Ibn Khaldun and Modern Criticism

Book II, Chapter IV in Ibn Khaldun: His Life and Work

1941: P. 157-175

By: Mohammad Abdullah Enan

The first hints of Western research on Ibn Khaldun. Early studies about him and his works. The translation of the Prolegomena. Discovery of his theories and ideas. Von Kremer's study. Ibn Khaldun Kulturhistoriker. Comments of Prof. Schmidt and de Boer. Ibn Khaldun, philosopher and sociologist. Gumplowicz's analysis of his social theories. Maunier on the Prolegomena. Ibn Khaldun's positive philosophy. His pessimism. Von Wesendonk on the application of his theorics to Modern History. Ibn Khaldun the Economist. Prof. Schmidt on Ibn Khaldun—Historian, Philosopher and Sociologist.

Western criticism has the highest opinion of the legacy of Ibn Khaldun. Western thought knew before Ibn Khaldun a great number of Muslim thinkers many of whom do not rise to his rank ; it also knew before him many Muslim historians, not because they were more worthy of being studied. but because they appeared in the vigorous and flourishing ages of Islam, or because they treated subjects in which Western thought was interested.¹ But Ibn Khaldun appeared in an age when decay had crept into the power and domination of Islam, and Islamic thought had already declined. It was not the age worthy of study. The legacy of Ibn Khaldun remained thus in oblivion for centuries, both in the East and the West, hardly known to the first and totally ignored by the second. In l697 the first European biography of Ibn Khaldun appeared in D'Herbelot's Bibliotheque Orientale. It was, however, concise and full of errors.. More than a century passed, before Western thought was interested in him. In 1806 the French orientalist, Sylvester de Sacy, published a biography of Ibn Khaldun, together with a translation of some passages of the Prolegomena, in his Chrestomantie Arabe, and a few years later. he published the translation of some other passages of the Prolegomena. In 1816 he again published a lengthy biography of Ibn Khaldun in his Biographie Universelle, together with an ample description of the Prolegomena. At the same time the Austrian orientalist, Von Hammer-Purgstall, published a treatise entitled Uber den Verfall des Islams nach den ersten drey Fahrhunderten der Hidschrat in 1812 (on the Decline of Islam after the first three centuries of the Hijira), in which he particularly referred to some of Ibn Khaldun's theories on the decline of states, and described him as "the Montesquieu of the Arabs." Afterwards he published a Gernan translation of some passages of the Prolegomena, and later a description of some parts of the Prolegomena in the Fonrnal Asiatique (1822). On the other hand De Sacy and some of his colleagues continued to publish translation of parts of the Prolegomena, and the History of Ibn Khaldun. In the meanwhile Western research was more and more interested in Ibn Khaldun and his works, and was admiring more and more the vigour and originality of his thought. At last Quatremere published, in 1858, the complete Arabic text of the Prolegomena, and some years later, De Sacy published its French translation in extenso. Ibn Khaldun appeared then to Western thought in his most astounding originality, and the value of his legacy, forgotten for centuries, came to be much appreciated.

From the middle of the 19th century European scholars began to study Ibn Khaldun and his social theories with special interest. That the West was acquainted with the legacy of Ibn Khaldun was a true scientific discovery, and the most astounding of it was that the West found in the legacy of the Muslim thinker many philosophical, social and economical theories, which Europe came to know only long after Ibn Khaldun. It was thus that Western scholars discovered, with astonishment and admiration, that Ibn Khaldun had studied many of those theories which were treated by Machiavelli a century later, and by Vico, Montesquieu, Adam Smith, and Auguste Comte,' some three or four centuries later.² It was believed that Western research was the first to discover the philosophy of history and principles of Sociology and political Economy, but it was then found that Ibn Khaldnn had long preceded the West, and had treated those subjects in his Prolcgomena, and expounded many of their principles with intclligence and vigour. Thus Western research, after discovering and studying Ibn Khaldun, placcs his legacy most highly, considers him a philosopher, historian of civilization, a scholar of sociology and political cconomy, and moreover acknowledges him to be thc first to treat these subjects.

I.

Western research was interested in the philosophical side of History as expounded by Ibn Khaldun. But the social side, however, soon after began to draw the attention of sociologists, and to outweigh all other sides of his thought. Since the later part of the 19th century the social theories of Ibn Khaldun occupy an important place in contemporary criticism, and even 1o-day they afford a subject of study and comparative analysis for many social critics.

Foremost among the scholars, who studied the legacy of Ibn Khaldun from the philosophical historical side, was the noted Austrian orientalist Baron Von Kremer, who wrote his famous treatise: Ibn Chaldun und seine Kultur-Geschichte der Islamischen Reiche, "Ibn Khaldun and his history of the civilization of the Muslim Empire", and presented it to the Academy of Sciences of the Vienna University in 1879. Von Kremer calls Ibn Khaldun " Kulturhistoriker" (the Historian of Civilization), who wrote the history of the civilization of Muslim nations. In fact he was the first Muslim historian who devoted long chapters to the study of political institutions and forms of government and public institutions, such as justice, the police, administration, and their development in Muslim states, as well as to economical systems, commerce, customs, and taxes; then to professions, crafts, industries and means of livelihood; and lastly to science, letters and arts, their forms, characteristics and development in the Muslim world. This conclusion is only true in a limited sense, for Ibn Khaldun does not study these questions independently or as a principal subject, but treats them solely as being forms of " sociology" which is the main subject of his study. The phases of civilization are in fact a criterion to the phases of development of society.

This appellation of Ibn Khaldun by Von Kremer as "Kulturhistoriker" did not find much support among critics. Professor Schmidt, who is one of the latest critics of Ibn Khaldun, makes the following comment on this opinion: " If it must be with certain reservations that Ibn Khaldun is classed as a 'Kulturhistoriker,' it is fair to consider whether, in this part of his work as well as in his political history, his main object may not have been to furnish illustrative examples and a collection elucidating what he regarded as the subject and the predicate of history, rather than a complete elaboration in accordance with the methods he recognized. In the earlier parts of the Prolegomena he sets forth at great length the things he really has at heart, the principles of historical criticism, the fundamental assumptions on which historical research must be based—above all, his conception of the nature of history, its scope, its factors, its orderly sequences or laws. This grand and closelyreasoned view of history as the record of man's social development, dependent on natural causes, and resulting from the impact of environment and the reaction of individual and group, would have made the book epoch-making, had not the civilization he described been doomed to a rapid decline, and the language in which he wrote been unknown to the young nations destined to carry out the work, so that the continuity of scientific progress became impossible and the makers of a new civilization had to find their way slowly, without the assistance he could have offered, to some of the lofty positions already occupied by him."³

The Dutch scholar, De Boer, considers Ibn Khaldun a philosopher, and ranks him among Muslim philosophers such as Avicenna, Al-Ghazali, Averroes, and Ibn Tufail ; he emphasizes the value of logic in forming his theories, and describes him as an excellent thinker. Ibn Khaldun, he remarks, denies rightly the value of Alchemy and prophecy, and often opposes the principles of intellectual philosophy, with the simple precepts of Islam, either through personal belief, or for political considerations. But his scientific theories were not influenced by Religion, as much as they were by Aristotle and Plato. The Republic of Plato, and the Platonic philosophy of Pythagoras as well as the works of his predecessors, particularly Al-Masudi, did much in the formation of his thought. Ibn Khaldun tried to find a new philosophical system, which did not even occur to Aristotle and to create from History a philosophical system. He says that this system is nothing but social life, all that society contains, as well as its intellectual culture. The task of history is to explain how people work, how they earn their living, why they fight one another, how they assemble in large congregations led by some chiefs and how they are lastly inspired with the desire for the culture of high arts and sciences, and how civilization develops from the primitive nomadic state to refined luxury, flourishes, and then declines and dies. Ibn Khaldun, continues De Boer, is undoubtedly the first who tried to explain fully the evolution and progress of Society, as being caused by certain causes and factors, and to explain the characteristics of race, climate, the means of production, etc., and their effects on the formation of man's mind and sentiment, as well as on the formation of Society. In the march of civilization he perceives an organized internal harmony. De Boer concludes his study on Ibn Khaldun with the following words: "Ibn Khaldun's hope to have a successor who would continue his research was realized, but not in Islam. Being without a predecessor, he remained also without a successor."⁴

II.

Western criticism, however, was more interested in the social philosophy of Ibn Khaldun. In this domain Ibn Khaldun attained the utmost admiration and appreciation; and many contemporary sociologists tried to analyse his social theories and compare them with those of the masters of sociology.

Among these was the learned professor Ludwig Gumplowicz of the University of Graz. In his social studies he devotes a long chapter to Ibn Khaldun and treats him as a sociologist. He studies many of his theories, compares them with those of modern sociologists, and explains how he proceeded with many of them. For example, he discovered the theory of the three generations concerning the rise and decline of families, long before Ottokar Lorenz, who studied it only at the end of the 19th century. But Gumplowicz says that Ibn Khaldun attains the summit of social investigation when he expounds his observations on the reciprocal action of social groups and that these groups themselves are the production of the milieu. In this domain his ideas about the conquering races are most important. His observations about the milieu and its effects prove that he knew the 'law of assimilation' five centuries before Darwin.⁵ The fact that he emphasizes the submission of man to the general laws which govern the animals shows that he knew Monism long before Haeckel.⁶ It is astonishing to see how the measures recommended to victorious conquerors by Ibn Khaldun for maintaining their domination, concord with those in military organizations which, according to modern historical research, were resorted to by the founders of European states in the Middle Ages. At any rate the priority must be rightly attributed to the Arab Sociologist, with regard to these counsels which Machiavelli, a century later, gave to rulers in his Prince. Even in this cold manner of studying things, and in this very rude realism, Ibn Khaldun could have served as a model to the intelligent Italian, who undoubtedly knew nothing about him. Moreover, Ibn Khaldun was able to establish, five centuries before, the origin of the two powers, the spiritual and the temporal, in the same manner as our professors of political and canon Law. Cumplowicz concludes with the following words: I wanted to show that long before not only Auguste Comte, but also Vico, whom the Italians wanted forcibly to consider as the first European Sociologist, a pious Muslim studied with perspicacity the social phenomena, and expressed profound ideas on this subject. What he wrote is what we term to-day as ' Sociology '"⁷

At the same time, when Gumplowicz expressed these ideas, an Italian sociologist, Ferreiro, studied the theories of Ibn Khaldun, and confirmed Gumplowicz in considering him a 'sociologist', and extolled his originality and priority.⁸ The Russian sociologist Levine expressed the same idea and called Ibn Khaldun a ' social' philosopher.

M. Maunier, a French scholar, studies Ibn Khaldun from both the economical and social sides, in two vigorous articles, the first devoted to Ibn Khaldun's economical theories,⁹ and the other to his social theories. M. Maunier considers Ibn Khaldun a philosopher, an economist and a sociologist. He describes his Prolegomena and his thought as follows: " It is a great mixture of universal laws, and an encyclopadia of the sciences of the age. It contains the miscellaneous elements of a complete study on sociology. Its method is particularly excellent, and reveals a true scientific spirit. If the ideas of Ibn Khaldun do not express a positive ideal, they are nevertheless based on analytic observation of events and are the mirror of facts. His Philosophy is nothing but the explanation of his History, and his interpretations reveal a positive spirit with which our philosopher was in advance of his age." M. Maunier then proceeds to analyse Ibn Khaldun's social theories, and divides them into two sections: the general Iaws of social life, and the social laws of evolution, and concludes: "It seems that the social Philosophy of Ibn Khaldun is tinted with great pessimism. Society is nothing but a while,in the universal current of things; it goes away as everything else does. Life is like a rhythm; every change necessitates the contrary; every rise is followed by a fall... But the pessimism of Ibn Khaldun is that of an indifferent and resigned eye-witness. He does not judge; he observes, and in this he proves to be endowed with true scientific spirit, and that a place must be reserved for him in the history of positive Sociology."¹⁰

Most of the critics of Ibn Khaldun observe this pessimism which characterises his Philosophy. Von Kremer says that this pessimism is pushed by Ibn Khaldun into extreme limits, and compares him in this respect to Abul Ala al-Maarri. He thinks that this sentiment is due to the fact that Muslim countries and civilization were in a state of decline at the time of Ibn Khaldun. But Ferreiro, however, attributes it to the conditions of the stormy political life which Ibn Khaldun led, and to the bitterncss and disappointment he suffered from it. Much of the realism of his philosophy is due to this sentiment; his pessimism was not a personal disposition inhcrent in his character, but only a quality of his thought, and the result of study and research. Ibn Khaldun was, as is shown by his eventful life, very confident, jovial and optimistic.

The German critic Von Wesendonk studies the theories of Ibn Khaldun on the rise and decline of states, and describe him as the most original spirit, an ideal in Arabic thought, and the last star which shone on the horizon of the Muslim liberal thought. He considers him, as Von Kremer does, a 'Kulturhistoriker', and calls him rightly as a master of the Machiavelli and Vico Schools. He tries to apply his theories regarding the fall of states and dynasties to the German Empire and other European states and concludes thus: "It seems to the German, at the present time, that these ideas, imbibed with pessimism, are not the invention of a foreign thinker. The German, Empire did not last long; in its flowery youth, it broke up with extraordinary rapidity. Should we try to attribute this tragedy to causes other than those to which Ibn Khaldun attributes the fall of the Almoravides and Almohades? The theories of Ibn Khaldun offer a valuable subject for contemplation; the great ' Kulturhistoriker ' stands alone in the East, without any successor or disciple. His theories and conclusions may be applied most minutely and rightly to the state of Europe in the 19th century. The ideas and dispositions of the African thinker and statesman have their echo on the course of events, whatever may be their direction, an echo which has its impression on contemporary thought."!¹¹

III.

Stefano Colosio studied Ibn Khaldun from the economical side. Colosio remarks at first that "Ibn Khaldun, as regards the race from which he descended, the country where he was born, and the civilization to which he belonged, may be ranked among great men who occupy the highest place in History." Ibn Khaldun discovered new fields in Sociology, but he does not compete with Machiavelli as a Historian, for he did not know, or did not try to apply those principles he propounded in his Prolegomena, in order to explain the causes of events reIated in his History. He preceded, however, Machiavelli, Montesquieu and Vico, in discovering the principles of a new science, i.e., the critical study of history. This is a fact, which the great Italian orientalist and historian, Amari, pointed to before Colosio, when he described Ibn Khaldun as ihe first writer in the world who treated the 'philosophy of History. Colosio then reviews the theory of Ibn Khaldun on ' social deiermination ', and states that it is expressed in these words with which Ibn Khaldun begins his study about nomadic and civilized generations : " The difference of generations in their conditions is based on the difference of their modes of living."¹²

Colosio extols particularly the econonical theories of Ibn Khaldun. "The great Berber Historian," he says, " was able to discover in the Middle Ages the principles of social justice and political economy before Considerant, Marx, and Baconine."¹³ He then analyses the ideas of Ibn Khaldun about the state's function in the economical field, and its bad effects; about the political forces, and social classes, the different kinds of property, the social task of labour, its division into free and paid labour, the fact that free labour is a source of wealth, and lastly about the law of supply and demand. In all this, remarks Colosio, Ibn Khaldun was an original economist who understood the principles of political economy, and applied them with intelligence and skill, long before they were known to Western research. Colosio concludes with the following words: "If the theories of Ibn Khaldun, about the complex life of society, place him foremost among the philosophers of History, his comprehension of the part played by labour, property and wages, places him foremost among the masters of modern Economy."¹⁴

IV.

One of the most recent critical studies of Ibn Khaldun is a treatise by professor Nathaniel Schmidt of Cornell University (U.S.A.), in which he studies Ibn Khaldun as a historian, sociologist and philosopher. Professor Schinidt considers that Ibn Khaldun, as a historian, may be fairly compared with universal historians as Diodorus of Sicily, Nicolaus of Damascus, or Trogus Pompeius of the early Ghristian era, or with authors like Gatterer and Schlozer in the eighteenth century, although there can be no question that he was their superior both in the use of older sources and in original contributions. Had Ibn Khaldun left behind nothing but his political history, it would have been a monument of untiring industry, vast erudition, and keen judgment. For certain historical periods it would have remained an invaluable source of information. But even the abandonment of the annalistic method would not have raised him greatly above the level of such men as Bochari, Masudi, Tabari and Ibn al-Athir. Ibn Khaldun's title to enduring fame, however, does not rest on his History. It is bound up with that remarkable product of his pen, the Prolegomena to his History. Here his genius reveals itself in its full splendour. Here he scatters with lavish hands the ripe fruits of his reflection on the course of human history.¹⁵

As regards the philosophy of history, Professor Schmidt remarks that Ibn Khaldun regards himself as the discoverer of the live space and nature of history; he is, no doubt, correct in maintaining that in the Muslim world no one has preceded him in this discovery. Our acquaintance with antiquity is incomparably greater. Yet so far, as we know to-day, he was indeed the first writer to define the field of history and to look upon history as a special science dealing with the facts that fall within its domain. In fact, nowhere,does the conception of history appear as a special science having for its object all the social phenomena of man's life. This is Ibn Khaldun's contention. If.it is proper to extend the scope of history, and if history is a science, the great Tunisian, who laid down and defended these propositions, seems in this respect to have had no predecessor, and it may well be claimed that he was the discoverer. Herein lies, no doubt, his most original contribution, though his keen mind opened new paths in many directions. In seeking for the causes of the rise and fall of political governments, he realized that they could not be looked for solely in the motives and ambitions, the aims and purposes, the strength of will and intellectual power of individuals. He observed that their infuence was determined, not only by the character of the groups to which they belonged, but also by the general social conditions. This led him to consider the factors that influenced and shaped these social conditions. He recognised that they were due to ethic and racial characteristics. But he perceived likewise that these peculiarities wcre themselves traceable to the physical environment, climate, water, soil, location and food. To understand the political development it was, therefore, necessary to include in the study all aspects of social life and also to take into account the physical factors. Hence the widening of the scopc of history, and the broadening of the historian's task. History becomes the science of human society. It is sociology. Ibn Khaldun, continues professor Schmidt, is in spite of his Muslim orthodoxy, a philosopher as much as Auguste Comte, Thomas Buckle, or Herbert Spencer. His philosophy of history is not a theodicy as Hegel's.¹⁶ There are indeed numerous quotations from the Qur'an, inserted in appropriate conneclions. But they add nothing to the argument and have no vital relation to it. They may have been designed to give the impression of concordance with the Holy Writ.

As regards the social side, Schmidt, like most of the critics, considers Ibn Khaldun the founder of Sociology. He particularly agrees with Gumplowicz that Sociology existed long before Auguste Comte, that Ibn Khaldun went beyond him in certain conclusions, and that he was foremost in studying the effects of habit, climate, soil and food, etc., as compared with Montesquieu, Buckle, Spencer and others. He quotes the words of the Spanish scholar Altamira: "It is sufficient that in the fifteenth century, when the European historiography was still so deficient and so alien to conceptions of the character Ibn Khaldun expounds-and defends, there should have been written a book like the Prolegomena, in which all the problems are treated or suggested which, in a more discursive manner, have come to constitute the principal preoccupation of modern historians."¹⁷

Sufficient has been quoted of Western criticism about the legacy of Ibn Khaldun and his thought. Western criticism, as we have seen, raises his legacy to the highest level of appreciation and admiration, and ranks his work among the loftiest and most valuable fruits of human thought.