The Early Modern: The Influence and Influences of Ibn Khaldun's "The Muqqadimah"

Marcus Charlesworth 1

The Early Modern: The Influence and Influences of Ibn Khaldun’s

“The Muqaddimah”

History of the Indian Ocean World HIST

3716A

Dr. Chinnaiah Jangam

April 3rd 2014

Marcus Charlesworth


General perceptions of the relationship between Islamic and

Western philosophy confine them to separate spheres and

acknowledge only a very limited amount of intellectual exchange

between the two civilizations following the symbolic “closing of

the gates of Ijtihad”, gates which symbolised Islamic openness to

new or foreign ideas, after the fall of Baghdad in the early 13th

century. While this symbolic event is certainly not without

importance, it is evident when one analyses “The Muqaddimah”, by

Ibn Khaldun, that the influence of Ancient Greek thought on

Islamic philosophy was irreversible and resonated with the

philosophy of Islamic thinkers like Ibn Sina, Ibn Khaldun and

Avarice, among overs. In order to challenge the idea of

hermetically separate Islamic and European intellectual spheres

it is primarily important to deal with the history of material

trade between each civilization. Therefore, this paper will begin

by outlining some of the ways in which books and ideas crossed

between the two civilizations, from Greece to Islam via libraries


and scholars and from Islam to Europe via Orientalism and trade.

Indeed, the whole notion of the closing off of Islamic thought

from the rest of the world flies in the face of the significant

historical evidence which suggests that Arab traders and scholars

brought ideas with them on their travels, as well as scholarship

and books, that influenced the world for centuries. The

connection between Athens and the Islamic world is not greatly

contested by historians and it is possible, by analysing “The

Muqaddimah”, to see a clear connection between these two

civilizations. This permeates Khaldun’s way of approaching the

study of history. He uses Socratic Discourse Method and, although

he was highly critical of Neoplatonism, shows the influence of

Plato’s account of Socrates in his work. Similarly we can see

great similarities between the political order proposed by

Aristotle in “the Politics” and that proposed by Ibn Khaldun.

Less well understood perhaps is the influence of Ibn Khaldun, and

Islamic thought in general, on the European enlightenment. This

paper will attempt to argue that, through literature analysis, it

is possible to see thematic and methodological similarities

between the philosophy of Ibn Khaldun, as evidenced in “The


Muqaddimah”, and in a number of the major strands of European

enlightenment thought. In order to do this a fairly broad range

of enlightenment philosophy will be explored from the early

enlightenment, Machiavelli’s “The Prince”, the conservative

enlightenment, Hobbes’ “Leviathan”, and the radical

enlightenment, Rousseau’s “On the Social Contract”. In doing this

it will be shown that, far from being isolated from one another,

Islamic and European philosophy has a co-penetrative history

where, while being separate entities, they have interacted and

influenced one another in a formative way.

Before being able to engage in any analysis of the cross-

civilizational transfer of knowledge and thought between Europe

and Islam it is important to establish, from a practical

perspective, evidence of scholarly interaction between the two

entities. Stewart Gordon writes, of Baghdad in the time of Ibn

Sina, “there were also important philosophical speculations, most

based on interactions between Islamic thinkers, Greek

translations and beliefs from conquered and surrounding people”

(Gordon 2007). He describes Ibn Sina’s education in great depth


including the influence of Euclid on his mathematical education

and of Aristotle on his philosophical education. Aged sixteen

Ibn-Sina’s education moved up a gear when he was given “the run

of the Royal Library” (Gordon 2007) where he could access a huge

collection of Ancient Greek texts and translations as well as a

significant amount of Roman literature. Ibn Khaldun’s education

would have been broadly similar to that of Ibn-Sina. Massive

libraries at places like Alexandria, Damascus and Baghdad housed

thousands of books from diverse sources. Ibn Khaldun travelled

across the Islamic world and, as a scholar and courtier, would

most likely have encountered Ancient European philosophy through

these books. Of tantamount importance to this transfer of

knowledge was the import of paper from China, the political

demand for learning and the Arab affinity for calligraphy. All of

this made translation a profitable and distinguished endeavor for

Islamic scholars. In fact, “among the glories of Baghdad during

the days of the Abbasids were its exceptionally fine libraries.

Many of the caliphs of that line were patrons of learning and

delighted in collecting ancient and contemporary literature....

The Abbasids were the first to foster Greek learning of a large


scale” (Mackensen 1932). Resultantly, Ibn-Khaldun would

undoubtedly have had access to a large body of Ancient Greek

philosophy from the libraries in the cities he visited. The

extent of the influence of those ancient works on his own

philosophy is noticeable and evident when one conducts a

comparative analysis of his literature, as will be done at a

later stage.

While the aforementioned is widely known and relatively

uncontroversial, the transfer of knowledge from East to West has

become far more contentious due to awareness of the influence of

racism, imperialism and religious intolerance in Western

understandings of the East. Much of this awareness derives from

Edward Said’s well known, but controversial, 1978 book entitled

“Orientalism”. According to Said, the understanding of the East

that emerged from orientalist scholarship “is a system of

representations framed by a whole set of forces that brought the

Orient into Western learning, Western consciousness, and later,

Western empire.… The Orient then seems to be, not an unlimited

extension beyond the familiar European world, but rather a closed


field, a theatrical stage affixed to Europe.” (Said 1978). Said

essentially argues that as a field, Orientalism concerned itself

less with a genuine understanding of the East, in all its

complexity, but rather as a counter-identity or “other” against

which favourable comparisons with the Western world were to be

drawn. Although this perception of Orientalism has gone a long

way towards being accepted as fact in contemporary understanding,

it is important to highlight the problems with Said’s argument.

Said’s book takes examples of the literary romanticization,

essentialization and disparagement of the Eastern world and

extrapolates from these cherry-picked examples the notion that

Orientalism in its entirety has been an exercise in cultural

domination rather than a field of academic research. The first

issue with this is semantic. In today’s universities there are

very few departments of Orientalism and in popular parlance it

has taken on the meaning ascribed to it by Said. This has not,

though, been true for most of Western intellectual history.

Orientalism was, until comparatively recently, an academic field

no less legitimate than history or philosophy. Secondly,

participants in this field have not been exclusively Western, nor


has Orientalist literature ever entirely conformed to Said’s

definitions. It is possible to detect strains of latent racism

and stereotyping in Lord Byron’s “Turkish Tales”, a piece of

romantic fiction set in the Ottoman Empire, and also in

Montesquieu’s “Persian Letters”, where Montesquieu project

problems of French politics onto the Persians as a veiled

critique of King Louis and the Catholic Church . However,

Orientalism is not solely defined by such works. For example,

Antoinne Gaillard’s translation of “Arabian Nights” is a direct

translation of a classic of Arabic literature, this would have

been considered Orientalist literature at the time, and is

evidence of a wholly non-discriminatory or condemnable method of

transferring Eastern thought to the West. Similarly Christopher

Marlowe’s “Tamberlaine” remains one of the most authoritative

histories of the conquests of Tamberlaine. Therefore when one

considers the transfer of knowledge to the West from the Islamic

world it is vital to take into account the objections raised to

Orientalism by Edward Said. However, in its long history,

Orientalist academia and literature has been the major vehicle

through which knowledge of the East has been transmitted to the


Western world. Much of this knowledge has been corrupted by

prejudice but it is incorrect to pretend that the West was

ignorant of or isolated from the Islamic world and the philosophy

that Islamic civilization produced.

The first completed French translation of “The Muqqadimah”

was completed by Etienne Quatremerre in 1853 but Arabic copies

have been present in the Bibiotheque Nationale in Paris since

1733 and are themselves copies of earlier manuscripts that had

been housed in Paris and Munich (The Textual History of the

Muqaddimah 2009). Therefore it is fair to surmise that, even if

one doubts the validity of Western exposure to Islamic thoughts

and ideas by way of Orientalism, later philosophers would have

had direct access to the words of Ibn-Khaldun as translated by

Quatremerre. Also of note is the way in which scholarship and

learning appears to have accompanied Muslims as they traded and

travelled. Europe was far less involved with the Islamic world

that the civilizations of the Indian Ocean, but it is evident

from the introduction of Arabic numerals, the application of

Arabic trigonometric by Bacon and Newton and the Islamic history


in Spain, that Europe was not hermetically sealed from the

Islamic world. The ideas and knowledge that came from the Islamic

world to Europe are noticeable in their influence when one

compares European philosophers with Ibn-Khaldun. It will be

demonstrated at a later stage that innovations, advancements and

philosophical ideas from “The Muqaddimah” are echoed, repeated

and developed by prominent Western thinkers in a way that

suggests a significant Islamic influence on modern Western

thought.

Having established the practical fact of cultural and

intellectual interchange between West and East it is interesting

to consider how this interchange shaped and influenced

philosophical thought. Ibn-Khaldun was highly critical of Neo-

Platonism and grappled with Platonic and Aristotelian thought

throughout “The Muqaddimah”. The parallels with Plato, more

specifically with Socrates as portrayed by Plato, are mostly

methodological. “The Muqaddimah” pertains to be a book about

history, although its subject matter spans far beyond just this,

and Ibn Khaldun proposes an approach to accepted historical fact


which is entirely derived from Socratic Discourse Method.

“Socrates engaged in questioning in an unending search for truth.

He sought to get to the foundations of his students' and

colleagues' views by asking continual questions until a

contradiction was exposed, thus proving the fallacy of the

initial assumption.” (Garrett 1998). More often than not this

took the form of confronting a proposition with a series of

questions and then exposing the inconsistency of the logic behind

the answers to those questions and the initial proposition. The

best example of this is in “The Apology of Socrates” where

Socrates, who is on trial for corrupting the youth, confronts his

prosecutor with a Socratic examination. Miletus puts to Socrates

the accusation that, though he is undoubtedly a wise man, he has

willfully corrupted the youth through his philosophical

teachings. To this Socrates replies by asking Miletus, “Do not

the villainous do something bad to whoever are nearest to them?”

(Plato 1984). Miletus agrees that this statement is correct.

Socrates goes on to ask him, “Is there anyone, then who wishes to

be harmed by those he associates with? (Plato 1984). Once again

Miletus is forced to agree. Here we see the clearest


demonstration of Socratic Discourse Method. Having concurred that

Socrates, a wise man, would know that by corrupting the youth,

with whom he associates, Socrates would expose himself to the

villainous acts that would result from their corruption. It is

illogical to think that Socrates would deliberately corrupt the

youth, given that doing this would cause him to be surrounded by

bad people who would do harm unto him. Miletus’ initial

proposition is therefore irreconcilable with his own view of the

world. The Socratic Method aims to get to the deeper meaning of

philosophical questions by challenging prejudices and dogma that

prevent a person from understanding the truth. This method is

rooted in the Ancient Greek style of deductive reasoning. As a

critic of Neoplatonism, Khaldun was sceptical about pure

deductive reasoning, and as a religious man would have challenged

the rationalism that underwrites it. However, as an accomplished

scholar of Ancient Greek philosophy, this method would

undoubtedly have been well known to Ibn Khaldun. As a historian

he would have been confronted by propositions and claims made by

previous historians that he would wish to investigate and

challenge. Specifically, these claims are explored through his


criticism of old Hebrew stories, one wonders whether his

criticisms of Judaic history may have veiled a critique of

Islamic traditional knowledge much as Montesquieu’s criticisms of

Persia veiled criticism of Catholic France. A passage which is

particularly evocative of Socrates concerns the story of Al-

Abbasah. Al-Abbasah, so the story goes, was a daughter of Arab

nobility who fell in love with the son of one of her father’s

Persian clients. Her marriage to this Persian was used to explain

the introduction of Islam to Persia. Ibn Khaldun, however, casts

aspersion upon this story using a style of inquiry very similar

to that used by Socrates. He begins by asking the question,

“where can cleanliness and purity be found, if they no longer

exist in her house?” (Khaldun 1967). This question refers to the

importance of pure Arab blood to Arab nobility at the time, at

other points in the book Khaldun states that purity of lineage is

vital to group feeling and legitimacy, and the reader therefore

knows that blood purity would be considered highly important by a

noble Arab family. He then goes on to ask, “How could it be that

Ar-Rashid (the father of Al-Abbasah) would permit himself to

become related by marriage to Persian clients?” (Khaldun 1967).


This harkens back to the fact that a father’s permission is vital

to the possibility of a marriage at this time and that Ar-Rashid

would be highly unlikely to see his blood-line tainted by a

Persian client. Essentially Khaldun is arguing that, since we

know the importance of blood lineage to Arab nobles and we know

that a marriage could not occur without the permission of the

father, it is highly unlikely that this story could be true. Ibn-

Khaldun here is using the Socratic Method in a way highly

reminiscent of Plato’s Socrates and this is clear evidence of the

influence of Plato and Ancient Greek thought on the philosophy of

Ibn-Khaldun.

At a more basic level it is possible to see, from Ibn-

Khaldun’s propositions about what constitutes the basis of the

political order, high degrees of similarity between his own

philosophy and the writings of Aristotle in “The Politics”.

Aristotle believed that man was a naturally political animal and

that the family is a fundamentally political unit, with authority

from the father, rules, conventions and societal roles, like that

of the subservient child or the dutiful wife. Not only was the


family a naturally political unit, it was also the foundational

unit underpinning the political order in the City. Aristotle

writes, “when several families are united, and the association

aims at something more than the supply of daily needs, the first

society to be formed is the village. And the most natural form of

the village appears to be that of a colony from the family,

composed of the children and grandchildren, who are said to be

suckled 'with the same milk.'” (Aristotle 1981). According to

Aristotle, the village, and by extension the city, is an

extension of the family unit, comprising of separate families

with some kind of filial tie. He highlights the importance of

family bonds to a sense of community and sees the family as the

foundation of the political order. This is a position that is

mirrored by Ibn-Khaldun in his discussion of the family and of

the political order. He writes, “respect for blood ties is

something natural among men……it leads to affection for one’s

relations and blood relatives, the feeling that no harm ought to

befall them nor any destruction come upon them…..Clients and

allies belong in the same category” (Khaldun 1967). Khaldun’s

political order is based on the strength of family bonds which


are extended to friends and clients of the family. It differs

from Aristotle in so far as the underlying reason for this tie is

not common need or natural affection but rather the sense of

family honour that caused one to feel ashamed when ones family,

or extended social group, comes to harm. Both feel that the

family is in many senses a microcosm of political society and

both therefore see political organisation as fundamental and

natural to man. “Man is a political animal”, according to both of

these thinkers. While their philosophies highlight certain

cultural differences it is undeniable that by founding their

perceptions of the political order on the family, and viewing the

family as a political unit, their perceptions of the salience of

group feeling and the ways in which political units seek

legitimacy and cohesion are quite similar. For both thinkers the

ruler is not to be detached and aloof but rather must be viewed

almost as a father figure. Both also believe that those not in

power will remain loyal and satisfied so long as the sense of

familial group feeling is maintained by the ruler. This leads to

the advocation of compassionate, yet firm political leadership,


much as one might expect a father to be both a disciplinarian and

a compassionate figure.

This draws Khaldun closer to the early modern philosophy of

Niccolo Machiavelli. Much like Khaldun’s ruler, Machiavelli’s

Prince must also aim to be feared but loved, compassionate but

firm. Italy’s geographical position and its history of trade with

the Eastern world make it highly likely that Machiavelli would

have encountered Arab traders and by extension Arab thought.

Although it is difficult to prove that he did or did not read the

Muqaddimah, this does not itself discount the influence that

Khaldun’s ideas, by indirect transfer, appear to have had on

Machiavelli as a philosopher. Both Khaldun and Machiavelli are

advocates of authoritarian government. Neither would have argued

that governmental violence was a problem and both saw state

violence, and the threat of state violence, as an integral part

of the political order. Structurally both “The Prince” and “The

Muqaddimah” use historical examples of strong leadership, in

Machiavelli’s case specifically Lorenzo di Medici, and both

identify strength and the willingness to enforce law and order as


traits that a good leader must have. In both cases this is

tempered by an exhortation that excessive force and violence will

in fact be counter-productive and that forcefulness should be

tempered by reasonable restraint and consideration of the

relationship between the public and the leader. Although

Machiavelli is perhaps most famous for advising prospective

Prince’s that “it is better to be feared than loved” (Machiavelli

1997), the continuation of this advice claims that to be hated is

fatal. In much the same way, Khaldun, when discussing leadership,

states that, “If the ruler uses excessive force and is ready to

mete out punishment and eager to expose the faults of people and

to count their sins, they become fearful and depressed and seek

to protect themselves against him” (Khaldun 1967). Khaldun here

is outlining his belief that while firmness and violence are an

integral part of political order it is vital to recognize that

there is a line beyond which force becomes excessive. Once this

line is crossed people will cease to see the leader as their

defender and will begin to desire to defend themselves from his

violence. Violence must, therefore, be used when it serves the

greater good of public order, but not to the point that the


leader becomes perceived as a threat to the security of his

people. Machiavelli offers the Prince a similar piece of advice.

He writes, “I say that each Prince should desire to be held

merciful and not cruel…..this he will do if he abstains from the

property of his citizens and his subjects, and from their women.

(Machiavelli 1997). That Machiavelli identifies the violation of

property rights, rather than the counting of sins, as an example

of excessive state violence shows that distinctions in values

existed between Ibn Khaldun’s world and that of Niccolo

Machiavelli. However, the underlying point remains much the same,

that is to say that both thinkers clearly outline a belief that

the use of violence should not be arbitrary or excessive and that

violence should be employed within rigid boundaries in order to

ensure that the leader is seen as strong enough to protect the

innocent, but not so terrible as to threaten the security of his

people.

Khaldun is a religious thinker, in a way that Machiavelli is

not, but in spite of this it is interesting to observe that his

justifications for authoritarian rule are not grounded in


concepts like the Divine Right of Kings. Rather, Khaldun engages

in a method of argument that would also become very prominent

among early English and French enlightenment thinkers like Thomas

Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Ibn Khaldun grounds his

argument for the necessity of powerful authority on his study of

the Bedouin people, from which he develops a theory on the

natural state of man. Being a religious thinker this “natural

state” is tied to concepts of pre-Islamic society rather than

being advanced as the pure essence of the human condition, as

they were by Hobbes. Khaldun writes that, “Evil is the quality

that is closest to man…the great mass of mankind is in that

condition, with the exception of those to whom god gives success.

Evil qualities in man are injustice and aggression. He who casts

an eye upon the property of his brother will lay his hand upon it

to take it.” (Khaldun 1967). This is highly interesting in so far

as it suggests that Khaldun’s God is one who makes people with an

innate evil and then offers them salvation through revelation

rather than a God who makes people good in the hope that they do

not stray. It is equally odd that Khaldun’s perception of man in

his natural state, which is a central part of any philosopher’s


metaphysical structure, should align so closely with that of

Thomas Hobbes, a man who so deeply offended the religious

authorities that he was labelled an “enemy of God” by the

Catholic Church. Hobbes has a similarly dim view of man in his

natural state. He writes that, “during the time men live without

a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that

condition which is called war; and such was, as is of every man,

against every man….In such condition there is no industry….no

arts, no letters, continual fear, and danger of violent death;

and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”

(Hobbes 1996). Having passed such severe judgement upon the

natural condition of mankind Khaldun and Hobbes prescribe a very

similar political order in response. Khaldun writes, “Mutual

aggression of people in towns and cities is averted by the

authorities and the government, which hold back the masses under

their control from attacks and aggression upon each other. They

are thus prevented from injustice by the influence of force and

governmental authority from mutual injustice” (Khaldun 1967). In

saying this Khaldun is essentially arguing that in order to hold

back the natural aggression and evil of man it is necessary that


people are constrained by the threat of a greater and more

terrible force. This must come from a political authority which

aims to prevent people from doing injustice unto one another.

This is very similar to Thomas Hobbes’ claim that, “That mortal

god (the state) to whom we owe our peace and defence, he hath the

use of so much power and strength conferred on him, that by

terror thereof, he is enabled to conform the wills of us all, to

peace at home, and mutual aid against our enemies abroad” (Hobbes

1996). Hobbes appears to agree with Khaldun, that due to the

nature of man, it is necessary that a government be given immense

power in order to forcibly prevent people from doing injustice to

one another and lapsing into their natural behaviour, which is

evil and brutish. Hobbes’ connection with the ideas of Khaldun is

slightly tenuous. Unlike France, England in his time had no

history of Orientalism and was not yet an Eastern power. While it

is possible to argue that any parallels between Hobbes and

Khaldun are purely coincidental it is important to realise that

ideas can travel further than the books which contain them.

Hobbes was a distinguished scholar and would almost certainly

have been familiar with the works of French and Italian thinkers


who would themselves have been exposed to Islamic traders, ideas

and writing. When looking at Hobbes’ writing it is clear that

there are significant parallels between the two thinkers which

suggest that cultural exchange, probably indirectly, did occur

between Ibn Khaldun and conservative enlightenment thought, as

put forward by Thomas Hobbes.

The scope of Ibn Khaldun’s philosophy is thrown into sharp

relief when one considers that his ideas appear to have influence

not only early and conservative enlightenment thought,

Machiavelli and Hobbes, but also on the radical counter movement,

fathered by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, which challenged the very

foundations of the prevailing enlightenment orthodoxy of its

time. This manifests in the similarities between Rousseau’s

response to his observation of the Caribs and Khaldun’s response

to his study of the Bedouin people. From a methodological

perspective there is great similarity, as both felt that they

could aim to understand the nature of the civilizations they

inhabited by way of comparison with those they believed lived in

a pre-civilized state. Both also share the conclusion that there


are in fact a number of virtues that both observe in their

subjects and aim to draw lessons for their societies from them.

In the case of Ibn Khaldun, the observation is made that the

Bedouin people are in many ways closer to God as they have not

been corrupted by the luxuries and worldly interests of sedentary

society. Khaldun states that, “Sedentary people are much

concerned with all kinds of pleasures. They are accustomed to

luxury and success in worldly occupations and to indulgence in

worldly desires. Therefore, their souls are coloured with all

kinds of blameworthy and evil qualities………The customs Bedouins

follow in their mutual dealings are appropriate, as compared with

those of sedentary people, their evil and blameworthy qualities

are less numerous……..they are more remote from the evil habits

that have been impressed upon the souls of sedentary people

through numerous and ugly, blameworthy customs” (Khaldun 1967).

Here he highlights the virtue of the simpler lives lived by the

Bedouin and claims that there is an innate virtue among the

Bedouin people due to their isolation from the corruptive

influence of civilization. While Khaldun is often critical of the

Bedouin he feels that there are moral lessons to be learned from


them. He does not, however, engage in the level of romanticism

that characterises Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s observations of the

Caribs. Dubbing them “noble savages”, Rousseau claims that this

pre-civilizational life not only has certain virtues over his

society but is in fact wholly preferable to it. He writes that,

“Savage man and civilized man differ so much in their inmost

heart and inclinations that what constitutes the supreme

happiness of the one would reduce the other to despair. The first

breathes nothing but repose and freedom, he wants only to live

and remain idle, and even the Stoic's ataraxia does not

approximate his profound indifference to everything else. By

contrast, the Citizen, forever active, sweats and scurries,

constantly in search of ever more strenuous occupations: he works

to the death, even rushes toward it in order to be in a position

to live, or renounces life in order to acquire immortality”

(Roussea 1978). Rousseau felt that his society was fundamentally

broken and that it is in fact the Caribs who were living good

lives. Like Khaldun he thinks they are not distracted from

genuine spiritual fulfillment by the earthly desires and

obsessions of the modern man. He agrees with Khaldun that


civilization has caused a spiritual impoverishment of man and

that there is much to be learned from the Caribs. Unlike Khaldun,

Rousseau goes as far as to suggest the renouncement of modern

civilization in order to emulate the Caribs and, while Khaldun

ultimately looks down upon the Bedouin, Rousseau puts the Caribs

on a pedestal. However the sense of longing for a simpler past,

the perception that the trappings of advancement can cause

spiritual decay and the methodology of observing under-developed

societies are shared by both and suggest an influence of

Khaldun’s philosophical ideas on the radical French enlightenment

thought of Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

All of this leads to the conclusion that the evidence, from

historical and literary perspectives, points to a co-penetrative

and deeply interwoven relationship between Islamic and Western

thought. While there is some validity to the premise of works

like Anthony Pagden’s “War of Worlds”, which suggests a

relationship of embittered hostility and enmity between Europe

and Asia, it is clear that through this undeniable pall of

mistrust and rivalry came an exchange of ideas and philosophical


culture that enriched both the Islamic and European worlds. It is

a known historical fact that the writings of the great ancient

Greek thinkers were preserved, studied and honoured in the great

libraries of the Islamic world by scholars like Ibn-Khaldun. Less

known is the fact that a trading relationship existed, almost

without interruption, between the Islamic Empires and the early

states of Europe. As they did in their travels across the Indian

Ocean, Arab traders and travellers brought scholarship,

literature and ideas with them wherever they went and, as they

did in Asia, these ideas took root and influenced Western thought

in a demonstrably meaningful way. Plato’s account of Socrates,

and the Socratic method that it describes, can be seen to

influence Khaldun’s approach to historical critique in “The

Muqaddimah”. Similarly Aristotle view of the family as a

political unit at the foundation of the City is mirrored by

Khaldun’s view of the community as an extension of the family and

group feeling. For his part Khaldun’s ideas pre-empt, influence

and perhaps even directly inspired some of the great thinkers of

the enlightenment. Machiavelli echoes Khaldun’s limitations on

the effectiveness of state violence, Hobbes concludes, from the


same “state of nature” thought experiment, a similar position on

the role of political authority as a restrain upon natural

instincts and Rousseau’s account of the Caribs mirrors Khaldun’s

study of the Bedouin in both its methodologies and conclusions.

It is clear, therefore, that though the gates of Ijtihad were

closed, ideas and philosophies could not be contained by this

political barrier.

BibliographyAristotle. The Politics. London: Penguin Books Ltd., 1981.

Garrett, Elizabeth. "The Socratic Method." Green Bag (University of Chicago), 1998.

Gordon, Steward. When Asia Was the World. Boston: Da Capo Press, 2007.

Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.

Khaldun, Ibn. The Muqaddimah. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd., 1967.

Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. Chicago: University of Chigaco Press, 1997.

Mackensen, Ruth Stellhorn. "Four Great Libraries of Medieval Baghdad."The Library Quarterly, July 1932: 279-299.

Plato. "The Apology of Socrates." In Four Texts on Socrates: Plato & Aristophanes,by Thomas G. West and Grace Starry West, 63-99. New York: Cornell


University Press, 1984.

Roussea, Jean-Jacques. On the Social Contract. Boston: St. Martin's Press, 1978.

Said, Edward. Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books, 1978.

"The Textual History of the Muqaddimah." Islamic Philosophy Online. 05 66, 2009. http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ik/Muqaddimah/TransIntro/TexualHistory.htm (accessed March 23, 2014).

The Early Modern: The Influence and Influences of Ibn Khaldun's "The Muqqadimah"

Documents

Transcript of The Early Modern: The Influence and Influences of Ibn Khaldun's "The Muqqadimah"