Short Description
In Ibn Khaldunian paradigm, history is an independent field which necessitates some prerequisite attitudes in handling with the past.
In Ibn Khaldunian paradigm, history is an independent field which necessitates some prerequisite attitudes in handling with the past. Some methodological tenets are of great importance for Ibn Khaldun. It is must, for a candidate of historian, “to know the principles of politics, the (true) nature of existing things and the differences among nations, places, and periods with regard to ways of life, character qualities, customs, sects, schools, and everything else”[8]. And also for him, historian should be able to compare and contrast the events and characteristic of societies, finding out the similarities and differences between the nations and races, and know “the circumstances and history of the persons who supported them [different dynasties and religious groups]”[9].
For Ibn Khaldun, history should serve, and in reality, serves some purpose. Otherwise, it will be pointless. According to him, history deals with, savagery and sociability, why some groups gain an upper hand over the others, the reasons for increase and decrease in group feeling. And dealing with crafts and institutions, and telling the stories of royal authority are all within the scope of the science of history. In this respect, Ibn Khaldun appreciates the dynasties, the higher echelons in the society, compared to the ‘losers’ of the society.[10] For instance, some viziers are also to be included in the scope of history, since they fulfill the requirements for entering into picture as a member of royal authority[11]. In this topic, he argues that “[h]istorical interest now was concentrated on the rulers themselves and on the mutual relationships of the various dynasties in respect to power and predominance”[12]. However, he keeps wazirs as exception since they are also within the state apparatus. In his words,
“An exception are the wazirs who were very influential and whose historical importance overshadowed that of the rulers. Such wazirs as, for instance, al-Hajjaj, the Banu Muhallleb, the Barmecides, the Banu Sahl b. Nawbakht, Kafur al-Ikhshidi, Ibn Abi ‘Amir, and others should be mentioned. There is no objection to dealing with their lives or referring to their conditions for an importance they rank with the rulers.”[13]
So the men who, in a way, are attached to the royal authority, are also the subjects of history, as well as the rulers of dynasties.
Ibn Khaldun, also, places a great emphasis on the circumstances of nations and groups and also the environmental factors surrounding societies. According to him, historian should have a sense of these circumstances in order to base the histories of societies a plausible platform, so that these histories are understood by people easily. So it is a requirement for an historian to have good command of geography and general conditions of the region that he has studied. He puts forward that “[d]iscussion of the general conditions of regions, races, and periods constitutes the historian’s foundation. Most of his problems rest upon that foundation, and his historical information derives clarity from it”[14]
stay tuned.......
References
[8] Ibid, p. 56
[9] Ibn Khaldun, trans. by Rosenthal F., The Muqaddimah, 2nd edition, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967, p. 56
[10] Ibid, p. 71
[11] This use, ‘royal authority’ is preferred by F. Rosenthal in his translation of Muaqaddimah, for the Arabic word dawlah, which is translated as “state” some other scholars. In general I have preferred to harness “state” as more correct translation.
[12] Ibid, p. 63
[13] Ibid, p. 63
[14] Ibn Khaldun, trans. by Rosenthal F., The Muqaddimah, 2nd edition, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967, p. 63
Comments
Send your comment