What do you think?
Rate this book
The Epistemology of Ibn Khaldun
This is an analytical examination of Ibn Khaldun's epistemology, centred on Chapter Six of the Muqaddima. In this chapter, entitled The Book of Knowledge (Kitab al'Ilm), Ibn Khaldun sketched his general ideas about knowledge and science and its relationship with human social organisation and the establishment of a civilisation.
- GenresPhilosophy
208 pages, Hardcover
First published May 29, 2003
1 person is currently reading
28 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
April 9, 2021
The Epistemology of Ibn Khaldun is an analysis of Chapter 6 of Ibn Khaldun’s Meqaddimah to elucidate his theory of Epistemology and Civilisation. I was more attracted to his thought of Epistemology and as a consequence the large passages looking at his theory of Civilisation I skimmed over them.
The author justifies analysing chapter 6 as it is said to include the majority of his views from throughout the book. It is the last as well as largest one and touched into several notions mentioned in previous chapters. The parts focussing on epistemology were quite thought-provoking. I think it was a beneficial idea to read an analysis of the book instead of the primary source as the author put his ideas into modern words/syntax and did a significant amount of thinking for the reader. For example, where contradictions seemed to occur, he would use his knowledge of the entirety of the chapter to link ideas, to paint a clearer picture of what Ibn Khaldun believed. He also explained the criticisms of the ideas, giving the reader a more balanced viewpoint.
Once categorizing knowledge into the groups the primary point he makes is how the sources are knowledge differ from the traditional sciences and the others. He vehemently objects to the use of rational/human intellect in the traditional sciences. He believes that the human mind is limited, it is not given the ability to conceptualise certain realities and therefore any attempt will produce inaccurate perspectives. He, therefore, claims that the only source of knowledge is a revelation. The Quran is the direct, unfiltered word of God, while Hadith literature is the words of the Prophet who God has given certain aspects of knowledge of the traditional sciences. He goes further to claim that trying to use rational to understand the traditional sciences is not only wrong but dangerous to Islam and thus society. I don’t understand the claim that it is dangerous. I comprehend the idea that it is wrong, but I don’t see how it damages religion. Perhaps he is referring to how when people think this type of knowledge can be gained through rationality, they create a new sect of the religion and go away from the Islamic view of the unseen. Nevertheless, I believe that if the Islamic tradition is strong in a society, then the attempt to do so will not get much traction as people identify that it will always be incorrect and thus will not affect society.
The trouble occurs when talking in a non-Islamic society. Especially in this day of age, people will wonder about these types of realities and – without belief in revelation – they will turn to intellectual discussion to come to understanding.
However, this does not mean that he believes Philosophy is not compatible with Islam. Rather he claims that there is a proportion that the human mind will never be able to conceptualise. The intellectual and physical sciences he says are fair play. They are independent of revelation and therefore are not restricted to a religious society. These studies, I believe to be independent of religion as Islamic scripture does not look to explain the physical world, therefore there cannot be any contradiction between science and Islam.
Ibn Khaldun goes further to state the development of the physical and intellectual sciences are essential for the progress of society and he places great importance on this in his theory of civilisation.
The main trouble I have is drawing the line between traditional sciences and intellectual sciences. Initially, I thought the distinction could be made abstract vs physical, but this is incorrect as the intellectual sciences are mainly abstract too. The examples are given under the intellectual sciences above clearly do not contradict religion – as religion does not talk of them – except metaphysics. Metaphysics seems to me as something that Islam touches on – or maybe only the idea of soul-body concept- but is widely celebrated to be a secular study.
The author justifies analysing chapter 6 as it is said to include the majority of his views from throughout the book. It is the last as well as largest one and touched into several notions mentioned in previous chapters. The parts focussing on epistemology were quite thought-provoking. I think it was a beneficial idea to read an analysis of the book instead of the primary source as the author put his ideas into modern words/syntax and did a significant amount of thinking for the reader. For example, where contradictions seemed to occur, he would use his knowledge of the entirety of the chapter to link ideas, to paint a clearer picture of what Ibn Khaldun believed. He also explained the criticisms of the ideas, giving the reader a more balanced viewpoint.
Once categorizing knowledge into the groups the primary point he makes is how the sources are knowledge differ from the traditional sciences and the others. He vehemently objects to the use of rational/human intellect in the traditional sciences. He believes that the human mind is limited, it is not given the ability to conceptualise certain realities and therefore any attempt will produce inaccurate perspectives. He, therefore, claims that the only source of knowledge is a revelation. The Quran is the direct, unfiltered word of God, while Hadith literature is the words of the Prophet who God has given certain aspects of knowledge of the traditional sciences. He goes further to claim that trying to use rational to understand the traditional sciences is not only wrong but dangerous to Islam and thus society. I don’t understand the claim that it is dangerous. I comprehend the idea that it is wrong, but I don’t see how it damages religion. Perhaps he is referring to how when people think this type of knowledge can be gained through rationality, they create a new sect of the religion and go away from the Islamic view of the unseen. Nevertheless, I believe that if the Islamic tradition is strong in a society, then the attempt to do so will not get much traction as people identify that it will always be incorrect and thus will not affect society.
The trouble occurs when talking in a non-Islamic society. Especially in this day of age, people will wonder about these types of realities and – without belief in revelation – they will turn to intellectual discussion to come to understanding.
However, this does not mean that he believes Philosophy is not compatible with Islam. Rather he claims that there is a proportion that the human mind will never be able to conceptualise. The intellectual and physical sciences he says are fair play. They are independent of revelation and therefore are not restricted to a religious society. These studies, I believe to be independent of religion as Islamic scripture does not look to explain the physical world, therefore there cannot be any contradiction between science and Islam.
Ibn Khaldun goes further to state the development of the physical and intellectual sciences are essential for the progress of society and he places great importance on this in his theory of civilisation.
The main trouble I have is drawing the line between traditional sciences and intellectual sciences. Initially, I thought the distinction could be made abstract vs physical, but this is incorrect as the intellectual sciences are mainly abstract too. The examples are given under the intellectual sciences above clearly do not contradict religion – as religion does not talk of them – except metaphysics. Metaphysics seems to me as something that Islam touches on – or maybe only the idea of soul-body concept- but is widely celebrated to be a secular study.
Displaying 1 of 1 review