Ibn Khaldun's theory of knowledge

Author's name: Ali Al-Wardi

The Arab thinker Taha Hussein and the French translator of Ibn Khaldun's Muqaddimah, de Slane, complain about the ambiguity and contradictions in Ibn Khaldun's writings. In fact, Ibn Khaldun is far from being appreciated by them, as his writings are remarkably clear compared to other writers of his time and culture. The ambiguity of Ibn Khaldun, of which de Slane complains, can be attributed to the fact that de Slane studied Ibn Khaldun from a "static" perspective, while Ibn Khaldun viewed social phenomena from a "dynamic" perspective. Ibn Khaldun believed that the same thing could be viewed as good and bad, beneficial and harmful. This is a shockingly contradictory view for those who view things through Aristotle's logic. Ibn Khaldun lived in a culture completely different from ours, and in fact, he attacked most of the intellectual trends and attitudes of his time. However, we cannot understand his point of view unless we first examine the trends and values ​​he attacked. To understand the true meaning of Ibn Khaldun's theory, it is necessary to put ourselves in his shoes and view the world through his eyes. One of the main goals of this study is to refute this notion, which I believe is scientifically invalid. Ibn Khaldun, like every thinker, was a product of his time. Despite the highly creative appearance of his social theory, it is the final product of a long series of Islamic intellectual movements. It is no exaggeration to say that his theory was a kind of synthesis of conflicting ideologies and sectarian beliefs within Islam. It is not unusual to find such a theory emerging in Islamic society, but it is somewhat strange to find it emerging so late. The present dissertation addresses four themes that constitute the most important axes around which Ibn Khaldun's theory revolves. We will present these themes from the perspective of dualities—one point versus another. We will make extensive use of Weber's concept of the "ideal type" in discussing these dualities.