IBN KHALDUN, Wali al-Din 'Abd al-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Muhammad b. Abi Bakr
Muhammad b. al-Hasan (732-84/1332-82), one of the strongest personalities of
Arabo-Muslim
culture in the period of its decline. He is generally regarded as a historian, sociologist and
philosopher. Thus his life and work have already formed the subject of innumerable studies and
given rise to the most varied and even the most contradictory interpretations.
I. Life.
Ibn khaldun's life may be divided into three parts, the first of which (20 years) was occupied by
his childhood and education, the second (23 years) by the continuation of his studies and by
political adventures, and the third (31 years) by his life as a scholar, teacher and magistrate. The
first two periods were spent in the Muslim West and the third was divided between the Maghrib
and Egypt.
At Tunis.
Ibn khaldun was born in Tunis, on 1 Ramadan 732/27 May 1332, in an Arab family which
came originally from the Hadramawt and had been settled at Seville since the beginning of the
Muslim conquest (Ibn Hazm, Dhamhara, ed. Levi-Provencal, 430), playing there an important
political role. The family then left Seville for Ceuta immediately before the Reconquista. From
there they went to Ifriqiya and settled in Tunis during the reign of the Hafsid Abu
Zakariyya' (625-47/1228-49). Ibn khaldun's great-grandfather, Abu Bakr Muhammad b. al-Hasan, who
wrote a treatise on Adab al-katib (see E. Levi-Provencal, in Arabica, ii (1955),
280-8), was put in
charge of the finances during the reign of Abu Ishaq (678-81/1279-83). The usurper Ibn Abi
'Umara (681-2/1283-4) put an end to his career and to his life, having him strangled after
confiscating his possessions and subjecting him to torture. His son, Muhammad, also occupied
various official positions, both at Bougie and Tunis, and died in 737/1337, after renouncing
political life upon the fall of Ibn al-Lihyani (711-7/1311-7). The latter's son, the father of our Ibn
khaldun, wisely avoided politics, leading the life of a faqih and man of letters (Ta'rif, 10-15).
He was thus able to ensure that his son 'Abd al-Rahman received a very thorough education.
The latter also attended courses given by the most famous teachers of Tunis, to whom he
devotes lengthy sections in his autobiography (Ta'rif). He thus received a classical education,
based essentially on the study of the qur'an, of hadith, of the Arabic language and of fiqh. The
Marinid invasion (748-50/1347-9) resulted in the arrival in Tunis, with the sultan Abu
'l-Hasan,
of a large number of theological and literary scholars. This widened the horizons of the young
Ibn khaldun, who was thus enabled, particularly under the supervision of al-Abili, to learn
about the philosophy and the main problems of Arabo-Muslim thought. He was however to
undergo much suffering. The Marinid occupation ended in disorder and bloodshed, and in
addition the terrible Black Death which ravaged the world in the middle of the century, coming
from the East, claimed many victims in the country, among them Ibn khaldun's parents. He
was at this time 17 years of age and was to retain all his life a memory of the horror of this
event, which is reflected in many passages in his Ta'rif and his Muqaddima. This was the first
traumatic experience of his life, which was later to have an undoubted influence on the
direction of his thought. In addition, the departure of the Marinid scholars left a great
intellectual vacuum at Tunis, and it seems that at this time the sole aim of the young Ibn
khaldun was to leave Tunis for Fez, then the most brilliant capital of the Muslim
West. He
states (Ta'rif, 55) that he had a great thirst for learning. His elder brother, Muhammad, dissuaded
him from his project, but not for long.
At the court of Fez.
He was not yet t0 when, towards the end of 751/1350, the powerful chamberlain Ibn Tafragin
appointed him to the office of writer of the 'alama (the ruler's official signature) on behalf of the
sultan Abu Ishaq. He accepted, without, it seems (Ta'rif, 561), the intention of remaining long in
the post. The invasion of Ifriqiya by the amir of Constantine, Abu Yazid (753/135t), provided him
with the desired opportunity. Under cover of the defeat, he parted company with his master,
took refuge for a time at Ebba, then reached Tebessa, then Gafsa, before arriving at
Biskra,
where he spent the winter with his friends the Banu Muzni. Thus the second period of his life,
which was both scholarly and adventurous, began with one of those changes of direction which
were to recur on later occasions and which have been severely criticized by the majority of those
who have made a study of his life and work. But it was in fact probably not a bad thing:
intuitively, Ibn khaldun was refusing to be engulfed in an Ifriqiya which was then in the process
of disintegration and whose court furthermore was far from providing an example of loyalty and
good behaviour.
Meanwhile, the Marinid Abu 'l-Hasan, after an unfortunate adventure, had been killed
(75t/1351), leaving the western territories of the Maghrib to his son Abu 'Inan, who in any case
had not waited for his death before supplanting him in Fez. Once again the Marinid hegemony
seemed to be consolidating itself. Abu 'Inan seized Tlemcen (753/135t) and reduced Bougie
again to submission. From Biskra, Ibn khaldun offered him his services. On his journey he met
the Marinid chamberlain Ibn Abi 'Amr, appointed governor of Bougie, who invited him to his
new residence, where he lived for some time (until the end of the winter of 754/1353-4), before
being summoned to the court at Fez. He was officially part of the sultan's literary circle
(madhlisuh al-'ilmi) and soon afterwards also formed part of his secretariat (kitabatuh), though without much
enthusiasm it seems, for such a post 'was not in the family tradition'--that is to say it was
beneath their dignity. This remark reveals a far-reaching ambition in a young man of barely
23
years. Somewhat disappointed, he therefore continued to occupy himself mainly with his studies.
'I devoted myself', he writes (Ta'rif, 59), 'to reflection and to study, and to sitting at the feet of
the great teachers, those of the Maghrib as well as those of Spain who were residing temporarily
in Fez, and I benefited greatly from their teaching'. In brief, his desire for learning still took
precedence over his political interests. Nevertheless, it may be that, taking advantage of the
sultan's illness, he took part in a plot aiming to liberate the former amir of Bougie, Abu
'Abd
Allah, and to re-install him in his former kingdom. He himself denies this and refers to intrigues,
jealousy and malice (Ta'rif, 67); he was certainly thrown into prison however, remaining there
for two years (758-9/1357-8) until the death of Abu 'Inan. This was followed by disturbances, by
clashes between the claimants to the throne, and by treachery and bloodshed. Ibn
khaldun,
now set free, took part in all this according to the custom of the time. Changes of loyalty were
common and he was no exception and found himself appointed, in Sha'ban 760/July 1359, to
the office of Secretary of the Chancellery (kitabat al-sirr wa 'l-tarsil) for the new sultan, Abu
Salim. In order the better to perform his role and consolidate his position, he even made the
effort of becoming court-poet ('akhadhtu nafsi bi 'l-shi'r', Ta'rif, 70), and he quotes long extracts
from his work as a panegyrist. But this was all wasted effort, since his fortune declined. Two
years later he left the chancellery for a judicial post, the mazalim. Then further disturbances
resulted in the accession of a new sultan. Ibn khaldun changed his allegiance in time, and
considered that he was unjustly deprived of any fruits of the victory. He did not hide his
ill-humour, made enemies and, after many difficulties, he obtained permission to withdraw to
Granada (autumn 764/1362).
At the court of Granada.
In Ramadan 760/August 1359, a palace revolt had driven Muhammad b. al-Ahmar from the
throne, so that, in Muharram 761/December 1359, he had taken refuge in Fez with his famous
vizier Ibn al-khatib. There was formed at this time, between the latter and the young Ibn
khaldun, a real friendship which, apart from inevitable spells of unpleasantness, was to
withstand the test of time. In Jumada II 763/April 1362, Muhammad b. al-Ahmar regained his
throne and Ibn al-khatib his former rank. The friendship established at Fez ensured that Ibn
khaldun, forced in his turn to flee to the other side of the Mediterranean, was received in
Granada with the highest honours. At the end of 765/1364, he was even sent to Seville,
charged with a delicate peace mission to Pedro the Cruel. This contact with the Christian
world, then in the midst of a period of change, had an important influence on him. On his
return, the Nasrid amir showered favours on him (Ta'rif, 85). Ibn khaldun then sent for his wife
and children to come to Constantine. But Ibn al-khatib felt some resentment at the success of
his young friend and Ibn khaldun preferred not to take full advantage of his favoured position
(spring 766/1365).
At the court of Bougie.
It is true that at this time there arose a unique opportunity for him to satisfy his ambition. His
friend, Abu 'Abd Allah Muhammad, with whom he had already been in a conspiracy at Fez, had
in fact regained his kingdom of Bougie, and offered him the office of hadhib (chamberlain), which
was at that time the most important office in the state, and appointed to the vizierate his
younger brother Yahya [see next article]. Ibn khaldun held at the same time posts as teacher of
fiqh and as preacher. But this success was short-lived. In the following year, the amir of
Constantine, Abu 'l-'Abbas, took the offensive and inflicted a crushing defeat on his cousin Abu
'Abd Allah Muhammad, who was killed in the battle. Ibn khaldun, refusing suggestions that he
should continue the struggle in support of one of the younger sons of the dead ruler, handed
over the town to the conqueror (Sha'ban 767/May 1366) and himself entered his service. This
was not to be for long, however. Ibn khaldun saw which way the wind was blowing: he resigned
in time, and took refuge at first with the Dawawida Arabs, then with his friends the Banu Muzni
at Biskra, whereas his brother Yahya was arrested. To the offer by the sultan Abu Hammu, in a
letter of 17 Radhab 769/8 March 1368 (Ta'rif, 102-3) of the office of hadhib at Tlemcen, he replied
with a courteous refusal, sending him instead his brother Yahya, who had in the meantime been
set free. He explains his motives thus: 'I was in fact cured of the temptation of office
(ghiwayat al-rutab). Furthermore I had for too long neglected scholarly matters. I
therefore ceased to
involve myself in the affairs of kings and devoted all my energies to study (al-qira'a) and
teaching' (Ta'rif, 103).
Thus at Biskra he attempted to lead the life of a man of letters. He carried on a long
correspondence, much ornamented by rhetorical flourishes, with his friend Ibn
al-khatib (Ta'rif,
103-30). However he could not resist intrigue. He gave his support, against Abu 'l-'Abbas, to the
alliance between the Hafsid of Tunis and the 'Abd al-Wadid Abu Hammu of Tlemcen. He next
took it upon himself to raise support for the Marinid Abu Faris. He was constantly on the move,
attempting to form from the small tribal units a force capable of supporting a really great
power. But on each occasion events upset his calculations. The claimants were simply too
numerous, and this resulted in a new series of changes of front which were basically perhaps
only his unsuccessful attempts to back the winner. But in the Muslim West of the 8th/14th
century no winner existed. Furthermore his friends the Banu Muzni were beginning to object to
the suspicious activities of their guest. Ibn khaldun tried once again to escape the lure of politics.
He took refuge in the ribat of Abu Madyan, 'preferring', he writes, 'to live in retirement and
devote myself exclusively to learning, if only I might be left inpeace' (Ta'rif, 134). He was not left
in peace, nor was he of a temperament to remain so for long. Thus, after some new setbacks in
the central Maghrib, he met with failure in Fez (774/137t). Welcomed at first, he was later
arrested, then released, and finally permitted to withdraw to Muslim Spain (spring 776/1375),
where he wished 'to settle permanently, withdraw from the world, and devote my life to
learning (qasd al-qarar wa 'l-inqibad wa 'l-'ukuf 'ala qira'at al-'ilm)' (Ta'rif,
226). Yet again he was
disappointed. He had become a political personality with a reputation which could not fail to
arouse mistrust. He was henceforward condemned to offer his services for hire, and to be
regarded with mixed feelings never entirely free from suspicion, whereas apparently his only
ambition now was to be left in peace to work out the conclusions to be drawn from his
tumultuous experience and to put his ideas in order.
At the castle of Ibn Salama.
Practically ordered to leave the kingdom of Granada, Ibn khaldun returned to the Maghrib
and, after some difficulties, settled with his family at Tlemcen (1 Shawwal 776/5 March 1375).
In the meantime his friend, the vizier Ibn al-khatib, whom he had tried in vain to save
(Ta'rif, 227)--and this is what had earned him the enmity of the amir of Granada--had been strangled
in prison at Fez. Ibn khaldun may have seen this as a warning; he certainly seems after this to
have made a firm decision to restrict himself to study and teaching. But the sultan of Tlemcen
was willing to forget the past--Ibn khaldun had after all been in turn for him and against
him--with the ulterior motive of making use of him once again. He entrusted him with a
mission to the Dawawida. Ibn khaldun pretended to accept, but as soon as he had left
Tlemcen,
he took refuge with the Awlad 'Arif; they gave him a warm welcome and interceded on his
behalf with the sultan of Tlemcen, who gave permission for his family to join him. For the next
four years (776-80/1375-9) Ibn khaldun lived in the castle of Ibn Salama, 6 km. south-west of
the present-day Frenda, in the department of Oran (Ta'rif, 228). This was a decisive
turning-point in his life; really enclosed for the first time in his ivory tower, he informs us that he
worked out the Muqaddima 'according to that original plan (al-nahw al-gharib) for which he
received inspiration during his retirement' (Ta'rif, 229).
Again in Tunis.
After this, to enable him to continue his work, a vast amount of documentation became more
and more necessary. Ibn khaldun was at this time 47 years of age. He dreamed of returning to
Tunis, which he had left at the age of 20--Tunis, where 'my ancestors lived and where there
still exist their houses, their remains and their tombs' (Ta'rif, 230). He wrote for, and obtained,
the permission of Abu 'l-'Abbas (771-96/1370-94), the architect of the Hafsid restoration, with
whom he had had connexions more than ten years earlier at Bougie. And thus, in Sha'ban
780/November-December 1378, 'he abandoned his traveller's staff' (Ta'rif, 231) in his native
town. There he followed his new career as a teacher and a scholar and completed a first
redaction of his 'Ibar, the first copy of which, accompanied by a long panegyric
(Ta'rif, 233-4), he
presented to the sultan. But the success of his teaching--which some considered subversive--and
the favours which he received from the ruler, earned him many enemies. The formation of a
cabal against him, the moving spirit in which was the famous Ibn 'Arafa, made him fear the
worst. He decided to leave the Muslim West, where his awkward past followed him wherever he
went. He made the pretext for this the Pilgrimage. The sultan granted him permission for this;
there was a boat on the point of leaving for Alexandria; and Ibn khaldun embarked on 15
Sha'ban 784/24 October 1382 (Ta'rif, 245).
In Cairo.
On his arrival in the Mamluk capital, Ibn khaldun was truly dazzled. Students flocked to his
courses at al-Azhar, and soon he was appointed teacher of Maliki fiqh at the al-qamhiyya
madrasa. Some time afterwards he was also appointed Maliki chief qadi (Jumada II
786/July-August 1384). There then began for him a period of suffering: his family, finally given
permission to join him through the intervention of the sultan al-Zahir Barquq, was shipwrecked
off Alexandria. At the same time his intransigeance and the intrigues of his enemies, who were
furious at seeing one of the most important offices of the state entrusted to a 'foreigner', caused
him to be dismissed from his office as qadi (Jumada I 787/June-July 1385). In 789/1387, he was
appointed to the newly built al-Zahiriyya madrasa, and then, on his return from the Pilgrimage,
he was appointed teacher of hadith at the madrasa of ‘arghatmish. Ibn khaldun preserved in its
entirety his inaugural course of lectures (Muharram 791/January 1389), devoted to the
Muwatta'
of Malik (Ta'rif, 294-310). At the same time, he was placed at the head of the khanqah of
Baybars,
the most important ‘ufi convent in Egypt. Then, after fourteen years devoted exclusively to
teaching, he was once again appointed to the office of qadi (15 Ramadan 801/t1 May 1399). He
was again dismissed (Muharram 803/August-September 1400), and some months later (Rabi' II
803/November-December 1400) he was obliged to accompany al-Nasir on his expedition to
relieve Damascus, which was being threatened by Timurlane, already master of Aleppo. Left in
the besieged town--and abandoned without warning by al-Nasir, who suspected that a plot was
being hatched in Cairo during his absence--he played a certain part in the surrender of the
town under a false promise of aman, and has provided a detailed account of his interviews with
the Mongol leader (Ta'rif, 366-83). He may in fact have thought that he saw in
Timurlane the
man of the century who possessed enough 'asabiyya to re-unite the Muslim world and to give a
new direction to history (Ta'rif, 372, 382). Finally, after writing for
Timurlane a description of the
Maghrib and having witnessed the horrors of the burning and sacking of Damascus, he returned
to Cairo, having been stripped and robbed by brigands on the way. In spite of his
compromising
attitude towards Timurlane (Ta'rif, 378), he was well received at the court. Four times more he
was appointed qadi and then dismissed. His last, and sixth, appointment to this office was in
Sha'ban 808/January-February 1406, a few weeks before his death on 26 Ramadan 808/16
March 1406.
During his stay in Cairo, Ibn khaldun did not sever relations with the Muslim West. He
retained his Maghribi dress, a dark burnous. He also attempted to encourage the exchange of
gifts between the sultans of Egypt and those of the Maghrib and to produce a climate of
co-operation (Ta'rif, 335-46). He sent a copy of his 'Ibar to the Marinid Abu Faris (796-9/1394-6),
continued to correspond with his friends, and preserved in particular long passages, in prose and
in verse, from the letters sent to him by the famous poet of Granada, Ibn Zamrak
(Ta'rif, 262-74).
Ibn khaldun's life has been judged variously, and in general rather severely. There is certainly
no doubt that he behaved in a detached, self-interested, haughty, ambitious and equivocal
manner. He himself does not attempt to hide this, and openly describes in his Ta'rif his successive
changes of allegiance. He has been accused of fickleness and a lack of patriotism. But for such
judgements to be strictly applicable presupposes the existence of the idea of 'allegiance' to a
country, which was not the case. The very concept scarcely existed and was not to appear in
Muslim thinking until it was affected by contact with Europe. The only treason was apostasy,
nor was loyalty understood except in the context of relations between one man and another,
and examples of felony were provided daily by those of the highest rank. Ibn khaldun was,
moreover, readily pardoned by those who wished to use his services--he was in turn the enemy
and the servant, now of one and now of another, in the same way that men were treacherously
killed, with or without good reason, simply as a precaution. The struggles which rent the
Muslim West in Ibn khaldun's time were merely a series of minor and abortive coups. He should
therefore be judged according to the standards of his own time and not according to ours.
Furthermore, Ibn khaldun, as he proves in his Muqaddima, was an astonishingly clear thinker. It
is true that his behaviour was dictated by ambition, the desire of power, a taste for adventure
and even a complete ruthlessness in political matters; but it is unlikely that this was all. It would
be strange if the theoretician of 'asabiyya did not envisage a plan, perhaps rather vague, for the
restoration of Arabo-Muslim civilization which he saw--and he states this clearly--to be in its
death-throes. His adventures could thus be seen as only the unfruitful and calculated search for
an 'asabiyya powerful enough to save Islam from ruin. Certain facts support this hypothesis, but
Ibn khaldun states nothing explicity and his Ta'rif (on which moreover opinions vary) provides
no assistance. As has already been mentioned, it gives us no insight into the inner thought of
the author himself and presents only his external character. There is thus no way of knowing
what his real intentions were.
II. Works.
Ibn khaldun is known primarily forqhis Muqaddima and his 'Ibar, but he wrote other works which
have not all survived.
In about his twentieth year, he attempted, under the influence of al-Abili, to make a resume of
the theologico-philosophical 'summa' of al-Razi entitled Kitab Muhassal afqar al-mutaqaddimin wa
'l-muta'-akhkhirin min al-'ulama' wa 'l-hukama' wa 'l-muta-kallimin (Cairo 1905), an outline which is a
condensation of all the Arabo-Muslim cultural tradition concerning the problems of dogma and
its philosophical repercussions. This resume, entitled Lubab al-Muhassal fi usul al-din
(Tetuan 1952:
autograph manuscript dated 29 ‘afar 752/28 May 1351, Escorial no. 1614), shows a direction of
thought which Ibn khaldun was never to lose completely.
It should also be remembered that Ibn khaldun had stressed in his Ta'rif the studious nature of
his period at Fez and at Granada. During this period, that is between
752-65/1351-64, the date
at which Ibn al-khatib's Ihata was finished (to which we owe the following information), he
wrote five works: (1) a commentary on the Burda [q.v.] of al-Busiri; (2) an outline of logic; (3) a
treatise on arithmetic; (4) several resumes of works by Ibn Rushd, though unfortunately it is not
known which ones; and (5) a commentary on a poem by Ibn al-khatib on the usul
al-fiqh. All
these works are now lost, and indeed seem to have been quickly forgotten even during the
author's lifetime. Ibn khaldun does not even mention them in his Ta'rif, and his Egyptian
biographers do not appear to have heard of them.
They seem moreover to have been of a traditional theologico-philosophical type, including the
arithmetic which a faqih had to know. Nothing up to this time indicated that Ibn khaldun would
go down to posterity as the brilliant founder of the science of history and of other disciplines.
The flowering of his genius took place at the castle of Ibn Salama, as the result of the fusion of
the traditional disciplines in which he had been educated with the rich harvest of political
experience which, through a bitter series of failures and impasses, had made him aware of the
meaning and deep significance ('ibar) of history. There then began, in the calm of the castle of
Ibn Salama, the work of analysing the passionate and disturbing human adventure, which
certainly has its grandeurs but of which he had experienced mainly the miseries. Ibn khaldun
really changed as a thinker: the pedestrian faqih which he might after all have been had become
a historian of genius, and even the founder of a number of disciplines which were to become
some of the most productive of the modern humanities. The first draft of his Introduction
(Muqaddima)--which contains the essence of his thought--to his universal history
(Kitab al-'Ibar), as
well as large sections of this history itself, were written between 776/1375 and 780/1379 during
his retirement. He later continued without ceasing, until the end of his life, to re-write this basic
work, and especially the Muqaddima. The Ta'rif, an autobiography which stops in Dhu
'l-qa'da
807/May 1405 (ed. al-tandhi, Cairo 1951), and the Shifa' al-sa'il, a treatise on mysticism written
towards the end of his life (ed. al-tandhi, Istanbul 1958; and ed. I. A. Khalife, Beirut 1959), are
minor works compared with his masterpiece, and their main interest is in the light they throw
on it. It should be mentioned that the problem of the authenticity of the Shifa'
al-sa'il, so
important for the history of Ibn khaldun's thought, has not yet been definitively solved.
The Ottoman historian Na'ima [q.v.] (d. 1128/1716) praises Ibn khaldun in the introduction to
his work and gives a summary of his ideas. (The first translation into Turkish, of part of the
Muqaddima, was made by the Shaykh al-Islam Piri-zade Mehmed Ef. in 1143/1749 (see IA,
s.v. Ibn Haldun, col. 740b); the most recent, complete, translation is by Zakir Kadiri
Ugan, 2 vols.,
Istanbul 1954.) Yet it was in Europe that Ibn khaldun was discovered and the importance of his
Muqaddima realized: by d'Herbelot (Bibliotheque Orienlale 1697), by Silvestre de Sacy
(Chrestomatie arabe, 1806), by von Hammer-Purgstall (Ueber den Verfall des Islam ...,
1812) and especially by Quatremere, who, in 1858, produced the first complete edition of the
Muqaddima--another
edition of it was published in the same year in Cairo by Nasr al-Hurini, based on another
manuscript containing in particular the dedication to the sultan Abu Faris of Fez
(796-9/1394-7)--and by de Slane, who, some years afterwards, produced the first French
translation of it (Les Prolegomenes, Paris 1863-8). Since then there has been a continual series of
editions and studies on it, in both the East and the West, a proof of the increasing interest in Ibn
khaldun's thought, and there have recently been so many of them that bibliographical works on
them (by H. Peres and W. J. Fischel) became necessary. The most recent translation, by F.
Rosenthal (into English, 3 vols. New York-London 1958), has the advantage of having been
made from the Istanbul manuscript (Atif Efendi 1936), which contains a note in Ibn khaldun's
writing stating that it had been 'scientifically revised' by the author. There should also be
mentioned the Portuguese translation by Khoury, in 3 vols., Sao Paulo 1958-60; a French
translation by V. Monteil is being published.
The 'Ibar, the Universal History itself, naturally aroused less interest. The first to produce an
edition and translation of extensive passages from the 'Ibar was Noeel
Desvergers, under the title
Histoire de l'Afrique sous la dynastie des Aghlabites et de la Sicile sous la domination
musulmane, Paris 1841.
Another partial translation was published some years later by de Slane under the title Histoire des
Berberes et des dynasties musulmanes de l'Afrique Septentrionale (4 vols., Algiers
1852-6), followed by an
edition of the passages translated (2 vols., Algiers 1863). Next there appeared the complete Bulaq
edition (7 vols., 1868), and since then there have followed also some partial translations. There
has not yet appeared, however, a truly critical edition of either the Muqaddima or the
'Ibar. The
latest edition, that of Beirut (1956-9)--from which our references are taken--is a commercial
one, which is however provided with useful indexes.
The criticism generally made of the 'Ibar is that it did not fulfil the promises made in the
Muqaddima. This is obvious, but it could not have been otherwise. No one man could write alone
a universal history according to the demands of the Muqaddima. But it has more serious
shortcomings: Ibn khaldun at times demonstrates a surprising lack of learning, for example,
concerning the Almohads and their doctrine: 'In addition, precise dates are rarely given; the
chronological details throughout the work are too often contradictory, and one is obliged to
prefer on many occasions those provided in other more humble and much more succinct works'
(R. Brunschvig, Hafsides, ii, 392). Nevertheless, the Kitab al-'Ibar, through its intelligent
arrangement of facts and the detail and scope of the account, remains, in the opinion of the
specialist who has made most use of it, an incomparable tool, particularly 'for the two centuries
nearest to our author, the 13th and the14th' (R. Brunschvig, op. cit., ii, 393). It should also be
added that this work, often disappointing on the history of the East, is generally valuable
especially for the Muslim West, and in particular for the Berbers.
But Ibn khaldun's main work, of universal value, is the Muqaddima. In the author's intention, and
as the title indicates, it is an Introduction to the historian's craft. Thus it is presented as an
encyclopaedic synthesis of the methodological and cultural knowledge necessary to enable the
historian to produce a truly scientific work. Initially, in fact, Ibn khaldun was preoccupied with
epistemology. Then gradually, meditating on the method and the matter of history, he was led,
in full consciousness of what he was doing, to create what he refers to as his 'new science'
('ilm
mustanbat al-nash'a, 63), which itself turned out to contain more or less implicitly the starting
points of several avenues of research leading to the philosophy of history, sociology, economics
and yet other disciplines.
In his preface to the Introduction proper (muqaddimat al-Muqaddima, 1-68), Ibn khaldun begins by
defining history--which he expands to include the study of the whole of the human past,
including its social, economic and cultural aspects--defining its interest, denouncing the lack of
curiosity and of method in his predecessors, and setting out the rules of good and sound
criticism. This criticism is based essentially, apart from the examination of evidence, on the
criterion of conformity with reality (qanun al-mutabaqa, 61-t), that is of the probability of the facts
reported and their conformity to the nature of things, which is the same as the current of
history and of its evolution. Hence the necessity of bringing to light the laws which determine
the direction of this current. The science capable of throwing light on this phenomenon is, he
says, that of 'umran, 'a science which may be described as independent ('ilm mustaqill
bi-nafsih),
which is defined by its object: human civilization (al-'umran al-bashari) and social facts as a whole'
(62).
All that follows, that is the main part of the Muqaddima itself, is only the detailed exposition of this
new and independent science which the author had perceived. In it he develops his argument,
contrary to some opinions, according to a strict plan, the broad lines of which he states and
clearly explains (68) before beginning his exposition. This exposition is divided into six long
chapters which in turn are subdivided into many paragraphs of varying lengths and often
mathematically arranged. Chapter 1: a general treatise on human society. In it Ibn khaldun
makes an outline study of the influence of environment on human nature, an ethnological and
an anthropological study. Chapter t: on the societies of rural and, generally speaking, fairly
primitive, civilization ('umran badawi). Chapter 3: on the different forms of government, on states
and institutions. Chapter 4: on the societies of urban civilization ('umran
hadari), that is of the most
developed and sophisticated forms of civilization. Chapter 5: on industries and economic affairs
in general. Chapter 6: on scholarship, literature and cultural matters in general.
This plan clearly shows that Ibn khaldun in his Muqaddima was inclined to concentrate on social
phenomena in general. The central point around which his observations are built and to which
his researches are directed is the study of the aetiology of decline, that is to say the symptoms
and the nature of the ills from which civilizations die. Henceqthe Muqaddima is very closely linked
with the political experiences of its author, who had been in fact very vividly aware that he was
witnessing a tremendous change in the course of history, which is why he thought it necessary
to write a summary of the past of humanity and to draw lessons ('ibar) from it. He remarks that
at certain exceptional moments in history the upheavals are such that one has the impression of
being present 'at a new creation (ka'annahu khalqdhadid), at an actual renaissance
(nash'a mustahdatha),
and at [the emergence of] a new world (wa 'alam muhdath). It is so at present (li-hadha
'l-'ahd). Thus
the need is felt for someone to make a record of the situation of humanity and of the world'
(53). This 'new world', as Ibn khaldun knew (866), was coming to birth in other lands; he also
realized that the civilization to which he belonged was nearing its end. Although unable to
avert the catastrophe, he was anxious at least to understand what was taking place, and
therefore felt it necessary to analyse the processes of history.
His main tool in this work of analysis is observation. Fairly recently there has been stressed the
realistic aspect of his thought. Ibn khaldun, who has a thorough knowledge of the sources on
logic and makes use of it, particular of induction, greatly mistrusts speculative reasoning. He
admits that reason is a marvellous tool, but only within the framework of its natural limits,
which are those of the investigation and the interpretation of what is real. He was much
concerned about the problem of knowledge and it led him finally, after a radical criticism, to a
refutation of philosophy. 'In casting doubts on the adequacy of universal rationality and of
individual reality, Ibn khaldun at the same time casts doubts on the whole structure of
speculative philosophy as it then existed' (N. Nassar, La pensee realiste d'Ibn
khaldun, 66). Having
thus calmly dismissed Arabo-Muslim philosophy, he chose, in order to explore reality and arrive
at its meaning, a type of empiricism which has no hesitation in 'having recourse to the
categories of rational explanation which derive from philosophy'. In short, Ibn khaldun rejects
the traditional speculation of the philosophers, which gets bogged down in fruitless argument
and controversy, only to replace it by another type of speculation, the steps of which are more
certain and the results more fruitful since it is directly related to concrete facts.
This new positive speculation which he suggests and of which he provides an example in the
Muqaddima is operated through a dialectical process which has been referred to in several studies
(see in particular the recent works of Y. Lacoste and N. Nassar). He could not in fact penetrate
to the heart of reality, describe the struggles and conflicts, the tensions and the successive
failures of states and civilizations produced by their internal dissensions without encountering,
and calling attention to, the process of dialectic, especially since he had encountered logic in his
earlier years and since the ideas of contradiction, antithesis, opposition, the complementariness
of opposites, of ambiguity, of complexity and of confusion had long been familiar to the Muslim
thinking in which he had been educated. They are thus often evoked as operative concepts
permitting understanding and explanation. In surmounting the contradictions dialectically,
and in attempting to explain them and hence to resolve them, Ibn khaldun thus arrives at a
dynamic conception of the dialectic development of the destiny of man, and at a system of
history which is retrospectively intelligible, rational and necessary. His famous cyclic schema of
historical interpretation, which in itself is not particularly original, must be included, in order
for its true meaning to be seen, in this general view.
The wealth of the ideas provided in the Muqaddima has enabled several specialists to find in it the
early beginnings of a number of disciplines which have become independent sciences only very
recently. There is of course no argument about Ibn khaldun's quality as a historian. Y. Lacoste
writes: 'If Thucydides is the inventor of history, Ibn khaldun introduces history as a science' (Ibn
Khaldoun, 187). But he has been regarded also as a philosopher, and it is surprising in particular
to discover in his Muqaddima a very elaborate system of sociology. His 'new science', his
'ilm al-'umran, the discovery of which dazzled even himself, is basically, strictly speaking, nothing but
a system of sociology,--conceived it is true as an auxiliary science to history. He considers that
the basic causes of historical evolution are in fact to be sought in the economic and social
structures. He therefore set himself to analyse them, elaborating as he did so a certain number
of new operative concepts, the most pregnant of which is incontestably that of 'asabiyya [q.v.]. It
should be mentioned that this concept of 'asabiyya, and that of 'umran, have given rise in modern
times to many discussions--which cannot be enumerated here--regarding their interpretation
(see M. Talbi, Ibn khaldun et le sens de l'histoire, in SI, xxvi (1967), 86-90 and
99-112). He was
interested particularly in the influence of the way of life and of methods of production on the
evolution of social groups. In a famous sentence, he states: 'The differences which are seen
between the generations (adhyal) in their behaviour are only the expression of the
differences
which separate them in their economic way of life' (210). This sentence is often compared with
an equally famous one of Marx: 'The method of production in the material matters of life
determines in general the social, political and intellectual processes of life'. The similarity is
indeed striking, and it is not the only one between them. Thus Ibn khaldun's thought is often
interpreted, particularly in recent years, in the spirit of dialectical materialism. But, in spite of
the undoubted similarities, it would be difficult to regard Ibn khaldun as a forerunner of
materialism. Moreover the explanation he gives is not exclusively a socio-economic one but also
psychological. 'The Prolegomena do not contain only a general sociology but also a very detailed
and subtle social psychology which may be divided into political psychology, economic
psychology, ethical psychology and general psychology. The intermingled and closely linked
elements of this social psychology and this general sociology form a whole complex which it is
difficult to disentangle' (N. Nassar, op. cit., 178).
There have been identified also, in this complex, economic doctrines sufficiently detailed to
justify a study devoted to them, and a philosophy of history to which M. Mahdi has devoted an
important work. It also provides ethnographic, anthropological and demographic information
of real value.
Thus the atypical figure of Ibn khaldun in Arabo-Muslim culture has been unanimously
considered, since his discovery in Europe, as that of an authentic genius, 'un penseur genial et
aberrant' (Brunschvig, op. cit., ii, 391), whose Muqaddima represents 'one of the solemn moments
of human thought' (Bouthoul). Certainly a 'solitary genius', he does not belong to any definite
current of Arabo-Muslimqthought, since his works are in fact the product of a multitude of
agonizing enquiries. His thinking represents a radical change, which unfortunately remained as
unproductive as his political misadventures. 'Just as he had no forerunners among Arabic
writers, so he had no successors or emulators in this idiom until the contemporary period.
Although he had a certain influence in Egypt on some writers of the end of the Middle Ages, it
can be stated that, in his native Barbary, neither his Muqaddima nor his personal teaching left
any permanent mark. And indeed the systematic lack of comprehension and the resolute
hostility which this nonconformist thinker of genius encountered among his own people forms
one of the most moving dramas, one of the saddest and most significant pages in the history of
Muslim culture' (R. Brunschvig, op. cit., ii, 391).
(M. Talbi)
Bibliography:
Works on Ibn khaldun are too numerous to listed in full here. Reference should be made
therefore to H. Peres, Bibliographie sur la vie et l'oeuvre d'Ibn Kaldun, in Mel. Levi Della Vida, ii,
308-29, and to the most recent bibliography compiled by W. J. Fischel and given at the end of
vol. iii of the tr. of the Muqaddima by F. Rosenthal, New York 1958, 27 pp. (Since
then a better bibliography in English has been complied that is much more
organized and inclusive see al-Azmeh, Aziz (1981) Ibn Khaldun in Modern
Scholarship: A Study in Orientalism, London: Third World Centre.) The following
works however may be particularly mentioned: T. Hussein, Etude analytique et critique de la
philosophie sociale d'Ibn Khaldun, Paris 1917
* G. Bouthoul, Ibn Khaldoun, sa philosophie sociale, Paris 1930
* N. Schmidt, Ibn Khaldun, historian, sociologist, and philosopher, New York 1930
* M. A. 'Inan, Ibn khaldun, hayatuh wa-turathuh al-fikri, Cairo 1933, new ed. with additions, Cairo
1965
* R. Brunschvig, an excellent summary in La Berberie orientale sous les Hafsides, Paris 1947, ii,
385-93
* C. Issawi, An Arab philosophy of history, London 1950
* S. al-Husri, Dirasat 'an Muqaddimat Ibn khaldun, Cairo 1953
* M. Mahdi, Ibn Khaldun's philosophy of history, London 1957.
Since the publication of W. J. Fischel's bibliography, further studies and works have appeared.
Examples are:
* E. I. J. Rosenthal, Political thought in medieval Islam, Cambridge 1958, chap. iv,
84-113
idem, Islam in the modern national state, Cambridge 1965,
16-27 and passim (the influence of Ibn
khaldun on contemporary modernist Muslim thinkers)
* H. Simon, Ibn Khalduns Wissenschaft der menschlichen Kultur, Leipzig 1959
* S. M. Batsieva, Sots¹ül'nËye osnovË istoriko-filosofskogo u´eni¹ü Ibn
khalduna, in Pamyati I. ú³. Kra´kovskogo, Leningrad 1958
* W. J. Fischel, Ibn Khaldun's use of historical sources, in SI, xiv (1961)
idem, Ibn Khaldun in Egypt, his public functions and his historical research
(1382-1406), Berkeley 1967
* E. Gellner, From Ibn Khaldun to Karl Marx, in Political Quarterly, xxxii (1961),
385-92
* al-Fikr (published in Tunis) devoted its March 1961 number to Ibn khaldun
* A. Badawi, Mu'allafat Ibn khaldun, Cairo 1962
* A. al-Wardi, Mantiq Ibn khaldun, Cairo 1962
* A'mal Mahrajan Ibn khaldun, Cairo 1962
* R. Walzer, Aspects of Islamic political thought: al-Farabi and Ibn Xaldun, in
Oriens, xv (1963), 40-60
* Jitsuzo Tamura gives an economist's view on Ibn khaldun, in Japanese, in Ajia
kazai,
September 1963
* H. A. Wolfson devotes several pages to Ibn khaldun in connexion with attributes and with
predestination in his Religious philosophy, Harvard 1961, 177-95
* Colloque de Rabat, May 196t, ed. Dar-El-Kitab, Casablanca
* M. Atallah Berham, La pensee economique d'Ibn Khaldun, University thesis, Paris 1964
* N. Nassar, Le maitre d'IbnqKhaldun: al-Abili, in SI, xx (1964), 103-15
idem, La pensee realiste d'Ibn Khaldun, Paris 1967
* G. H. Bousquet, Les textes sociologiques et economiques de la Muqaddima (1375-1379), Paris 1965
* G. Labica, Esquisse d'une sociologie de la religion chez Ibn Khaldun, in La
Pensee, October 1965, no. 123, 3-23
* R. Arnaldez, Reflexions sur un passage de la Muqaddima d'Ibn Khaldun, in Mel. R. Crozet, Poitiers
1966, 1337 ff.
* V. Lacoste, Ibn Khaldoun, naissance de l'histoire, passe du tiers-monde, Paris 1966 (a brilliant Marxist
interpretation, to be used with caution: cf. review in Times Literary Supplement, 8 August 1968, p.
853)
* E. A. Myers, Ibn Khaldun, fore-runner of 'new science', in The Arab World, New York, March 1966
* M. Talbi, Ibn ]aldun et le sens de l'histoire, in SI, xxvi (1967), 73-148
* V. Monteil, in La Rev. Hist., April-June 1967
* Muh. Mahmoud Rabi', The political theory of Ibn Khaldun, Leiden 1967
* J. Bielawski, Aspect sociologique des opinions d'Ibn Kaldun sur 'les sciences de la langue
arabe', in Atti del
terzo congresso di studi ar. e isl., Napoli 1967.
* On his influence in Turkey, see FÌndÌkoulu Z. Fahri, Türkiye'de Ibn Haldunizm, in Fuad Kkprülü
armaÆanÌ, Istanbul 1953, 153-63.
* See further Pearson, Index, 10897-10923
* Supp. I, 2872-2887
* Supp. II, 2796-2805.
Additional web Resources:
Source: from the Encyclopedia of Islam --© 1999 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands