[MichaelfromSpace]

What is the view of The scholars of the Ahlus sunah with regards to Ibne Khladoon.

Just reading the mini biographies in the book ' Words and reflections of Hadhrat Maulana Ilyas' by Hadhrat Maulana Mohammed Manzoor No'mani.

Now, the reason I ask is that a few years ago I heard that ibne Khaldoon had various views which were at odds with Shariah, and that Imam Ghazali had actually refuted these vuews. The conversation was brief and the way it was put to me was that Ibne Khaldoon and Imam Ghazali were at different ends of the spectrum with regards their thoughts on various views, views which werenot expressed.

Now reading the above mini biography, it states that he was a great scholar,Faqih,teacher,theologian,sociologist,histo rian,astrologer.

Anyone got any genuine info on his 'Muqaddima'??

A qoute from the above book(words and reflections):

'and indeed the systematic lack of comprehension and the resolute hostility which this noncomformist thinker of genius encountered among his own people forms one of the most moving dramas,and one of the saddest and most significant pages in the history of muslim culture.

So, views please.

[Mboxmaja]

What is the view of The scholars of the Ahlus sunah with regards to Ibne Khladoon.

Just reading the mini biographies in the book ' Words and reflections of Hadhrat Maulana Ilyas' by Hadhrat Maulana Mohammed Manzoor No'mani.

Now, the reason I ask is that a few years ago I heard that ibne Khaldoon had various views which were at odds with Shariah, and that Imam Ghazali had actually refuted these vuews. The conversation was brief and the way it was put to me was that Ibne Khaldoon and Imam Ghazali were at different ends of the spectrum with regards their thoughts on various views, views which werenot expressed.

Now reading the above mini biography, it states that he was a great scholar,Faqih,teacher,theologian,sociologist,histo rian,astrologer.

Anyone got any genuine info on his 'Muqaddima'??

A qoute from the above book(words and reflections):

'and indeed the systematic lack of comprehension and the resolute hostility which this noncomformist thinker of genius encountered among his own people forms one of the most moving dramas,and one of the saddest and most significant pages in the history of muslim culture.

So, views please.

Asslamo Allaikum,

Huge book...I read it years ago.

http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ik/Muqaddimah/



http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=F...mbnail#PPR5,M1

[MichaelfromSpace]

for that Brother Muadh.

What about the views of the scholars. Looking for the views from a whole range of scholars through out the world. Looking for views from Saudi Scholars, Syrian,Jordanian, India,Pakistan etc.

Did Imam Ghazali have differences and did the Imam refute the views of Ibne Khaldoon?

What is the view with regards to ibne Khaldoon from Shaykh Nuh, Shaykh Hamza Yusuf and other modern day scholars?

[russianstallian]

Did Imam Ghazali have differences and did the Imam refute the views of Ibne Khaldoon?

Imam Ghazali = [d. 505H]
'Allamah ibn Khuldun = [d. 808H]

[MichaelfromSpace]

Brother Khanbaba,eerrr

Thats clarified the issue somewhat!!!

Views of scholars wouldnt go amiss though

[gWhya5ct]

Well he's not a Muslim scholar, but the famous academic historian Arnold Toynbee said of the Muqaddimah:

"Undoubtedly the greatest work of its kind that has ever been created by any mind in any time or place...the most comprehensive and illuminating analysis of how human affairs work that has ever been made anywhere."

Certainly depending on your views, there might be some things people find controversial. He justifies Mu`awiya selecting Yazid as his heir. He plays down (though does not reject) the idea of the mehdi.

[MichaelfromSpace]

Ma'ruf, when did this Arnold Toynbee make this comment?

[MichaelfromSpace]

Ma'ruf, when did this Arnold Toynbee make this comment?

[gWhya5ct]

A J Toynbee, "A Study of History", 1935.

What Toynbee was praising was ibn Khaldun's incredible way of thinking about civilisations and society - what we now call sociology. He was not content to describe history, he attempted to understand and define historical processes, which was an amazing breakthrough.

[Dreaming]

Well he's not a Muslim scholar,

Could you please elaborate upon and clarify the preceding statement?

with peace

[MichaelfromSpace]

I think Brother Ma'ruf was referring to A J Toynbee.

[Dreaming]

I think Brother Ma'ruf was referring to A J Toynbee.

I see....

[ButKnillinoi]

Looks like the question which was posed in the first post still hasnt been answered. I too would appreciate it if any brother can give info on the views of the scholars on Ibn Khaldoon .

[Biassasecumma]

I've always seen him mentioned among prominent Ash'ari scholars. I believe he was also the one who came up with a theory of evolution (not Darwinian though, but LaMarckian) centuries before anyone in Europe. And he did pretty much invent Sociology as a social science. I've never heard of any 'ulema calling him a heretic or anything like that, he was, at the time, apparently just another Sunni scholar.

[ButKnillinoi]

I've always seen him mentioned among prominent Ash'ari scholars. I believe he was also the one who came up with a theory of evolution (not Darwinian though, but LaMarckian) centuries before anyone in Europe. And he did pretty much invent Sociology as a social science. I've never heard of any 'ulema calling him a heretic or anything like that, he was, at the time, apparently just another Sunni scholar.

Sorry to bother you, but what is LaMarckian evolution? is it againt Islamic beliefs?

[Biassasecumma]

Sorry to bother you, but what is LaMarckian evolution? is it againt Islamic beliefs?

That was just an anecdote. Evolution has no relation to the issue of beliefs unless one disbelieves in the creation of Adam and Eve as Allah tells us which Ibn Khaldun obviously does not do.

Darwinian evolution is based around the idea of natural selection. That is, mutations develop, and mutations that lead to beneficial traits are passed on. This has the most support today.

LaMarckism is based on the idea that species develop traits in response to the environment or in order to adapt, and then these are passed on. Like... let's say moths colored black have an advantage over moths colored white. LaMarckism would be to think that the moths developed the black color trait in response to this and passed that on. Natural selection as explained in Darwinian evolution (or modern evolutionary theory which isn't really Darwinian anymore but descended from it) says that mutations develop all the time, for almost random reasons (not random, but due to genetic processes... mutations develop all the time in populations), and beneficial mutations that happen to develop are passed on, and detrimental mutations are weeded out (those organisms don't reproduce).

Though LaMarckism is incorrect, that Ibn Khaldun came up with it before LaMarck at the time he did is pretty extraordinary. It was an incorrect theory of evolution, but a theory of evolutionary processes nonetheless. Westerners hold him in awe. When I sometimes get into debates or discussions with Westerners on this matter, I use him to illustrate the contributions to science of Ash'ari scholars. They were no less brilliant and innovative than Mutazilah (whom the Westerners love for more sinister and divisive reasons).

Westerners also misinterpret his writings to say that he says humans came from the world of monkeys, but that is not what he said. The passages from the Muqaddimah quoted on Wikipedia:

This world with all the created things in it has a certain order and solid construction. It shows nexuses between causes and things caused, combinations of some parts of creation with others, and transformations of some existent things into others, in a pattern that is both remarkable and endless.

One should then take a look at the world of creation. It started out from the minerals and progressed, in an ingenious, gradual manner, to plants and animals. The last stage of minerals is connected with the first stage of plants, such as herbs and seedless plants. The last stage of plants, such as palms and vines, is connected with the first stage of animals, such as snails and shellfish which have only the power of touch. The word 'connection' with regard to these created things means that the last stage of each group is fully prepared to become the first stage of the newest group.

The animal world then widens, its species become numerous, and, in a gradual process of creation, it finally leads to man, who is able to think and reflect. The higher stage of man is reached from the world of monkeys, in which both sagacity and perception are found, but which has not reached the stage of actual reflection and thinking. At this point we come to the first stage of man. This is as far as our (physical) observation extends.[48] He's basically saying life became more complex with time, and he talks about the transformations that we know are possible from Islamic scripture (Allah has transformed humans into monkeys) as the way species bridge junctions. So he has the idea of evolution in mind, but he doesn't consider it some kind of its own force. He just views it as a function of time. Naturally, over time, life became more complex and spread throughout the earth. And Allah introduced humans into the equation at the right time. Meaning, because humans were created in Heaven, it could be that Allah sent humans down at the time of the dinosaurs, when we would have been very out of place in a world dominated by non-mammals. Instead, Allah created the world with a natural order, and placed man into this order in his proper place and time.

I asked a Deobandi alim or two about him a long ways back and they had nothing notable to say. He was famous, the Muqaddimah was famous and a great book, and that was about it.

[Evsltkzl]

Wasn't it the case that the Muqaddimah was almost forgotten until the French found it on a bookshelf in Morocco?

Sometime I think it's a pity ibn Khaldun lived in the Maghreb frontiers. If he had lived in Baghdad or Egypt, the book might have become more famous.

[Kliopeion]

Salam,

The higher stage of man is reached from the world of monkeys, in which both sagacity and perception are found, but which has not reached the stage of actual reflection and thinking. At this point we come to the first stage of man ( after the world of monkeys). This is as far as our (physical) observation extends.

Hmm, that sounds pretty much like Darwinian evolution to me.

[HRS1H7gO]

Wasn't it the case that the Muqaddimah was almost forgotten until the French found it on a bookshelf in Morocco?

Sometime I think it's a pity ibn Khaldun lived in the Maghreb frontiers. If he had lived in Baghdad or Egypt, the book might have become more famous.

salaam

He did later in his life he went to stay in Egypt - he regarded it as a great place and was appointed qadi there. He also met Tamerlane. He was also a maliki scholar - does anyone know his fiqh or Islamic work? The Muqaddimah can be found on the internet by the way.

I believe his work is incrediblly influential for western historians and western acdemics and your right about the french actually took his book seriously - the muslims on the other hand didnt. His theory of assabiya is a famous one.

peace

[Biassasecumma]

Salam,



Hmm, that sounds pretty much like Darwinian evolution to me.

Only if you don't read the entire quote, starting with this:

This world with all the created things in it has a certain order and solid construction. It shows nexuses between causes and things caused, combinations of some parts of creation with others, and transformations of some existent things into others, in a pattern that is both remarkable and endless.

One should then take a look at the world of creation. It started out from the minerals and progressed, in an ingenious, gradual manner, to plants and animals. The last stage of minerals is connected with the first stage of plants, such as herbs and seedless plants. The last stage of plants, such as palms and vines, is connected with the first stage of animals, such as snails and shellfish which have only the power of touch. The word 'connection' with regard to these created things means that the last stage of each group is fully prepared to become the first stage of the newest group.

The animal world then widens, its species become numerous, and, in a gradual process of creation, it finally leads to man, who is able to think and reflect. The higher stage of man is reached from the world of monkeys, in which both sagacity and perception are found, but which has not reached the stage of actual reflection and thinking. At this point we come to the first stage of man. This is as far as our (physical) observation extends.[48]