orians, there is little proof that the ideas of Thucydides ever appeared in Arabic. Further, as is the case with Ibn Khaldun, not many of their ideas have borne fruit, except perhaps in the modern period. Ibn Khaldun remains a highly vibrant and original thinker not only in the field of history but in sociology as well.
Ibn Khaldun’s view on science followed the traditional division of sciences, which involves a division into religious sciences and non-religious sciences. The non-religious sciences are further divided into useful and non-useful sciences (mainly the occult sciences such as magic, alchemy and astrology). In the Muqaddimah, Ibn Khaldun reports on all the sciences up to his time, with examples and quotations. He makes it a point to refute magic, alchemy, astrology, and philosophy in his book. His work became a record of the development of sciences in his day.
IBN KHALDUN'S VIEW ON PHILOSOPHY
Ibn Khaldun's view on philosophy is similar to that of al-Ghazali, in the sense that he attempted to reconcile mysticism and theology. In fact, Ibn Khaldun, according to Issawi,
…goes further than the latter [al-Ghazali] in bringing mysticism completely within the purview of the jurisprudent (faqih) and in developing a model of the Sufi shaykh, or master, as rather similar to the theologian. Philosophy was regarded as going beyond its appropriate level of discourse, in that 'the intellect should not be used to weigh such matters as the oneness of God, the other world, the truth of prophecy, the real character of the divine attributes, or anything else that lies beyond the level of the intellect' (Muqaddima 3, 38).
1. Mohammad A. Enan, Ibn Khaldun: His life and Work (New Delhi: Kitab Bhavan, 1979), 3-5. The author questions Ibn Khaldun’s Arab origin, although he does admit that he came from an influential family, which was politically active in Andalusian affairs. He also admits that the Arabs held the authoritative positions while the Berbers bore the brunt of the battles, thus indirectly admitting that Ibn Khaldun is of Arab origin. Enan raises two points to support his claim that Ibn Khaldun is not an Arab. One point is that some Berber tribes used false Arab identities to gain political favor and positions. The second point is that Ibn Khaldun attacked Arabs in his history. The false identity would be a valid point at the time that Ibn Khaldun’s ancestors left Andalusia and moved to Tunisia, and did not change their claim to Arab ancestry. Even in the times when Berbers were ruling, during the reigns of al-Marabats and al-Mowahids, et. al., Ibn Khaldun's family did not reclaim their Berber heritage. The second point would be true if Ibn Khaldun only attacked Arabs and Arabs in general. However, he attacked the destabilizing elements, which in his case were Arab tribes that were used by the Fatimids to destabilize the Maghrib. Even if he criticized his own people, that would not make him an outsider. Throughout his life, Ibn Khaldun sought stability and power to achieve that stability regardless of the cost. His attacks on Arab rabble rousers are attacks on those who would cause instability.
2. Ibid., 2.
3. Ibid., 8. He would later write a detailed autobiography (Ta’reef) while in Egypt which is part of his book of “Universal History” Kitab al-’Ibar wa-Diwan al-Mubtada’ wa-l-Khabar fi Ayyam al-’Arab wal-’Ajam wal-Barbar wa man ‘asarahum min dhawi as-Sultan al-Akbar. See Walter J. Fischel, Ibn Khaldun in Egypt, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967).
4. Ibid., 9.
5. Ibid., 10, 12.
6. Ibid., 17-18. At this point, Ibn Khaldun was promoted to the position of secretary and despite his youth, became a member of the sultan’s private council. Even though he was well-treated, he did not stop from conspiring against the sultan.
7. Ibid., 19-20. He wrote a poem that finally convinced the sultan to release him, however the sultan died before fulfilling the promise to do so.
8. He is Mansur bin Sulaiman, a descendent of Yaacoub ibn Abd al-Haq. Ibid., p. 20-22.
9. Ibid., 24.
10. Ibid., 25-27. Wazir Omar bin Abdullah was th