THE EXCELLENCE OF MEDIEVAL MUSLIM HISTORIOGRAPHY

IBN KHALDUN’S INTRODUCTION TO MUQADDIMAH KITAB AL-IBR

The Excellence of Medieval Muslim Historiography

Ibn Khaldun’s Introduction to Muqaddimah Kitab al-Ibr

“The Excellence of Medieval Muslim Historiography” is basically English

translation by Franz Rosenthal of a chapter from Muqaddimah Ibn Khaludn wherein
misinformation about Abbasids and Fatimid’s caliphates, transmitted by some
historians, are refuted. Muqaddimah Ibn Khaludn, written in 1377, records history of
medieval Islamic era and covers various aspects related to medieval Muslims, hence is
considered as foundational work for the schools of historiography. Franz Rosenthal
writes in the History of Muslim Historiography

“True history exists to tell us about human social life, which is the world’s
environment, and the nature of that environment as it appears from various events. It
deals with civilization, savagery and tribalism, with the various ways in which people
obtain power over each other, and their results with states and their hierarchies and with
the people’s occupations, lifestyles, sciences, handicrafts and everything else that takes
place in that environment under various circumstances”.

Ibn Khaldun method of writing history relies on different techniques to ascertain

veracity and get rid of falsehood/exaggeration in description of historical events. His
method of investigation included observation, comparison and examination of events.
Many historical accounts contain lies because they are written to flatter some rules or to
further the interests of some sect; the news makers and storytellers deliberately cheat
and falsify things for their own purposes.

In his diagnosis of the causes of lies in history, Ibn Khaldun identifies a number
of reasons, such as: sectarianism, misplaced trust in the sources, ignorance of some
hidden purpose and the wish to flatter rulers. Many historians, copyists and story tellers
have made mistake of accepting untrue accounts or recording events that did not take
place because they have relied on report alone without bothering to research its
sources closely for truth or falsehood, compare it with anything else or apply their own

intelligence to it. For examples, al-Masudi and various other Arab historians accepted
that the Israelite armies led by the Prophet Moses numbered 600,000 or more men
aged twenty and upwards. If we examine this tale carefully it is clearly false. When
Jacob and his kinsmen entered Egypt there were only seventy of them. Only four
generations separated Jacob and Moses. Where, then, did Moses get this huge
multitude of youths and men? The Israelis themselves, moreover, reported that
Solomon’s army numbered 12,000 and his horses 1400, while calling his kingdom the
vigour of their state and an expansion of their reign.

Al-Masudi also succeeded in ignoring physical reality. How exactly was this
huge army squeezed into the maze? How could so massive a force have been lined up
and moved in so limited an area of land? In the area of historical knowledge al-Masudi
did no better. Historically each kingdom was manned by certain number of garrisons
according to its size. A kingdom having six hundred thousand or more fighters would
have had borders far exceeding the limits of the ancient kingdom of Israel.

There is another example given in the article is about the silly information
accepted by many historians concerns the 'Ubaydid (-Fatimids), the Shi'ah caliphs in al-
Qayrawan and Cairo. These historians deny their 'Alid origin and attack the
genuineness of their descent from the imam Ismail, the son of Ja'far as-Sadiq. They
base themselves in this respect on stories that were made up in favor of the weak
'Abbasid caliphs by people who wanted to ingratiate themselves with them through
accusations against their active opponents and who therefore liked to say all kinds of
bad things about their enemies.

Ibn Khaldun’s affirms veracity of the Fatimid lineage emerges from a pragmatic
and rational expose of the reaction of the Abbasids to the Fatimid venture. He points out
that the empire of the Fatimids lasted for 270 years, that it spread from North Africa to
the Hijaz and that ‘they shared the realm of Islam equally with the Abbasids’; and he
poses the question: ‘How could all this have befallen a fraudulent claimant to the
rulership?’ He adds that the partisans of the Fatimid imam-caliphs ‘showed them the
greatest love and devotion ... Even after the dynasty had gone and its influence had
disappeared, people still came forward to press the claims.

For Ibn Khaldun, it was the inability of the Abbasids and their supporters to resist
the Fatimid advances. Abasids initiated false propaganda to harm image of Fatmids in
order to ‘make up for their inability to resist and repel the Kutama Berbers, and
partisans of the Ubaydids (Fatimids), who had taken Syria, Egypt, and the Hijaz away
from the (Abbasids). It is in this vein that Ibn Khaldun questions the validity of the
Manifesto: The event took place on one memorable day in the year 402 AH [1011 CE]
in the time of al-Qadir. The testimony (of these witnesses) was based upon hearsay, on
what people in Baghdad generally believed. Most of them were partisans of the
Abbasids who attacked the Alid origin (of the Ubaydid-Fatimids). The historians reported
the information as they had heard it. They handed it down to us just as they
remembered it.

In Muqaddimah, Ibn Khaldun describes a new philosophy of history, arguing that

history requires more than the recording of historical events; historians need to critically
investigate how natural, social, economic and political environments impact the rise and
collapse of civilizations over time. He therefore criticizes contemporary historians for
failing to fulfill this objective because they rely upon faulty methodologies. Some
historians blatantly belied historical events because they wanted to please rulers or
sect; others included false information in their works because they blindly trusted
inaccurate sources.
In way of description of historical event, Ibn Khaldun reveals that several aspects
are essential to be kept in mind as follow:

1. An understanding of the rules of politics and the nature of people.

2. Knowledge of the natural environment and how it differs according to time and
place.

3. Acquaintance with the social environments of the various different nations in

terms of way of life, morals, incomes, doctrines and so forth.
4. An understanding of the present time and an ability to compare it with the past.

5. Knowledge of the origins and motives of states and sects, their declared
principles, their rules and major events in their histories.