"Ibn Khaldun’s Social Philosophy" by Taha Hussein
1. Historical Background and Theoretical Framework
Origin of the book: This work was originally Taha Hussein’s doctoral dissertation, written in French at the Sorbonne in 1917 under the supervision of the sociologist Émile Durkheim. It was translated into Arabic in 1925 by the lawyer Abdullah ‘Inan.
Intellectual context: The dissertation was produced during a period when Western interest in Ibn Khaldun—especially among French and German Orientalists—was on the rise, while the Arab world had yet to recognize his intellectual significance.
Purpose: Hussein sought to analyze and critique Ibn Khaldun’s social philosophy, focusing on his method in studying history and society, as well as his position regarding modern Western sciences.
2. Core Themes of the Book
-
The founder of historical science: Hussein argued that Ibn Khaldun’s use of the term “the science of history” did not correspond to the modern Western concept of “science.” Rather, it meant general knowledge. He pointed out that Ibn Khaldun neglected the examination of material sources and documents—essential pillars of scientific historiography.
-
The pioneer of sociology: Hussein maintained that Ibn Khaldun’s Muqaddimah fell within social philosophy rather than an independent science. He highlighted Ibn Khaldun’s lack of a systematic research methodology.
Table: Hussein’s position on Orientalist claims
| Western Claims | Hussein’s Response | Supporting Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Ibn Khaldun is the founder of history | “No, he never intended such a thing.” | Neglect of material/documentary sources |
| Ibn Khaldun is the father of sociology | “This is a great exaggeration.” | Muqaddimah lacks methodological rigor |
-
Confusion between “science” and “knowledge”: In classical Arabic, the word ‘ilm had a broader meaning than the Western term science.
-
Misreading the term “Arabs”: Hussein initially took Ibn Khaldun’s critique of “Arabs” as racial prejudice. Later critics clarified that Ibn Khaldun meant Bedouins as a way of life (which could include Kurds, Berbers, and others), not an ethnic category.
Table: Misinterpretations of Ibn Khaldun’s terms
| Khaldunian Term | Hussein’s Interpretation | Correct Interpretation (per critics) |
|---|---|---|
| “Arabs” | Racial prejudice | Description of nomadic/Bedouin life |
| “Science of history” | Modern science | General knowledge of human society |
-
Separating politics from ethics: A groundbreaking move in his time, allowing the analysis of power as an autonomous phenomenon.
-
Focus on political issues: Including the role of tribal solidarity (‘asabiyya) in state formation and the relationship between economics and social stability.
-
Pioneering social philosophy in the Arab-Islamic tradition: He developed a theory of the nature of human society (‘umrān) that had no precedent in earlier Islamic thought.
3. Criticism of the Dissertation
Hussein’s dissertation later faced several criticisms:
-
Failure to grasp Ibn Khaldun’s method: Critics argued that Hussein did not distinguish between history-writing as a literary craft (which Ibn Khaldun criticized) and the philosophy of history he himself developed in the Muqaddimah.
-
Self-contradiction: Hussein alternately described Ibn Khaldun as “naïve” or “ignorant,” yet at other times praised his “brilliant intelligence and lofty thought.”
-
Lack of disciplinary maturity: Written early in Hussein’s career, the dissertation reflected his limited grasp of sociology and its emerging theories.
4. Significance and Impact of the Book
-
Founding text of Arab Khaldunian studies: This was the first systematic Arab academic work on Ibn Khaldun, as prior studies were exclusively Western.
-
Bringing attention to the Muqaddimah: Hussein encouraged later Arab scholars, such as Ali al-Wardi, to explore Ibn Khaldun’s philosophy.
-
A model of Enlightenment critique: The dissertation represented a bold attempt to challenge blind veneration of tradition, even if flawed in places.
5. The Book’s Legacy in Arab Thought
Taha Hussein’s work remains a cornerstone for understanding:
-
The historical context of how Ibn Khaldun’s thought was received in the early 20th century.
-
The methodological challenges of interpreting classical heritage through Western categories.
-
The need to distinguish between Ibn Khaldun’s philosophical originality and the scientific status often ascribed to him in the West.
As Hussein himself put it:
“What matters to us about Ibn Khaldun is the brilliance of his mind (…) for to him belongs the honor that Arabic literature can claim to have framed social philosophy in a scientific form.”
For the original summary in Arabic
0 تعليقات