilization. Therefore, it can offer a broader understanding of the discourse of ‘civil society’ as a globally-relevant concept that is not Western-centric and maintains an historical continuity from one civilization to another: from the ancient Greeks, throughout the Roman Empire, to the Islamic conception of asabiyya, and into the modern Western conception of civil society.

Discussion

Questioning the absence of civil society in the ‘Dark Age’ period

The evolution of the concept of civil society can be traced back to the ancient Greek philosophers and to Cicero and other Roman scholars (Carothers & Barndt, 2000) while its modern concept emerged "in the Scottish and Continental Enlightenment of the late 18th century" (Carothers & Barndt, 2000, p. 18). The concept of civil society was then further developed by political thinkers and philosophers such as Thomas Paine, Georg Hegel, Karl Marx, Antonio Gramsci, and Alexis de Tocqueville (Carothers & Barndt, 2000; Chandoke, 2010; Cox, 1999). More recently, a “civil society” discourse has re-emerged since the 1970s and 1980s within the hegemonic contexts of Stalinist states (Chandoke, 2010).

If we look at the history of civil society, it becomes clear that the Greek, Romans, and modern Westerns are included in the historical timeline. However, it also becomes clear that the concept of civil society is apparently absent from the 7^th to the 15^th centuries. It is noteworthy that this coincided with the period when the intellectual tradition of Islamic civilization emerged and flourished (Butterworth, 2012), which raises the question whether civil society, as theory or practice, never existed during that period.

The collapse of Roman supremacy in the 5^th century marked an apparent break in the development of the civil society concept, which only seemingly re-emerged during the Western Enlightenment in 18^th century as a response to the absolutist power of the state (Chandoke, 2010). In the interim period, the discourse of civil society seemed to become lost in has been termed the ‘Dark Age’ of Western civilization (Mommsen, 1942). However, while the West was in its Dark Age, Islamic civilization emerged, flourished and reached its ‘Golden Age’ (Butterworth, 2012). This period was also marked by the flow of earliest Western scholars to study in the Islamic world. After their return, they had laid out the foundation for the Renaissance and Enlightenment periods of Western civilisation (Butterworth, 2012; O'Brien, 2011; Sayyid, 2006).

Civil society in its modern context re-emerged during the dominance of the West over its ‘others’. This period is not only marked by European colonial expansion, but also the projection of the West’s social and political order onto the world of the ‘other’ (Kamali, 2006). In these circumstances, the concept of orientalism has been deployed to study how ‘others’ come to be defined in terms of the projections of Western civilisation onto the rest of the world. Although orientalism in general can be related to all non-Western societies it has, in fact, always predominantly referred to Islamic civilization (Kamali, 2006; Sayyid, 2006). As a result, Islamic civilization has been defined as the opposite of capitalism, democracy, rationalism and reason. Thus, Islam is considered to be incompatible with modernization, in which the modern concept of civil society was considered to have been born and flourished (Kamali, 2006).

This Western dominance can also be explained by Foucault’s theory of the relation of ‘power’ and ‘knowledge’. He argues that knowledge is produced and reproduced by those who hold power (Foucault, 1977). I argue that the Western-centric civil society discourse has also been produced by the “power and knowledge” work. As Kamali suggests:

The period of European colonial expansion was also the beginning of its sociopolitical project of the creation of an exclusive European or Western identity.... What was assumed to be universal was no more than the particular experiences of the peoples of Western Europe, and their understanding and socio-culturally embedded constructs of themselves and ‘the Others’. (Kamali, 2006, p. 29)

However, the exclusion of Islamic civilization from consideration in understanding the development of civil society discourse is clearly not tenable if we want to understand science and knowledge as the fruit of human ingenuity that has been developed through the continuous work of scholars throughout history. The rise of the modern West has always referred back to the ancient Greek and Roman periods, including their philosophical traditions (Perovic, 2012). However, this notion not only excludes the intellectual traditions of the ‘other’ and how it may influence the Western philosophical tradition, but also oversimplifies the complexity of the web of knowledge itself.

Civil society as a by product of humanism

It has been argued that modern Western civilization was not only an historical outcome of the Renaissance and Enlightenment but was also been influenced by Islamic civilization (Butterworth, 2012; Tibi, 2009). In particular, the Western philosophical tradition was influenced by the works of Muslim scholars such as Al Farabi, Ibnu Sina (Avicena), and Averroes (Ibnu Rusyd), Musa Ibnu Maymun (Maimonides). These scholars translated, augmented, and improved our understanding of many of the works of the Greek philosophers (Butterworth, 2012; O'Brien, 2011; Tibi, 2009), including the concept of humanism and the importance of human reasoning (Meador Jr, 1970). It also has been argued that from the 9^th to the 12^th centuries Muslim scholars adopted and enriched the concept of humanism that was handed down by the Greek philosophers (Tibi, 2009). It is humanism that bridges the Islamic civilization and the Western civilization (Tibi, 2009). The transfer of the humanist philosophical framework from Islamic civilization to Western civilization, among others, is attested in the following statement from the 12^th century Western philosopher, Adelard of Bath:

...I learnt from my masters, the Arabs, to follow the light of reason, while you are led by the bridle of authority; for what other word than 'bridle' can I use to describe authority?(Tolan, 1993, p. 44).

I argue that locating the central importance of humanism in the development of a civil society discourse is crucial. It relates to the very basic notion that civil society can only be constituted when individuals and communities have the freedom to express themselves rather than being subject to the dictates of an absolutist power, such as the state (Chandoke, 2010). Moreover, the modern concept of civil society emerged in the wake of the Enlightenment, which was fuelled by humanist thinking. It is plausible that, as Chandoke argues, John Locke, a liberalist thinker who lived in 17^th century, “may well have authored the civil society script in this part of the world” (Chandoke, 2010, p. 2).

Civil society: a timeless concept

It is difficult to define a concept of civil society that can be accepted globally, as the concept itself has evolved in many different places and times. Each definition has its own context, which can only be properly understood in that specific context. However, we can at least begin to distinguish what is probably a widely accepted concept of civil society. In this essay I use Cohen and Arato’s concept of civil society, which has four components (Chandoke, 2010):

1. plurality: families, informal groups, and voluntary associations whose plurality and autonomy allow for a variety of forms of life;

2. publicity: institutions of culture and communication;

3. privacy: a domain of individual self-development and moral choice; and

4. legality: general laws and basic rights system in order to regulate plurality, privacy and publicity.

According to Western literature, civil society as a theory and practice did not exist during the 7^th to 15^th centuries – a period in which Islamic civilization was flourishing. If we rely solely on Western literature, it becomes difficult to locate the concept of civil society in Islamic civilization during that period. This therefore raises the question of whether civil society is an alien concept for Islamic civilization. However, I suggest that, theoretically, the concept of ‘asabiyya’ can be related to the modern concept of civil society. Furthermore, I argue that the earliest period of Islamic civilization under Muhammad’s leadership in Medina provides clear evidence of the existence of civil society within Islamic civilization.

Translating the concept of asabiyya to other languages is problematic as there are many different interpretations (Tibi, 1997); however, it can be broadly understood as group feeling, cohesive force of the group, group solidarity or social cohesion, the conscience of collective aspirations, esprit de corps, feeling of solidarity, social solidarity, and solidarity (Dalla Zuanna & Micheli, 2004; Ibn et al., 2005; Kamali, 2006; Tibi, 1997).

The asabiyya concept is deployed by Ibnu Khaldun in his book, ‘Muqaddimah’. He argues that asabiyya exists in nomadic society as well as in urban society. It is the major factor in the emergence and collapse of every civilization. The stronger the asabiyya is, the stronger a society becomes, and vice versa. A society with stronger asabiyya will take over a civilization that was controlled by a society with weaker asabiyya. He argues that every civilization is marked by this cyclical phenomenon (Tibi, 1997).

I argue that asabiyya is similar to the concept of ‘social capital’ that was developed by Francis Fukuyama. He defines social capital as “an instantiated informal norm that promotes co-operation between two or more individuals” (Fukuyama, 2001, p. 7). Furthermore, civil society is considered as among the by-products of social capital (Fukuyama, 2001). If social capital can be understood as a concept that is similar to asabiyya, then it also can be argued that civil society had already existed during the formulation of asabiyya concept by Ibnu Khaldun. In this regard, I contest Fukuyama’s notion that social capital – in the rise of formal institutions, rule of law, and rationality – emerged as a product of the Enlightenment (Fukuyama, 2001). As evidence for my position, I will elucidate the relation between the concept of asabiyya (which can be defined as social capital) and civil society that existed in the earliest Islamic civilization under the leadership of Muhammad in Medina.

Civil society in Medina

The community in Medina before the arrival of Muhammad in 622 CE consisted of: two major tribes, the Aws and the Khazraj; eight clans; thirty three smaller groups; and a Jewish community (W. Montgomery Watt, 1956). Therefore, it is clear that the community in Medina was plural – and became increasingly pluralistic under Muhammad’s leadership.

Before hijra or migration to Yatsrib, Muhammad and his followers had been opposed and persecuted in Mecca as the result of Muhammad preaching Islam. At the same time, Yatsrib witnessed more than a hundred years of unending battle involving clans and religious communities which culminated in the great battle of 618, the War of Bu’ath (W. Montgomery Watt, 1956; W. M. Watt, 1977). To solve the problem, representatives of the Yatsrib communities invited Muhammad to Yatsrib to be their leader to mediate and solve conflicts within their society. They trusted Muhammad’s sound character and his likely neutral position in mediating the conflict in Medina (Hodgson, 1974; W. M. Watt, 1977).

Muhammad’s first step as a leader of the communities in Yatsrib was to change the name of ‘Yatsrib’ to Medina’ (“city” in English). Muhammad then composed the Constitution of Medina as the basic law. In drafting the Constitution, he invited leaders of all tribes, clans, and Jews in Medina for consultation in order that they would reach agreement to live and cooperate under the Constitution (Tahir-ul-Qadri, 2000; Yildirim, 2006).

It has been argued that changing the name of the city from Yatsrib to Medina is part of Muhammad’s strategy in building a modern political society (Madjid, 2000). Semantically, ‘Medina’ originates from “dina-yadinu” which means “to submit” or “to obey”. Therefore, the basic meaning of ‘Medina’ is “place of submission” or “system of submission”. Therefore, ‘Medina’ can be defined as a place to live for those who are willing to submit or obey to rules and laws. The Constitution of Medina reflects the existence of legality that protects the interest of the people of Medina.

It has been argued that Muhammad wasn’t considered to be employing an autocratic style of leadership in Medina (W. Montgomery Watt, 1956). Furthermore, it should be noted that Muhammad is not the only influential person in Medina at the time. There were many others influential people from the various tribes, clans, and religious communities. However, people in Medina had agreed to only refer disputes to Muhammad, as stipulated in the Constitution of Medina (W. Montgomery Watt, 1956). This ruling distinguished Muhammad’s position in Medina as different to that of other community leaders and people of influence in Medina. Furthermore, it reveals that the people of Medina maintained a deep trust in Muhammad, who was perceived as a person with noble characteristics of impartiality and trustworthiness (Yildirim, 2006).

Although Muhammad had a power to make his ruling autocratic, he didn’t choose to be autocratic as it may impede Medina’s people active participation, in which, I argue, as the crucial factor of a good civil society. He let the influence of clans’ and tribes’ leaders to exist. He took into consideration their position in making many public policies, such as the Constitution of Medina. The trust from his society also reveals that Muhammad’s reign was supported by asabiyya or the group bonding that emerged in the people of Medina (Ibn et al., 2005). As Ibnu Khaldun argues, that group feeling is a prerequisite of strong leadership within communities (Ibn et al., 2005). I argue that the group feeling is best reflected in the concept of “umma”.

In Medina, Muhammad put into practice the concept of “umma” that was firstly introduced by him in Mecca (Arjomand, 2009; W. Montgomery Watt, 1956). Umma, which is derived from Islamic teaching, proposes a new conception of community that is no longer based on status, family, kinship, and tribe affiliations. However, this doesn’t necessarily mean that the concept of umma erases the plural character of the community. In contrast, it recognizes and protects plurality in a society (W. Montgomery Watt, 1956). In Muhammad’s era, it offered a new concept of solidarity that cut across the exclusivity of the tribal system (Kamali, 2006).

Based on the explanation above, we can conclude that Islamic civilization in Medina during Muhammad’s leadership exhibited the four key components of civil society that were proposed by Cohen and Arato. Medina under Muhammad’s leadership made provision for: plurality through the preservation of the given social structure (tribal and clan system); publicity through the embodiment of consultation in solving problems within the society; privacy through the introduction of the concept of umma in which individual rights are protected for self-development and moral choice; and legality through the Constitution of Medina as the basic law in regulating plurality, privacy and publicity. It is also important to be noted that despite Muhammad’s status as a prophet, he is recognized as a state leader (W. Montgomery Watt, 1956). Therefore, in the Islamic civilization, I argue that civil society exists within the state’s framework, in which the state enables civil society to be nurtured and flourished.

Conclusion

In this essay I have demonstrated that the concept of civil society in both its theoretical form and its practical application can be considered as integral to the foundation of Islamic civilization. The theoretical aspect can be understood in terms of Khaldun’s concept of asabiyya. The practical application of the concept of civil society can be observed in Islamic society during Muhammad’s leadership in Medina. Therefore, I argue that the contribution of Islamic civilization should not be ignored when trying to understand the development of the concept of civil society from the ancient Greeks to modern Western scholars. Including Islamic civilization into the discourse of civil society is crucial. This perspective not only provides the ‘missing link’ in the concept of civil society following the collapse of the Roman Empire in the 5th century to the re-emergence of the concept in the modern-West in the18^th century, but also can enrich the breadth of civil society discourse.

However, this essay confronts a limitation in locating other classical Islamic literatures that may have connections to the basic concept of civil society. As a result, the concept of Asabiyah from the 14^th century Islamic scholar, Ibnu Khaldun, has become the only literature that can be articulated within a discourse of civil society. In this regard, finding other sources within the classical Islamic literature that predate the era of Ibnu Khaldun becomes an important objective in further studies of this kind.