Economic Theory of Ibn Khaldun and Rise and Fall of Nations

A- A A+

INTRODUCTION Ibn Khaldun is a fourteenth century Muslim thinker who covered many subjects, including the rise and fall of nations, in his seminal masterpiece Muqaddimah: An Introduction to History. His writings on economics, economic surplus and economic oriented policies are as relevant today as they were during his time. Ibn Khaldun’s emphasis on less government expenditure for mercenary armies has been heard by many developed countries that are in the process of implementing his policy prescriptions in order to increase their economic surplus by shifting resources to education and human development. Ibn Khaldun opposed taxation and tariffs that discouraged trade and production.


Ibn Khaldun opposed state involvement in trade and production activities; he thought that bureaucrats can not understand commercial activities and that they do not have the same motivations as tradesmen. Ibn Khaldun predicts the relative decline of economic surplus and the decline of countries in which the state involves itself in trade and production. Ibn Khaldun sees a large army as an impediment to the expansion of trade, production and economic surplus.


The common sense economics of Ibn Khaldun is only now slowly becoming better understood and appreciated by less developed countries. The tendency toward privatization in these countries is a beginning, but not enough. Developed countries are looking to reduce military oriented investments and expenditures in order to invest more in education and technology to increase the economic performance and competitiveness of their private enterprises in international markets. Furthermore, these same industrialized countries have followed concessionary taxation policies conducive for trade and production. These policies and many other economic policies which this paper aims to discuss are the policy prescriptions of Ibn Khaldun for a civilized society.



Ibn Khaldun is the first thinker to systematically analyze the functioning of an economy, the importance of technology, specialization and foreign trade in economic surplus, and the role of government and its stabilization policies to increase output and employment. Moreover Ibn Khaldun dealt with the problem of optimum taxation, minimum government services, incentives, institutional framework for an economy, law and order, expectations, production, and the theory of value. Ibn Khaldun is the first economist, using the language of economic surplus, who has conducted a biological interpretation of the rise and fall of nations.


Ibn Khaldun’s coherent general economic theory constitutes the framework for his history.(1)  No one in the history of economic thought has established such a coherent general economic theory to explain and predict the rise and the fall of civilizations, nations and empires as Ibn Khaldun has formulated in his Muqaddimah: An Introduction to History. Ibn Khaldun’s theory has the empirical and theoretical power not only to explain the consequences of government policies on production and trade, investment and specialization, but to predict the very survival of the state.



Since the State has important functions in the social, political and economic life of nations, the role and the nature of the State has to be clarified for the well-being of society. For Ibn Khaldun, the role of the State is to establish law and order; the rule of law that is conducive for economic activities. Moreover, the enforcement of property rights, the protection of trade routes and the security of peace are necessary for any civilized society to engage in trade and production. Economic surplus would increase when there are government policies favoring economic activities; government should take a minimum amount of that surplus through taxation in order to provide minimum services and necessary public works. For Ibn Khaldun, optimum taxation occurs when governments do not discourage production and trade through taxation.(2)


If the State tries to over-expand its bureaucracy and its mercenary army by over-taxing the economic surplus, then specialization, production, trade and economic activities will be reduced. As a result, the economic surplus will shrink. For, “the growth of absolute power in the State is the cause of the decline of economic prosperity and, consequently, of the State and the city,” because large mercenary armies, a bloated bureaucracy and over-taxation “discourage entrepreneurs from engaging economic activity. This leads to a decrease in the total income of the State and new means of increasing its income have to be devised: taxes in kind, excise taxes, confiscation – and worst of all, the direct interference of the State in economic activity by engaging in commerce.” (3)


For Ibn Khaldun, the State has to take responsibility to change the expectations of entrepreneurs by implementing public works to generate employment and confidence. As part of the stabilization policy, the State should build roads, trade centers, and other activities that encourage production and trade. But “the direct interference of the State in economic activity by engaging in commerce,” would cause the decline of the State and economic activities. The interference of the State in commerce, by itself, will increase bureaucracy and bloat the mercenary army. As a result of government interference in commercial and economic affairs, entrepreneurs would be prevented from trading and investing in their enterprises for the pursuit of profits as private capital would be crowded out.


The tyranny of the State starts with the direct involvement of the State in commercial and economic affairs and causes the decline of the arts, the contraction of trade, production and specialization. With State involvement, the economic surplus declines. The population would be forced to seek an alternative location to live from the former cities and centers of production. When the cities are depopulated, the decline in demand for goods and services generates the decline in the civilized mode of life, including civilized economic life. The whole country “starts to revert back to primitivism.” (4)


The concept of the role of the government in stabilization policy to generate excess demand was formulated by Ibn Khaldun five centuries before Keynes got the attention of the whole world by stressing the importance of excess demand to increase output and create public works and confidence in order to increase employment.(5)  Ibn Khaldun thought that over-taxation would occur when the bureaucracy and mercenary army would expand beyond the “normal” economic surplus. Ibn Khaldun stated the fact that the larger the bureaucracy and the mercenary army, the greater over-taxation would be, and the greater the realized burden on the economic surplus would be.


Ibn Khaldun did not think it proper to increase excess demand through enlarging the bureaucracy and the size of the mercenary army. Greater production and maximum efficiency can be obtained with trade and specialization through profit-seeking entrepreneurs who bear the consequences of their actions in terms of gains and losses. The entrepreneurs are the ones who have incentives for efficiency and specialization as long as they perceive profits. Bureaucrats, on the other hand, do not have the same incentives for the expansion of trade and specialization in production. For Ibn Khaldun, the best State is the one that has the minimum bureaucracy, minimum mercenary army to keep law and order, and minimum taxation on its citizens to finance the activities of the State.



Ibn Khaldun dealt with economics, sociology, political science and other subjects in order to understand the behavior of man and his history. He indicated the fact that specialization is the major source of economic surplus, almost three centuries before Adam Smith.(6)  For Ibn Khaldun, when there is an environment conducive for specialization, the entrepreneur is encouraged to commit himself to further trade and production. Indeed, specialization would occur in a place where a person is able to get the benefit of his efforts. Given law and order, for Ibn Khaldun, specialization is a function of population, trade, production and minimum taxation. On specialization, this is what Ibn Khaldun says:


“Each particular kind of craft needs persons to be in charge of it and skilled in it. The more numerous the various subdivisions of a craft are, the larger the number of the people who (have to) practice that craft. The particular group (practicing that craft) is colored by it. As the days follow one upon the other, and one professional coloring comes after the other, the crafts coloring men become experienced in their various crafts and skilled in the knowledge of them. Long periods of time and the repetition of similar (experiences) add to establishing the crafts and to causing them to be firmly
rooted.” (7)


The concept of mass production, learning by doing and the concept of on the job training were exposed by Ibn Khaldun in the above statement so clearly that it needs no further clarification. It is important, however, to indicate that these very concepts that Ibn Khaldun had dealt with in his writings, were popularized in articles in economic literature in the late 1950’s. For Ibn Khaldun, specialization meant the coordination of different functions of factors of production where, “what is obtained through the cooperation of a group of human beings satisfies the need of a number many times greater (than themselves).” (8)


Later, on the same subject, Adam Smith had this to say: “Thus, generally, to the value of the materials which he works upon, that of his own maintenance, and of his master’s profit.” (9) However, more succinctly, Ibn Khaldun states the economic rationale behind specialization (and coordination) with this sentence “the combined labor produces more than the needs and necessities of the workers.” (10) On the same subject, Ibn Khaldun states the fact that “through cooperation, the needs of a number of persons, many times greater than their own (number) can be satisfied.” (11) For Ibn Khaldun, providing coordination and cooperation of factors of production is a function that has to be performed by entrepreneurs according to market forces.


Ibn Khaldun believed that, given law and order and the security of peace, greater specialization will be realized when there is a large population with minimum taxation and free trade (without impediments and restrictions to trade). For Adam Smith, on the other hand, specialization is a function of the market: the greater the market then the greater the specialization. In fact, there is not much of a difference between Ibn Khaldun and Adam Smith in this regard. The greater population implies a greater market for many products; it translates to greater specialization. For Ibn Khaldun, it is obvious that specialization through cooperation and the coordination of factors of production is the source of economic surplus.


A partial interpretation of this surplus led Ricardo and Marx to the erroneous conclusion of the exploitation of the working class. In other words, Ricardo and Karl Marx are poor indirect students of Ibn Khaldun by only partially interpreting his coherent general theory of economic surplus. This misdirection and partial blindness led Marx to say “that the labor itself is productive labor.” (12) Since labor is the only source of value, according to Ricardo and Marx, then the surplus taken by capitalists is a sign of exploitation. To prevent the exploitation of labor by capitalists, Karl Marx suggested changing the social structure of society by revolution and the destruction of the “lover of force,” the capitalists.(13)  Ibn Khaldun, on the other hand, clearly indicated that “the profit human beings make is the value realized from their labor,”  and, “large profits because of the large amount of (available) labor,(14) which is the cause of (profit).” (15)


Ibn Khaldun considered not only the activities of workers, but also of entrepreneurs who need to be productive as well; in that case, no exploitation would occur. Ibn Khaldun considers both the workers and the entrepreneurs to be respected members of society who try to maximize the return for their activities in the form of wages and profits. For Ibn Khaldun, profit is the primary motive of economic endeavor, since the expectation of profit leads to the expansion of production. Moreover, “commerce means the attempt to make a profit by increasing capital, through buying goods at a low price and selling them at a high price.”(16)  In other words, “the truth about commerce” is to “buy cheap and sell dear.” (17) For Ibn Khaldun, it is clear that “the profit human beings make is the value realized from their labor,” but this value, the price of labor, is determined by the law of supply and demand. These points were missed by Karl Marx and his ardent followers.


Ibn Khaldun believed that the coordination, cooperation and direction of factors of production in increasing economic surplus is a productive and costly process which is undertaken by entrepreneurs who try hard to make a gain for their economic activities. Entrepreneurs spend time, energy and capital to search for goods and services “to buy cheap and sell dear,” in order “to make profit.” As a result, Ibn Khaldun praised the initiative of entrepreneurs for their productive activities in coordinating and directing the factors of production. Then, they very rightly deserved profit from their risky undertakings. Karl Marx, Ricardo and others went astray on this point as well.



Ibn Khaldun, again centuries ahead of his time, postulated that the prices of goods and services are determined by supply and demand. When a good is scarce and in demand, its price is high. The merchant will look to buy the goods “where they are cheap” and plentiful and turn a profit by “selling them at a high price” where they are scarce and in demand. Naturally, when a good is plentiful, its price is low: “the inhabitants of a city have more food than they need. Consequently, the price of food is low, as a rule, except when misfortunes occur due to celestial conditions that may affect (the supply of) food.”(18)  Moreover, Ibn Khaldun had mastered the concept of the long-run cost of production in the Marshallian sense of the term.



Ibn Khaldun defends a stable monetary policy. He is against policies of the authorities that play with the value of a currency. Ibn Khaldun fears that authorities may be tempted to debauch the value of money in order to build palaces and finance mercenary armies. This process will inevitably cause inflation. The population will lose confidence in the currency. Moreover, Ibn Khaldun considers these developments to be unjust. As a supreme policy for the well-being of society, the protection of the purchasing power of money has to be implemented as a matter of justice. In order to do that, Ibn Khaldun proposed the establishment of an independent monetary agency under the authority of the Chief Justice, a “God-fearing man” to prevent the rulers from “fearlessly” tempting with the value of money and debauching the currency. In line with Ibn Khaldun’s policy recommendations, witness the relatively independent monetary policies of the American Federal Reserve and the Bank of England, as well as Germany’s Bundesbank, that all aim to keep inflation low and provide a stable currency for their respective economies.


Moreover, Ibn Khaldun has something to say about the quantity of money. The modern Quantity Theory of Money can be read from his statement that “the quantity of money is of no significance for a country’s wealth.” (19) Ibn Khaldun believed that as far as monetary policy is concerned, a stable monetary policy aimed at safeguarding the protection of the purchasing power of money is a must as a matter of justice. The population has to be protected from unjust policies of the rulers when they debauch the currency. A stable and sound currency increases the confidence of people in currency, trade and production. For Ibn Khaldun, what is needed for society is less government expenditure on palaces and bureaucracy, less expenditure on mercenary armies, less taxation and a stable currency for trade and production.(20)



Ibn Khaldun was not only against state involvement in commercial and agricultural activities, he was also against government involvement in fixing the prices of goods and services. When government employs force “by buying things up at a cheapest possible price,” the ruler “will be able to force the seller to lower his price” and “forces the merchants or farmers who deal in these particular products to buy from him.” (21) The rulers “undertake to buy agricultural products and goods from their owners who come to them, at prices fixed by themselves as they see fit. Then, they resell these things to the subjects under their control, at the proper times, at prices fixed by themselves.”(22)  This kind of policy, according to Ibn Khaldun, causes the following consequences:


1. “they (the farmers and the merchants) themselves will no longer be able to trade, which is what enables them to earn something and make their living.” (23)
2. moreover, this repeated process “takes away from them all incentives to efforts, thus ruining the fiscal (structure).”
3. “furthermore, (the trading of the ruler) may cause the destruction of civilization.” (24)
4. fixed pricing policy “is even more dangerous, harmful, and ruinous for the subjects than the engaging of state in commerce or agriculture which soon turn out to be harmful to the subjects, to be ruinous to the revenues, and to decrease cultural activity.” (25)


In light of the above analysis of Ibn Khaldun, it seems clear that the relative increase of poverty in Egypt, Algeria and many parts of the world, particularly in Africa, is due to the State’s control of commerce, industry, agriculture and the service sector with fixed pricing systems in place. Indeed, such fixed pricing policies of these countries have made them more dependent on foreign aid for food and more indebted than before. However, some of these countries are gradually in the process of following the prescriptions of Ibn Khaldun; this is an encouraging sign.



After the 1960s, economists, especially in the United States started to deal with property rights and its impact on economic development. Ibn Khaldun, on the other hand, dealt firmly with this issue several centuries ago. The protection and the enforcement of property rights had to be defended as a matter of justice for the survival of civilization. For Ibn Khaldun, “when the incentive to acquire and obtain property is gone, people no longer make efforts to acquire any. The extent and degree to which property rights are infringed upon determines the extent and degree to which the efforts of the subjects to acquire property slacken.”(26) 


Ibn Khaldun predicts the decline of economic activities when property rights are not protected and enforced with the following statements: “When attacks (on property) are extensive and general, extending to all means of making a livelihood, business inactivity, too, becomes (general), because the general extent of (such attacks upon property) means a general destruction of the incentive (to do business). If the attacks upon property are but light, the stoppage of gainful activity is correspondingly slight.” Civilization and its well-being as well as business prosperity depend on productivity, people, and people’s efforts in all directions in their own interest and profit. When people no longer do business in order to make a living, and when they cease all gainful activity, the business of civilization slumps, and everything decays.”(27)


Ibn Khaldun sees a clear connection between property rights and justice. For him, “men persist only with the help of the property. The only way to property is through cultivation. The only way to cultivation is through justice. Justice is a balance set up among mankind.” (28)


Whenever, a violation of property rights occurs, it translates to the commitment of an injustice. For Ibn Khaldun, “people who collect unjustified taxes commit an injustice. Those who infringe upon property (rights) commit an injustice. Those who take away property commit an injustice. Those who deny people their rights commit an injustice. Those who, in general, take property by force, commit an injustice,” (29) and “injustice ruins civilization.”(30)


Ibn Khaldun thinks that the importance of property rights has been emphasized vigorously in Islam as a matter of justice. The lack of justice, for him, “permits the eradication of the human species. This is what the religious law quite generally and wisely aims at in emphasizing five things as necessary: The preservation of  the religion,  the soul (life),  the intellect,  progeny, and  property. Since, …” injustice calls for the eradication of the (human) species by leading to the ruin of civilization, it contains in itself a good reason for being prohibited.” (31)


The relative backwardness of many developing and communist countries can be attributed to the existence of relatively poor property rights. The theory of Ibn Khaldun, other things being equal, predicts that a country with relatively strong property rights will witness a lively prosperous civilization, and a country with poor property rights, relatively, will stay poor forever.



In summary, Ibn Khaldun is one of the few successful theoreticians, who has analyzed the behavior of human beings and of society as an integrated whole in their totality as part of greater humanity through the prism of the rise and fall of civilization paralleled to the rise and fall of economic surplus. For Ibn Khaldun, the cycle of civilization has reached its end with the destruction of the superstructure. At the beginning, “the desire for a luxurious mode of life had inspired men to perform heroic deeds, fights, to overcome difficulties, and to build. Now men fight again, but not for the hopes that they had once entertained. Motivated by the fear of hunger, they fight for mere existence, and like the primordial man who fought out of the same motive, they display the beast in man and return to the life of beasts.” (32)


Ibn Khaldun does not give any clue, as far as my limited observation is concerned, about whether we could prevent the decline of a civilization through instilling the dynamism of personal responsibilities in individuals, through research and investment in science and technology to generate further specialization in goods and services in order to increase economic surplus, and through keeping government bureaucracy and large mercenary armies at a minimum.


It remains a big question whether the decline of the Greek, Roman and Islamic civilizations could have been prevented. We are not sure whether Great Britain’s relative decline could have been prevented. The United States and Russia are trying hard to reduce taxes and military expenditures and invest more in research, education, and technology to prevent their relative economic competitiveness falling further vis-à-vis Japan, the European Union, China and India in international markets. It remains to be seen whether these policies will work to increase economic surplus.


What is clear is that Ibn Khaldun had “discovered a great number of fundamental economic notions a few centuries before their official births. He discovered the virtues and the necessity of a division of labor before Smith and the principle of labor value before Ricardo” and the role of government in stabilization policy before Keynes.(33)


The reform movements in Eastern Europe and other former communist countries followed the prescriptions of Ibn Khaldun through their privatization policies and the establishment of private property rights. These countries are in the process of getting rid of price controls on goods and services; moreover, they emphasize the role of entrepreneurship, initiative, and free enterprise. These countries are also working to minimize mercenary armies and reduce the size of their bureaucracies. They are in the process of reducing the overall economic activities and trading role of government. It is clear that the policy recommendations of Ibn Khaldun for a civilized society are as relevant today as they were during his time. Countries that follow Ibn Khaldun’s recommendations will prosper and the ones that reject them will fall into decline and despair.


In Summary,


Given political stability and solidarity (asabiyah), for the rise of the nations, there must be:

a) A firm establishment of private property rights and freedom of enterprise;

b) The institutionalization of the Rule of law and the reliability of the judicial system for the establishment of justice;

c) The security of peace and the security of trade routes;

d) Lower and less taxation in order to increase employment, production and revenues (this policy had been put into practice by former President Ronald Reagan for the US economy).(34) Moreover, both former U.S. President George W. Bush and former German chancellor Angela Merkel reduced taxation in the U.S. and Germany, respectively;

e) Less bureaucracy and much smaller efficient and professional army;

f) No government involvement in trade, production and commercial affairs;

g) No fixation of prices by the government;

h) A rule that does not give monopoly power to anyone in the market and that encourages economic competition;

i) Stable monetary policy and independent monetary authority that does not play with the value of money;

j) A larger population and a larger market for greater specialization;

k) A creative education system to spur independent thinking and behavior;

l) The collective responsibility and internal feeling for the setting up of a just system to encourage good deeds and prevent vice.



Excuse Me, Mr. Clinton, I Must Have Misheard You
By Ronald Reagan

Los Angeles – Less than one month ago, America showed the world the strength of its democratic system with the peaceful transfer of presidential power from one elected citizen to another and, incidentally, from one political party to another. While it is no secret that I would have preferred a different scenario that day, I have great respect for our constitutional system and would like to support the new president.


I had every intention of holding back any comments on the new administration until it was well in place and its policies became clear. Unfortunately, the policies are already becoming alarmingly clear.


“First, we’re going to raise the taxes on the people that did well in the 1980s,” the Clinton administration says. Did I hear that right? Do they really believe that those who have worked hard and been successful should be punished for it? Is success in the 1980s, or any time for that matter, supposed to be something to be embarrassed about?


In the 1980s, America experienced its longest period of peacetime economic expansion in history. It led the world out of a global economic recession. Nearly 19 million new jobs were created for Americans of all income levels. And it may shock the Clinton administration to discover that most of the economic gains of he 1980s were made by low and middle-income citizens, not the wealthiest.


Earlier this week, President Clinton said, “I know we have learned the hard lessons of the 1980s.” I didn’t realize they were so hard to learn. The fundamental lesson of the 1980s was that when you cut taxes for everyone, people have the incentive to work harder and invest, to make a better life for themselves and their families.


Last summer, Bill Clinton was promising that, if elected, he would provide a tax cut for the middle class. Now, in less than one month, that promise has not only been broken but it has been reversed into a tax increase.


During the campaign, Bill Clinton said he would tax only the very rich. Last week, he defined this category as those making $200,000 a year. On Monday, the definition came down to $100,000 and now the “very rich” seems to mean anyone making $30,000.


Somehow, as the administration raises everyone’s taxes, it wants us to take comfort in knowing that others are getting theirs raised even more. Unfortunately, that kind of “comfort” does not put food on the table of the hardworking middle class, let alone make it easier to put some money aside for savings.


We must also listen for the sound of the other shoe to drop: the Clintons’ health program. This will almost certainly involve proposals for another round of taxes later this year, and you can bet those will not be levied on a handful of millionaires.


In the Middle Ages, it was believed that alchemists could turn base metals into gold. Now, it appears that alchemists in the Clinton administration hope to turn a huge tax increase into economic growth. Alchemy did not work then and it will not work now.


In his campaign, Mr. Clinton described himself as a “new Democrat,” implying that there would be no more tax-and-spend dogma, no social engineering, and no class warfare. This week, however, he has begun to sound like an “old Democrat.” That is the kind that does not understand a simple fact: The problem is not that the people are taxed too little; it is that government spends too much.


Until Mr. Clinton and the liberals in Congress accept that principle and act accordingly, I am afraid we are headed for a repeat of the late 1970s.


No one can dispute that the enormous budget deficit is a major threat to the economic security of our country. But let us remember that deficits are caused by spending. And only Congress has the power to spend.


For more than four decades, the Democratic Party has controlled the House of Representatives. It is not the working Americans who need to “sacrifice” even more; it is the big-spending liberals controlling Congress who need to show some restraint and “sacrifice” a few of the pork-barrel measures they have been slipping past the taxpayers for too long.


While I am flattered that President Clinton admits to taking a page out of my communications plan, I wish, he would use it to sell an economic program of growth and expansion, not the failed liberal policies of the past.


Just as positive signs of economic recovery are appearing, Mr. President, please don’t blow it. Although it goes back well before the 1980s, may I offer you the advice of the 14th century Arab historian Ibn Khaldun, who said: “At the beginning of the empire, the tax rates were low and the revenues were high. At the end of the empire, the tax rates were high and the revenues were low”.


- Herald Tribune 21/2/1993 – Page No. 4
- The former president heads the Reagan Center for Public Affairs. He contributed these comments to The New York Times.



  1-Ibn Khaldun, “the Muqaddimah”: An Introduction to History, trans. from Arabic by Franz Rosenthal, 3 volume, Bollingen Series, No. 43 (New York: Pantheon, 1958).
  2-Ibid, volume II, page 281.
  3-Muhsin Mahdi, Ibn Khaldun’s Philosophy of History (Chicago : Univ. of Chicago Press, 1971), pp 219-220.
  4-Ibid., p221.
  5-Jean David c. Boulakia, “Ibn Khaldun : A fourteenth-Century Economist, Journal of Political Economy“, Volume 79, No. 5, Sept. – Oct. 1971, p. 1106.
  6-Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations (London : Metheun Co., Ltd., 1925), p.313.
  7-Ibn Khaldun, Vol. II, p. 250.
  8-Ibid, Vol. II, p. 235.
  9-Adam Smith, p. 313.
  10-Ibn Khaldun, Vol. II, p. 235.
  11-Ibid, Vol. II, p. 69.
  12-Karl Marx, Kapital : A Critique of Political Economy. Ed. By Frederick Engels and revised by Ernest Untelmann (New York : Modern Library, 1906), p.201.
  13-Ibid, pp. 824 - 826.
  14-Ibn Khaldun, Vol. II, p. 289.
  15-Ibid, Vol. II, pp. 245 - 246.
  16-Ibid, Vol. II, p. 297.
  17-Ibid, Vol. II, p. 297.
  18-Ibid, Vol. II, p. 240.
  19-Ibid, Vol. II, p. 245.
  20-Ibid., Vol. II, pp. 245, 246, 285.
  21-Ibid., Vol. II, p. 94.
  22-Ibid., Vol. II, p. 96.
  23-Ibid., Vol. II, p. 94.
  24-Ibid., Vol. II, p. 95.
  25-Ibid., Vol. II, p. 96.
  26-Ibid., Vol. II, p. 103.
  27-Ibid., Vol. II, p. 103 - 104.
  28-Ibid., Vol. II, p. 105.
  29-Ibid., Vol. II, p. 107.
  30-Ibid., Vol. II, p. 106.
  31-Ibid., Vol. II, p. 107.
  32-In Muhsen Mahdi, p. 221.
  33-Boulakia, p. 1117.
  34-Ronald Reagan, “Excuse Me, Mr. Clinton, I must have Misheard You”, International Herald Tribune, 21/02/1993, Page No. 4.

Back to Top