The Epistemology of Ibn Khaldun

Zaid Ahmad

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2004
• eBook ISBN: 9781134413805
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Middle Eastern History
• Index: History

This is an analytical examination of Ibn Khaldun's epistemology, centred on Chapter Six of the Muqaddima. In this chapter, entitled The Book of Knowledge (Kitab al'Ilm), Ibn Khaldun sketched his general ideas about knowledge and science and its relationship with human social organisation and the establishment of a civilisation.

1
INTRODUCTORY MATERIALS TO THE STUDY OF CHAPTER 6 OF THE MUQADDIMA

Introduction

The real subject matter of Chapter 6 of the Muqaddima begins with the section entitled “Teaching is a craft” (fī-an al-ta‘līm al-’ilm min jumla al-ṣanā’i‘). Prior to this there are some introductory remarks by the author. Intertextual comparison shows that there are two distinct versions of the introduction to Chapter 6. One of these is a single short passage entitled “Knowledge and teaching are natural in human culture” (fī-an al-ta‘ilm wa-’l-ta‘līm ṭabī‘ī fī-’l-‘umrān al-basharī). The other consists of an introduction followed by six sections in which the author speaks about various general and particular issues of epistemology. Rosenthal notes the occurrence of these two versions in the introduction of his translation of the Muqaddima.¹ The specific contents of each of the two versions will be discussed below (pp. 6–18). In this section, I shall review briefly Rosenthal's discussion of the manuscripts and the editions of the Muqaddima.

Manuscripts

In his notes on the textual history of the Muqaddima, Rosenthal has provided some valuable information about the manuscripts he has consulted in preparing his translation. For the purpose of the present research, this information is important, because textual variations do occur between the manuscripts. These textual variants and differences, if not properly understood and explained, will in one way or another affect the standard and reliability of the text. By the same token, a proper understanding of this matter will help us to understand the actual content of the text. Thanks to Rosenthal, who has taken the trouble to undertake such a thorough background study of the texts and manuscripts of the Muqaddima, we are now able to make use of his notes to understand the situation.

Rosenthal informs us at the outset that the text of the Muqaddima is very well documented. This means that the original manuscripts of the book have been well preserved. The manuscripts are numerous. In Turkey alone, four manuscripts that were written during Ibn Khaldūn's lifetime were available. Another two undated manuscripts are believed to have been written shortly after the author's death. According to Rosenthal, all the manuscripts are very high in quality. He describes the three copies known as MSS A, B and C, as having the same high standard textual values. Although Rosenthal does not deny the possibility of occasional mistakes, he is confident that a carefully written manuscript is almost comparable to a printed text. Thus, manuscripts of this kind can properly be considered as authentic copies of the text. Therefore any factual mistakes or miswriting may well be considered for these purposes as the author's own work.²

Now, the question is, if the manuscripts are evidently well preserved and have undergone a careful process of copying which in some cases was done under a close personal supervision of the author himself, why do there exist a great number of considerable variations between the texts? In the case of the Muqaddima, the variant readings are variant not merely in the ordinary sense. They involve a considerably extended version of the text, as in the case of the introductory remarks to Chapter 6. Giving his view on this particular issue, Rosenthal writes:

They are editions and corrections made by Ibn Khaldūn at different period of his life. The existence of such extensive emendations demonstrates in a fascinating manner that the medieval author worked much as his modern colleague does.³

From this, we may come to the simple logical conclusion that the textual variations in this case are no doubt the work of the author himself. It is understandable that the author would make amendments, corrections and additions where he might think necessary as he goes through the text several times.

Editions

The publication of small portions of the Muqaddima started as early as before 1857–8, and was associated with Hammer-Purgstall and Silvestre de Sacy.⁴ It was during the years of 1857 and 1858 that the two basic and complete editions of the Muqaddima came into reality. The Egyptian edition, also known as the Būlāq edition, edited by Abū Naṣr al-Ḥūrīnī (d. 1874), printed in Būlāq, was published in 1857, while the first complete scholarly European edition of the Muqaddima was published by Etienne Marc Quatremère in Paris in 1858. For the modern scholarly study of the Muqaddima, these two texts are considered by many as the most authentic and considerably reliable.

The Ḥūrīnī text was in fact intended as the first volume of the complete edition of the Kitāb al-‘Ibar. While preparing this edition, Ḥūrīnī apparently used two manuscripts which he called the Fez and the Tunis manuscripts. The Tunis manuscript was Ibn Khaldūn's original dedication to the Hafsid ruler. The Fez manuscript was Ibn Khaldūn's donation copy. While editing the text, Ḥūrīnī often made corrections according to his own judgement. This text has some importance of its own by virtue of the fact that it provides the earliest text of the Muqaddima presently available in printed form.⁵

Quatremère's edition of the Muqaddima was published in Paris in 1858, a year after the appearance of the Būlāq edition, by the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres. It was printed by Firmin Didot Frères and presently available in three volumes. Unfortunately this edition was published without an introduction, and thus without official information from the hand of the editor about the manuscripts he used. Based on W.M. de Slane, the French translator of the Muqaddima, Quatremère based his edition on four manuscripts, MSS A, B, C and D. MS A, dated 1146, is in the Bibliothèque Nationale, while MS B is in Munich. MS C is a copy made in 1835/6 of the Damad Ibrahim's MS and is now in the Bibliothèque Nationale. MS D, the oldest among the four used by Quatremère, is also among the Arabic manuscripts of the Bibliothèque Nationale.⁶

Other than the above two editions, there are editions which were published in Beirut and Egypt. However, as al-Azmeh notes, most of those editions are pirated versions of the Ḥūrīnī text and therefore carry no superiority in terms of textual value.⁷

For the purpose of the present study, my main textual reference will be the Quatremère edition, while Rosenthal's translation, the only complete English translation available so far, will be extensively consulted. For textual comparison, the Beirut edition (which reproduces the Ḥūrīnī) will be referred to occasionally when necessary.

Sources and influences

As an introduction, the Muqaddima plays an important role in providing conceptual and paradigmatic frameworks as well as an epistemological foundation of the study of human society and civilisation. It is on the basis of these frameworks and foundation that the author establishes his new science of ‘umrān, the study of the history, culture and civilisation of human society.

Since the present study is mainly focused on this book, particularly its Chapter 6, which deals with epistemology, the sociology of knowledge and crafts and the classification of science, it would not be satisfactory to omit a preliminary discussion of the possible sources and influences that exerted an effect upon the mind of the author. We have been told elsewhere that Ibn Khaldūn's background education and training were a mixture of religious and philosophical science.

Orthodoxy versus philosophy

The tension between religious orthodoxy and philosophy is an age-old problem in Islamic intellectual circles. It began as early as the first penetration of the Greeks into the Arab Islamic world, through the process of translation,⁸ and later became one of the most topical subjects of discussion. Although the tension had occurred earlier, with the arrival of Greek texts in translation, the actual literary battles between religious and philosophical scholars took place only after the publication of al-Ghazzālī's Tahāfut al-falāsifa. This is based on the assumption that Tahāfut was the first book written for the special purpose of refuting philosophy. Prior to this al-Ghazzālī had published Maqāṣid al-falāsifa, in which he explained philosophy in some detail.

In the Muqaddima, which was published some three centuries after the Tahāfut, the author seems to be still strongly occupied with this basic problem of Islamic thought, the conflict between religious orthodoxy and philosophy in the study of man and human society. Not only that, it seems that this tension also greatly influenced the author's stance and arguments.

Before going any further, it should be recalled that the difference between the two types of approach is in a way very fundamental. It is between revelation on the one hand and reason on the other. The orthodox believe that the ultimate truth about man and society has to be referred to the Quran, the prophetic tradition (ḥadīth) and of course religious law. The basic notion is the primacy of revelation over reason. On the other hand, from the point of view of philosophy, the order is the reverse, the primacy of rational inquiry over revelation in both the theoretical and the practical sciences.⁹ This is the point of difference between orthodoxy and philosophy.

Coming back to the Muqaddima, what is the author's stance in facing this basic problem in Islamic thought? I feel quite strongly that Ibn Khaldūn's stance is to some extent more inclined towards orthodoxy. My judgement is basically based upon his attempt to refute philosophy in one of the passages in Chapter 6 of the Muqaddima. That passage, which is entitled “Refutation of Philosophy”, consists of his arguments against philosophy. (This issue will be discussed later see pp. 90ff.) Not only that, he also seems to be inclined towards Sufism. This is explicitly expressed in his special discussion of Sufism.

On another occasion, he also attempts to reconcile orthodoxy and philosophy. This attempt can be seen in his discussion of the concept of prophecy. He explains prophecy in both philosophical and religious terms. Philosophical argument and religious dogma are mixed together in order to grasp the true nature of prophecy. In this sense, it would not be appropriate to consider Ibn Khaldūn as representing the ideas of pure orthodoxy in the strictest sense of the word.

The ṣūfī

I have indicated above that Sufism is an important element in Ibn Khaldūn's thought. To assess the strength of its influence is is not too difficult if one glances through the Muqaddima. In Chapter 6, Ibn Khaldūn allocates a long passage specifically to a discussion of the science of Sufism in all its aspects. Besides that passage, we also find a number of times and many occasions when the author expresses his ideas in mystical terms. At times, he praises Sufism and even calls the Muslim to practise it. One of the good examples is perhaps when he speaks about the concept and nature of happiness (sa‘āda) in Islam. He believes that true happiness can only be achieved through ṣūfī practices and purification of the soul. Happiness in this sense is an inexpressible joy and pleasure which cannot be achieved through intellectual speculations. This is because this state can be obtained only by removal of the veil of sensual perceptions.¹⁰ This concept of happiness and the way to attain it no doubt belonged to the ṣūfīs. Although he is not, as claimed by some modern writers, a practising ṣūfī in the strict sense, from his writing one would easily assume that the author is in fact very familiar with and perhaps possesses unusual knowledge of this particular science. It is also a matter of fact that Ibn Khaldūn wrote a special book on Sufism entitled Shifā’ al-sā’il li-tahdhīb al-masā’il.¹¹

In our study here, we are not interested in Shifā’ al-sā’il. Our concern here is merely to see the influence of Sufism in Ibn Khaldūn's thought, particularly in the Muqaddima. One of the earliest serious studies of this aspect of Ibn Khaldūn's thought was perhaps an article by Miya Syrier, published in Islamic Culture in 1947, entitled “Ibn Khaldūn and Islamic Mysticism”. In her article, Syrier made several assumptions with regard to Ibn Khaldūn's attitude towards religion and religious kn...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Culture and Civilization in the Middle East
• Full Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• Foreword
• Acknowledgements
• Abbreviations
• General Introduction
• 1 Introductory materials to the study of Chapter 6 of the Muqaddima
• 2 Man as thinking animal: a philosophical introduction to human psychology and the establishment of social organisation
• 3 The division of the sciences
• 4 The intellectual sciences (al-‘ulūm al-‘aqliyya)
• 5 Scholarship as a science and pedagogical method
• 6 Language and literature
• 7 Conclusions and findings
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index