Ibn Khaldun was interested in various scopes of science, like “the nature of society; the influence of climate and occupation on the character of groups; the best educational methods, etc.”1 These scopes are covering a very wide range of modern social and natural sciences. Today it is not that easy to have good command of geography, and history, and at the same time being an expert in educational methods, and to have the ability to analyze literal texts that are very complex and covert. This problem is related to the fact that by the modern times, especially the nineteenth century we value the compartmentalization of sciences. It is expected from the wo/men who are engaged in a kind of science, to be an expert of just one branch of science, which is a modern phenomena being challenged today. Moreover, because science is cumulative phenomenon, today we have much more quantity of information to be known, much more articles and books to be read as science is more accessible today than past times by the masses.

Another point is that Ibn Khaldun was an objective scholar at best. He tries to be impartial in analyzing the facts related to his own country and religion, and religions and states of others. “Like Spinoza, he seeks neither to praise nor to blame, but to know; to grasp the laws that govern the development of human institutions, not to pass value judgments on these institutions.”2 And furthermore, he “was a Muslim scholar who did not hesitate to criticize Islamic intellectual pursuits and political structures.”3 This is very clear and ostensible in the Muqaddimah, it is easy to pick up a point in which Ibn Khaldun criticizes something that can be counted as attached to him.

For instance, in Muqaddimah he puts forward that, “[t]he reason for this (places that succumb to the Arabs are quickly ruined) is that (the Arabs) are a savage nation, fully accustomed to savagery and the things that cause it. Savagery has become their character and nature. They enjoy it, because it means freedom from authority and no subservience to leadership. Such a natural disposition is the negation and antithesis of civilization. All the customary activities of the Arabs lead to travel and movement. This is the antithesis and negation of stationariness, which produces civilization.”4 To my mind, this part is very impressive, he continues: “For instance, the Arabs need stones to set them up as supports for their cooking pots. So, they take them from buildings which they tear down to get the stones, and use them for that purpose. Wood is needed by them for props for their tents and for use as tent poles for their dwellings. So they tear down roofs to get the wood for that purpose. The very nature of their existence is the negation of building, which is the basis of civilization. This is the case with them quite generally.”5 Moreover, he does not refrain from putting forward these statements: “[I]t is their nature to plunder whatever other people possess.”6

From these statements it is not so difficult to extrapolate that he does not experience any grievance while critiquing the people of his nation. We know that he places high emphasis upon the nature and the essence embedded in human beings as an innate character. L. E. Goodman says that, “Human nature continues to play a major role in history according to Ibn Khaldun; for as the author of the Muqaddimah frequently remarks, habit, custom is second nature. Man’s character is ‘conditioned’ by his way of life; and that in turn is determined in large measure by environment.”7

Therefore, we would exaggerate, if we call him an essentialist, if not racist. While reading the Muqaddimah, it is not that facile to grasp a coherent way of explaining the issue of essence and nature. Somewhere, as aforementioned, he states that nations and groups have essences that cannot be changed. But somewhere, he holds that the groups are subjects of their physical environment and way of life.And he criticizes the former historians on the grounds that they cannot understand groups and races change over time.8 However it is not so much clear in Muqaddimah, whether nature is innate and immutable, or it is a function of time factor.

Ibn Khaldun was a knowledgeable man about the history and geography of his time, especially that of Maghrib, (the North-West Africa). Yet, of course, there were limitations about the scope of his knowledge; he knew little about what happened in China in his time, namely in the fourteenth century. At the same time, though he calls Aristo as muaallim-i sani (the second teacher), his knowledge about the Antique Greek world is fairly limited. As Nataniel Schmidt put: “He says that he has learned that civilization was in a flourishing state among the Christians, but obviously knows little about it. He came into personal contact with Timur, and knew his career, but was not aware of the overthrow of Yüan dynasty in China and the establishment of the Ming dynasty by Wang fu in 1368. Though he was a student of Aristotle, in an Arabic version, he was profoundly ignorant of Greek and Roman history.”9 Alt Schmidt, on the other hand, appreciates the value of his ground-breaking work, Kitaba’l-Ibar. “In spite of these serious limitations, his history was more universal than any that had been written before his time.”10

Ibn Khaldun claims that what he has done is original and it does not have any correspondent before him, to his knowledge. He “regarded himself as the discoverer of the true scope and nature of history. According to him history is the science that deals with the social phenomena of man’s life”11. In his Muqaddimah, he reiterates that his work is not a copy of someone, which so makes it unequivocal. “It should be known that”, he tells, “the discussion of this topic [ilm-i umran] is something new, extraordinary, and highly useful. Penetrating research has shown the way to it. It does not belong to rhetoric, one of the logical disciplines (represented in Aristotle’s Organon), the subject of which is convincing words by means of which the mass is inclined to accept a particular opinion or not to accept it.”12 He, thus, simply states that he will only discuss the history and circumstances of races and nations of Maghrib as he only know these regions very well. To him, Mas’udi, a renowned historian, told the history of Eastern countries since these regions are within his field of interest and knowledge.13

stay tuned...........

source:

http://www.worldbulletin.net/personage/122975/ibn-khaldun-no-predecessor-no-successor

References:

1 Issawi, C., An Arab Philosophy of History, London: London W. Press, 1950 p. x

2 Issawi, C., An Arab Philosophy of History, London: London W. Press, 1950 p. 13

3 Lawrence B. B., ed., Ibn Khaldun and Islamic Ideology, Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1984, p. 5

4 Ibn Khaldun, trans. by Rosenthal F., The Muqaddimah, 2nd edition, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967, p. 302

5 Ibn Khaldun, trans. by Rosenthal F., The Muqaddimah, 2nd edition, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967, p. 303

6 Ibid, p. 303

7 Goodman, L. E., “Ibn Khaldun and Thucydides”, Journal of the American Society, Vol. 92, No. 2. (Apr. – Jun., 1972), p. 255

8 Ibid, p. 9

9 Schmidt, N., Ibn Khaldun, Historian, Sociologist And Philosopher, New York: Ams Press, 1967, p. 13

10 Ibid, p. 13

11 Ibid, p. 17

12 Ibn Khaldun, trans. by Rosenthal F., The Muqaddimah, 2nd edition, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967, p. 78

13 Ibn Khaldun, trans. by Rosenthal F., The Muqaddimah, 2nd edition, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967, p.65

https://new.islamstory.com/index.php/en/artical/22483/ibn-khaldun-scholar