Content uploaded by Mehmet Soyer
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mehmet Soyer on Aug 01, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
1PhD Student at Texas Woman’s University
2PhD Student at Mississippi State University
International Journal of Sociological Research, Vol. 5, Nos. 1-2, (January-December, 2012) 13-30
DEBATING THE ORIGINS OF SOCIOLOGY:
IBN KHALDUN AS A FOUNDING FATHER OF SOCIOLOGY
MEHMET SOYER1 & PAUL GILBERT2
ABSTRACT: This paper examines the extent to which Ibn Khaldun can legitimately be considered
a founding father of sociology. To pursue this research, Khaldun’s theoretical framework is compared
with two Western scholars: Auguste Comte and Emile Durkheim. After the introduction, we proceed
to present a general overview of Khaldun’s work which includes his understandings of a cyclical
pattern of social change, conflict theory, and his typological framework. Khaldun’s theoretical
perspective is then compared and contrasted to that of Comte and Durkheim, illustrating their
similarities and considering their differences. Finally, we put forth conclusions that consider the
extent to which Khaldun can validly be considered a founding father of sociology.
Introduction
Akbar Ahmed, the Ibn Khaldun Chair of Islamic Studies at American University, noted:
Bin Laden is a household name in the West, where, unfortunately, the names of
important Muslim scholars are less well known. When I talked of Ibn Khaldun,
Americans usually ask: Who is he? An oil sheikh? An Arab minister? Another
“terrorist”? Any links to Bin Laden? Even the scholars who have heard of Ibn
Khaldun may well ask: How is he relevant to problems of the twenty-first century?
(2003, p. 213).
Yet, earlier generations of social thinkers contended that Khaldun was a founder
of sociology (Kremer, 1879; Flint, 1893: 158ff.; Gumplowicz, 1928: 90–114; Maunier,
1913; Oppenheimer, 1922–35, Vol. II: 173ff.; Vol. IV, 251ff.; Ortega y Gasset, 1976–8).
Sorokin, Zimmerman, and Galphin believed Khaldun to be an historian, statesman,
sociologist, and the “founder of sociology.” They noted that Khaldun described the
transformation of Arabian society from Badawa (rural society) to Hadara (urban society),
and analyzed this transition (Alatas, 2006). Harry Barnes and Howard Becker stated in
their book Social Thought: From Lore to Science that “The first writer after Polybius
(203–120 BC), then, to apply the equivalents of modern ideas in historical sociology
was not a European” (1938, p. 266); they devoted substantial discussion to Khaldun’s
ideas that are relevant to social science. By doing so, Barnes and Becker identified
Khaldun as the first scholar who applied modern ideas to historical sociology and so,
from their point of view, saw him as a founder of sociology. Unfortunately, until the
nineteenth century, Khaldunian Sociology was unknown to Western scholars. From
14 Mehmet Soyer & Paul Gilbert
the middle of the nineteenth century, Western scholars commenced studying Khaldun
and his social theories with astonishment and admiration. Khaldun developed
numerous social theories treated a century later by Machiavelli, and some three or four
centuries later by Giambattista Vico, Charles de Montesquieu, Adam Smith, and
Auguste Comte. After discovering and studying Khaldun, Western scholars began
considering him a philosopher, an historian of civilization, and a scholar of sociology
and political economy (Enan, 1979).
Khaldun wrote the Muqaddimah, Historical Prolegomenon (1377) in the fourteenth
century, centuries prior to the systematic development of Western sociology. In this
prominent work, Khaldun discussed scientifically the fundamental problems of what
would be called modern sociology: the evolution of less-developed societies to advanced
societies. Significant portions of Khaldun’s work seem to be quite modern for his
historical period (Sorokin, 1947). Historically, it has been acknowledged that Khaldun
made contributions to modern sociology; however, both his concepts and methods
need examination, analysis and placement in their proper context vis-à-vis
contemporary social science.
This paper examines the extent to which Ibn Khaldun can legitimately be considered
a founding father of sociology. To pursue this research, Khaldun’s theoretical framework
is compared with two Western scholars: Auguste Comte and Emile Durkheim. After
the introduction, we proceed to present a general overview of Khaldun’s work which
includes his understandings of a cyclical pattern of social change, conflict theory, and
his typological framework. Khaldun’s theoretical perspective is then compared and
contrasted to that of Comte and Durkheim, illustrating their similarities and considering
their differences. Finally, we put forth conclusions that consider the extent to which
Khaldun can validly be considered a founding father of sociology.
Overview of Ibn Khaldun’s Work
Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406) investigated theories of society, the basis of sovereignty or
asabiyah (social solidarity), and the rise and fall of states. Born in Tunis, Tunisia, where
his parents died of the plague in 1349, Khaldun spent most of his life in North Africa
and Spain. His family’s Andalusian origin suggests that his Spanish background
provided Khaldun a different perspective, and unique from the Muslim mainstream in
Northwest Africa and the East (Alatas, 2006).
Khaldun is one of the most significant figures in the history of the Muslim World
(Enan, 1979). The reputation of the Muqaddimah as a significant work has brought
Khaldun much attention. Khaldun taught his theories on society, the basis of sovereignty
or asabiyah, the rise and fall of states, and other subjects presented in the Muqaddimah.
Khaldun described social phenomena and situated them in the flow and perspective of
historical events (Enan, 1979).
Khaldun’s “New Science”
Ibn Khaldun’s “New Science” is interpreted as the science of human social organization,
commonly interpreted as sociology. Khaldun stated that this science has “its own
Debating the Origins of Sociology: Ibn Khaldun as a Founding Father of Sociology 15
peculiar object — that is, human civilization and social organization. It also has its own
peculiar problems- that is, explaining the conditions that attach themselves to the essence
of civilization, one after the other” (Muqaddimah, 1958, p. 77).
From Khaldun’s perspective, civilization is the product of human interaction.
Indeed, culture is not a thing in itself. The essential ability of human beings is their
reflective and deliberative competence; furthermore, human beings have the capabilities
to arrange their relationships with other fellow human beings (Muhammad, 1998).
The fundamental principles of the new science are: “(1) the subject matter of the
new science is human association, (2) its problems are the essential modes of culture,
(3) its method is demonstration, and (4) its end is making of truth from falsehood in
historical reports” (Mahdi, 2006, p. 167). Khaldun maintained that he was presenting a
new science that consisted of the following areas: human civilization, primitive societies,
the states, the cities, the crafts, the occupations, and the sciences (Muqaddimah, 1958).
Khaldun’s Typology
Khaldun classified societies into a dualist typology which includes Badawa (rural) and
Hadara (urban) societies as understood by Western sociologists. Defined briefly, nomadic
or rural means “inhabitant of the desert” or “the dessert dweller,” whereas urban refers
to “inhabitants of cities” (Muqaddimah, 1958, p. 250).
Rural society (Badawa Umran). To explain the concept of Badawa in his typology, Khaldun
argued that primitive people are tied to the desert because of their agricultural life
style. Since settled areas do not provide wide fields and pastures for animals, their
social organization is organized upon bare subsistence (Muqaddimah, 1958).
Urban society (Hadara Umran). The notion of urban society implies a secondary
phase of social organization. People live clustered in cities that constitute countries.
The economic arrangement of society is centered upon commerce and crafts, in addition
to agriculture and husbandry. There is a higher level of life observed in terms of comfort
and luxury as opposed to rural society (Muqaddimah, 1958).
Khaldun’s Conflict Theory
Khaldun explained that social solidarity (Asabiyah) plays a fundamental role in the rise
and fall of societies and civilizations. Therefore, social solidarity functions
“constructively” or “destructively.” Khaldun’s concept of conflict theory was based
upon social solidarity (asabiyah). On the one hand, social solidarity results in
consequences causing an increase in social group adaptation. On the other hand, social
solidarity (asabiyah) generates negative dynamics which destroy social groups.
Khaldun’s social solidarity (asabiyah). Khaldun asserted that social solidarity (asabiyah)
is a vital function in explaining the cyclical theory of social change. He extended this
term to indicate a universal theoretical framework concerned with examining human
social organization. Khaldun mentioned the following features while describing the
essentials of asabiyah: “associative sentiments, unity of purpose, community of social
16 Mehmet Soyer & Paul Gilbert
and economic interests, and oneness of feelings and emotions” (Ali, 1977, p. 118). Given
these characteristics, he put forth a new essential idea that served a major role in the
transformation of society, relating a new dynamic driving force. Each society transforms
from primitive stages to advanced stages of civilization, from rural to urban.
Social solidarity (asabiyah) plays a major role in the rise and fall of human civilization
which is intrinsic in the sense that he talks about the society’s birth, growth,
maturity, decadence, senility and demise (Ali, 1977) that structure “the transformations
of physical nature and seem somehow to reflect the ceaseless motion of material, finite
being in its restless striving and constant failing to reach changelessness and perfection”
(Goodman, 1972, p. 262).
Khaldun’s Cyclical Pattern
Khaldun analyzed society empirically. Moreover, he explained social phenomena by
an evolutionary principle of social development. He conceptualized societal
development as being parallel to the life stages of an individual: birth, maturity, and
death. From this, Khaldun developed a spiral theory of social evolution which depicted
a transformation from primitive life to civilized urban life (Bogardus, 1960). Khaldun
believed that the dynastic cycle is as “a self-destroying but ever-rebuilt bridge between
two worlds” (Arnason & Stauth, 2004, p. 36).
Khaldun contended that “dynasties have a natural life span like individuals”
(Muqaddimah, 1958, p. 343). According to astrologers and physicians, the natural life
span of human beings is 120 years, which is the maximum time period for states as
well (Azmeh, 1982). Khaldun believed that a dynasty lasts no longer than three
generations. The life span of a generation matches the life of an individual, which is
forty years. This time period allows one to achieve maturity and growth (Muqaddimah,
1958). Araki (1983) summarized that Khaldun perceived that the cycle lasts three
generations and took place over the five stages of: (1) the overthrow of opposition
(stage of success), (2) the ruler’s attainment of complete control over his people (full
control), (3) the stage of leisure and tranquility (4) the stage of contentment and
peacefulness, and (5) the stage of waste, squandering, and disintegration (Muqaddimah,
1958, p. 353-5). (See Figure 1).
A Comparison of the Works of Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406) and Auguste Comte
(1798–1857)
Auguste Comte, whose main theoretical frameworks consisted of the hierarchy of
sciences and the law of the three stages of social change, is often acknowledged as the
founder of modern sociology. Yet, some scholars consider Khaldun as the first
sociologist. Gumplowicz forcefully asserted: “I wanted to show that long before not
only Auguste Comte, but also Vico, whom the Italians wanted forcibly to consider as
the first European sociologist, a pious Muslim studied with perspicacity the social
phenomena, and expressed profound ideas on this subject. What he wrote is what we
term today as ‘Sociology’” (Enan, 1979, p. 125). In addition, Cohen (1959) stated that
Debating the Origins of Sociology: Ibn Khaldun as a Founding Father of Sociology 17
Khaldun “discovered and mastered the fundamentals of sociology some five centuries
before Auguste Comte coined the word” (p. 81). Moreover, the originality of Comte’s
theories has been critiqued. Some theorists contend that “Comte made very few original
contributions: almost all of his ideas can be traced back to numerous predecessors”
(Timasheff, 1955, p. 29). Arguably, Comte’s major accomplishment was to systematically
synthesize and abridge several of the disparate, inarticulate doctrines of his time.
Furthermore, Comte can be seen as “greatly behind the scientific achievements of his
age in many ways and quite failed to absorb many of the most important developments
of the period which have since entered into sociological thought” (Becker and Barnes,
1952, p. 565).
Similarities Between the Perspectives of Khaldun and Comte
Each scholar undoubtedly believed that his outlook was unique. Khaldun termed his
perspective ilm al-umran (science of human social organization), while Comte named
his sociology. Furthermore, Khaldun constantly emphasized that his science of human
social organization was novel (Baali, 1988).
Another similarity between the two theorists appears in their theories of social
transformation. Khaldun stated that societies rise and fall in three stages, and the cycle
recurs from primary stage and settlement to senility. Comte asserted that social progress
is classified human knowledge which passes through three stages: the theological, the
metaphysical, and the positivistic stages. Both Khaldun and Comte discovered social
Figure 1: The Dynastic Stages and Development of Civilization
18 Mehmet Soyer & Paul Gilbert
phenomena according to principles of social development. Both scholars also
acknowledged the material aspects of civilization such as, literature, art, and commerce.
Khaldun argued that these features are the unavoidable consequence of urbanization
and urbanism (Baali, 1988).
A third similarity between Khaldun and Comte is illustrated in their explanation
of historical-empirical method. Comte maintained that the most important aspect of
human development would come through observation, experimentation and
comparison accurate enough to give explanation to all experiences in terms of natural
cause and effect (Comte, 1896). Like Comte, Khaldun had a similar historical-empirical
method to analyze the society during his time. (Baali, 1988).
Both Comte and Khaldun discussed specialization, occupations and professions,
focusing on inequality (Baali, 1988). Khaldun stated, “Differences of conditions among
people are the result of the different ways in which they make their livings”
(Muqaddimah, 1958, p. 249). Comparable to Khaldun’s idea regarding the division of
labor, Comte believed in principle that the division of labor fostered the development
of individual gifts and capacities; at the same time, it contributed to human solidarity
by creating in each individual a sense of his dependence on others. Thus, Comte focused
on the principle of cooperation: the division of labor in society. The division of labor
creates interdependence among members of the society. Society ultimately benefits
from a properly functioning division of labor. As societies become more complex, the
division of labor is the only means to properly adjust to that complexity (Comte, 1866).
Another similarity is that Khaldun and Comte shared the belief on the intervention
of religion in the creation of civilization. Comte asserted that religion provides energy
and power, and helps people to accomplish their life objectives (Faghirzadeh, 1982). He
established a secular religion, the “Religion of Humanity,” and a secular worship system.
Moreover, he developed a 13-month calendar which included special festival days
celebrating his understanding of religion (Comte, 1866). In Comte’s perspective, “religion
was to be divorced from super-nationalism and transformed into a collective emotion-
building force supporting secular reforms and social justice” (Becker and Barnes, 1952,
p. 503). Khaldun perceived religion as the utilitarian foundation in the establishment of
asabiyah (social solidarity). In addition, religion acts as a tremendously dominant factor
in socialization and enables unity among members of its society (Mohammad, 1998).
Finally, Khaldun and Comte both observed the dissolution of the old social order.
They were eager to find a stable state that could sustain needed social control. The role
of social cohesion in the maintenance of the social group can be seen in Khaldun’s
emphasis on the role of social solidarity in fortifying the social group, and in Comte’s
analysis of society as “an organism where the whole is better known and more important
than the part” (Baali, 1988, p. 66).
Khaldun’s Contributions Overlooked by Comte
Khaldun applied social change theory to a society and to a state. Khaldun argued that
the social system can be classified into two types of social life, the rural and the urban
Debating the Origins of Sociology: Ibn Khaldun as a Founding Father of Sociology 19
society; Comte only applied his theory to the human mindset in its progress from the
theological stage to the positive stage. (Baali, 1988).
In contrast to Comte’s strong materialist and positivist view, excessive dependence
upon a materialistic position was marginalized in Khaldun’s understanding of the cyclic
theories of civilizations in which Khaldun took a hostile position towards materialism
(Dhaouadi, 2006).
Khaldun stated that societal progress is not unidirectional; rather, it circulates.
Comte held the opposite position: historical progress moves in a single direction. Comte
insisted that the positive stage is the final phase of this linear process; society will
employ human reasoning to organize itself when the proper time arrives (Comte, 1896).
Moreover, this process occurs not by a revolution but through a gradual transition,
which has to be assisted by the scientific class of society (Comte, 1896). In the positive
stage, both temporal and spiritual power would unite “to keep up the idea of the whole,
and the feeling of the common interconnection” (Comte, 1896).
To some extent, Khaldun differed from Comte regarding the natural character of
human ability. Khaldun asserted that distinctions in the attributes of primitive and
advanced civilized people persist because of differences in habit rather than differences
of natural character. He believed that there is not progress in human ability, only that
change is cyclical (Lana, 1987).
Comte’s Contributions Overlooked by Khaldun
Khaldun’s conceptualization of the social system differed from Comte. Comte’s theory
of social dynamics was founded on the law of the three stages, i.e., societal evolution is
based on the evolution of mind through the theological, metaphysical, and positivist
stages. Comte understood social dynamics as a process of progressive evolution in
which people become cumulatively more intelligent and in which altruism eventually
triumphs over egoism. This process is one that people can modify or accelerate,
but in the end the laws of progressive development dictate the development of society
(Comte, 1896).
Unlike Khaldun’s perspective, Comte’s theory of the three stages of societal
progress was idealistic because Comte’s basic principle extended from ideas, rather
than economic dynamics. Therefore, according to Comte, society evolved from
theological phases to philosophical phases, and finally to positivist phases in mental
orientation (Faghirzadeh, 1982).
The subject matter of Comte’s new science became human society: his sociological
goal was the improvement of human society. Conversely, Khaldun was interested in
describing human society (Baali, 1988). In his historical framework, Comte asserted
that social progress throughout history can be classified under three stages.
Theological Stage (The “Infantile” Stage): People have a primitive, supernatural
world-view and believe in God or gods. In this stage, men, manipulated by their
20 Mehmet Soyer & Paul Gilbert
imagination, seek out justification of all social phenomena in the will of supernatural
beings (Comte, 1896).
Metaphysical Stage (The “Adolescent” Stage): There is an acknowledgement of unseen
natural causes, “essences,” and de-personalized forces; the key terms here are mind
and reason. In this stage, intellect masters imagination. Metaphysics then
displaces religion, and man seeks a justification of phenomenon in the forces of nature
(Comte, 1896).
Positive stage: In this “mature” period, only logical explanation is sanctioned; all
evidence other than the material world will be refused. The laws of nature are not
“justifications,” but “descriptions” of nature. There are no ultimate causes. The question
asked should not be “why?” but “what?”. There are no absolutes or universals. The
only absolute is that “Everything is subject to change and is relative.” In this stage,
science achieves dominance over philosophy. Furthermore, Comte believed that
positivism could both advance science and social change. He argued that the
upper classes of his time were far too conservative to advance to the positive stage
(Comte, 1896).
Comte applied science to explain sociology from a positivist perspective. On this
issue, Comte departed from Khaldun. Each scientific field depends on the deterministic
chain, but in this process some sciences precede others. Astronomy, the most general
and simple of all natural sciences, developed first. In time, it was followed by physics,
chemistry, biology, and finally, sociology (Comte, 1896). Each science in this series
depended for its emergence upon the prior developments of its predecessors in a
hierarchy marked by the law of increasing complexity and decreasing generality. The
social sciences, the most complex and the most dependent for their emergence on the
development of the others, were highest in the hierarchy (Comte, 1896).
The division of society is divided into static and dynamic conditions. Social dynamics
study progress and change in society grounded on the law of the three stages of society,
the theological, the metaphysical, and the positive stages. Social statics study the
structure of the social system in which people cooperate among each other
(Comte, 1896). Comte divided society into two major conditions explicitly and more
specifically than Khaldun did. Khaldun employed such a division implicitly in his
discussion of the struggle between primitive society and advanced society (Baali, 1988).
According to Comte, social science methodology was dependent upon observation of
the static and dynamic laws of social phenomena. Comte extended the technique of
observation of static and dynamic conditions from physical science to social science
(Comte, 1896).
A Comparison of the Works of Ibn Khaldun and Emile Durkheim (1858-1917)
In some respects, Khaldun and Durkheim shared similar ideas. However, their
perspectives differed on several points. Khaldun’s social theory emphasized a dualist
typology. Moreover, Khaldun framed his social solidarity theory prior to Durkheim.
Debating the Origins of Sociology: Ibn Khaldun as a Founding Father of Sociology 21
Similarities between the Perspectives of Khaldun and Durkheim
Durkheim’s notion of “mechanical” and “organic solidarity” reflected Khaldun’s notion
of Asabiyah or “social cohesion.” The Khaldunian understanding of society was based
on asabiyah, which is identical to Durkheim’s notion of collective consciousness (Baali,
1988), the key factor for establishing social order within societies. By collective
consciousness, Durkheim refers to the sum of feelings that are common to people in
society; group consciousness is strengthened over time and unites the group (Durkheim,
1984). Ernest Gellner noted in Muslim Society (1981) that “Ibn Khaldun, like Emile
Durkheim, is primarily a theorist of social cohesion” (p. 86).
Khaldun compared societies to individuals when he asserted that “dynasties have
a natural life span like individuals” (Muqaddimah, 1958, p. 343). Like Khaldun,
Durkheim applied biological metaphors and analogies to describe social changes. Both
scholars conceptualized society as a social organism which evolves or develops from
being simple and mechanical to being complex and organic (Durkheim, 1984).
Khaldun noted that “human beings cannot live and exist except through social
organization and cooperation” (Muqaddimah, 1958, p. 33). This concept was similar to
Durkheim’s notion that “society cannot exist if its parts are not solidary” (Durkheim,
1984, p. 332). Khaldun discussed the well-developed division of labor in urban areas,
and proposed that division of labor occurred as a result of a transition in lifestyles from
rural to urban society. This idea was quite similar to Durkheim’s for the rise of the
division of labor, caused by a transition from mechanical solidarity to organic solidarity
(Baali, 1988).
Khaldun closely examined how economical factors affect society. However, he
did not ignore noneconomic factors like asabiyah (social solidarity) and religion.
Khaldun, like Durkheim, treated religion as a culturally determined social fact; that
is, civilizations can continue without “religious laws.” Khaldun preceded Durkheim
with regard to emphasizing the positive role of religion in social control and group
harmony. Religion fortifies social solidarity, an idea Durkheim highlighted some
500 years after Khaldun (Baali, 1988). Moreover, Khaldun’s analysis on religion
is regarded as “the beginning of a sociology of religion” (Becker and Barnes, 1952,
p. xiii). In Khaldun’s perspective, religion is the most significant player to solidify
society, followed by kinship (Mohammad, 1998). Khaldun’s association of religion
with primitive society presented the same idea as the function of religion in
Durkheim’s mechanical solidarity which minimized individual differences signifying
that “ideas and tendencies common to all the members of the society are greater in
number and intensity than those which pertain personally to each member”
(Durkheim, 1984, p. 332).
Both Khaldun and Durkheim discovered social phenomena according to principles
of social change. Moreover, Khaldun recognized and laid down the law of causality in
his new science (Baali, 1988). Furthermore, like Khaldun, Durkheim pointed out that
“higher societies can maintain themselves in equilibrium only if labor is divided”
(Durkheim, 1984, p. 397).
22 Mehmet Soyer & Paul Gilbert
Khaldun’s Contributions Overlooked by Durkheim
Khaldun stated that rural societies can possess only mechanical solidarity,
whereas more complex urban societies, characterized by greater division of labor,
possess the potential to show signs of organic solidarity. However, Durkheim saw
mechanical solidarity as an inferior form of social cohesion, compared to organic
solidarity (Turchin, 2003).
Durkheim’s conception of social solidarity was developed by contrasting mechanical
and organic solidarity, whereas Khaldun only identified mechanical solidarity. Khaldun
was aware of ‘organic’ civilization, and he held it to be the necessary and essential
requirement of civilization (Gellner, 1981).
From Khaldun’s perspective, tribes were knit from within. While Khaldun perceived
complex societies as undermined by their lack of common will, Durkheim perceived
complex societies as fortified by their domestic interdependence. Indeed, Durkheim
saw social solidarity as challenging for pre-modern people, tracing what simpler people
have to common ideas; by contrast, Khaldun identified tribes as constant and united
together by social solidarity (Spickard, 2001).
The collapse of collective consciousness generated a greater role for the institution
of the State, whereas the breakdown of asabiyah (social solidarity) for Ibn Khaldun
initiated the disintegration of the State. Therefore, the loss of social solidarity in both
cases created two different forms of social changes (Mohammed, 1998).
In Khaldun’s theory, the nomadic and sedentary lives of cities were contrasted;
through this comparison, the concept of social solidarity –esprit de corps- was developed.
The nomadic lifestyle encompassed an explicitly strong social cohesion that decreased in
intensity as the society urbanized. Khaldun’s frame developed concepts of cyclical theory
and social dynamics over nomadic and sedentary society (Barnes and Becker, 1952).
Bedouins survived with bare necessities, while sedentary people live more comfortably.
Humans first pursued bare necessities. After fulfilling those needs, humans sought
comfort. Nomadic people typically urbanized, the goal (ghaya) of rural society
(Muqaddimah, 1958). Khaldun divided primitive “societal structure” (Al- Araki, 1983, p.
4) into the following: (1) Agricultural societies, “those who make their living through the
cultivation of grain and through agriculture” (2) Pastoral societies, “those who make
their living from animals such as sheep and cattle, requiring pasturage” and (3) Camel
desert societies, “those who make their living by raising camels” (Muqaddimah, 1958,
p.251). In rural society, these three primitive social structures were the result of blood ties,
alliance and clientship. Khaldun believed the first type, blood ties, embodied the most
influential of the social structures and consisted of the strongest feelings of social solidarity:
It took precedence over relationships from other ties. The meaning of clientship
represented loyalty to religion or religious affiliation. In Khaldun’s perspective, religion
was capable of generating prominent feelings of social solidarity (Rabi, 1967).
Khaldun believed that the negative influences of luxury and comfort in everyday
life were experienced by sedentary people. On the other hand, Bedouins, who lived
Debating the Origins of Sociology: Ibn Khaldun as a Founding Father of Sociology 23
with bare necessities, were closer to the natural and pure life preserved through a
limited social life. Sedentary life imposed many opportunities which could produce
harmful consequences. Hence, primitive people were prevented from engaging in
activities with negative results without even being aware of it. The last stage of human
civilization was represented by sedentary life; however, this peak point marked the
beginning of degeneration and decay (Muqaddimah, 1958). To quote Khaldun,
“Sedentary culture is the goal of civilization. It means the end of its life span and brings
about its corruption” (Muqaddimah, 1958, p.291).
Baali (1988) demonstrated the summarized table that illustrates the characteristic
of Khaldunian Typology which is rural and urban society. (See Table 1).
Table 1
(Modified from [Baali, [1988], p. 100]): The Characteristics of Rural and Urban Societies
Ibn Khaldun’s Typology
Rural Society Urban Society
Preceded Urban society; it is the origin of civilization Indebted to rural society for its origin
(population).
Small population with low density Large population with high density
Occupations are limited mainly to agriculture and Occupations are varied but “secondary and
animal husbandry subsequent” to rural people’s crafts
Division of labor and specialization are simple Complex division of labor necessitates
specialization.
Bare necessities of living; less comfortable living Abundant and comfortable life.
More brave Less brave
Strong sense of social solidarity Weak solidarity. Social solidarity may
vanish
Purity of lineage Lineages are “mixed up.”
Closer to being good “more remote from the More deviance and “blameworthy
evil habits.” qualities.”
Little or no change in customs and habits. Change is inevitable and expected.
Emphasis is on informal social control Use of “restraining laws” by “authorities
and the government.”
Prevalence of illiteracy or minimal education Learning is stressed; arts and sciences are
cultivated.
Generally, less clever More clever as a result of scientific and
related activities
Durkheim’s Contributions Overlooked by Khaldun
The initial issue to be discussed is Durkheim’s evolutionary perspective on social change,
which he conceptualized as changing in a linear form from one stage to another. As the
division of labor increased in a society, members of society begin to perform more
specialized tasks in professions. This indicated that a society evolved from being simple
or “mechanical” to more complex or “organic” in nature. Societal development towards
24 Mehmet Soyer & Paul Gilbert
modernization and industrialization was directed from a mechanical to an organic state.
These changes could be observed through enlarged population density, increased
communication between mechanical societies, specialization, and a division of labor
(Durkheim, 1984). Moreover, Durkheim argued that social change is intrinsic to society;
it was inherent in the nature of society. The main reason behind this change is the
division of labor that stimulated the transition from mechanical solidarity to organic
solidarity. (Durkheim, 1984).
Durkheim explained the role of division of labor in a society. He stated that the
division of labor accelerated both the reproductive capacity and skill of workmen.
Consequently, this increase in both economic and material conditions has provided
the necessary catalyst for intellectual societal development. However, the division of
labor entailed a moral facet that was more important: it could create a feeling of solidarity
between people. Durkheim used the example of a married couple to explain how the
division of labor contributes to feelings of solidarity. That is, people working together
towards a common goal, albeit performing different tasks, have “fellow feeling” or
group cohesion. He asserted that the division of labor went beyond purely economic
interests; it constituted the establishment of a social and moral order “sui
generis.”Durkheim contended that “these great political societies cannot sustain their
equilibrium save by the specialization of tasks; the division of labor is the source...of
social solidarity.” The division of labor included a moral element because the integral
components that it fulfilled for social solidarity, order, and harmony were moral needs
(Durkheim, 1984, p. 23).
Durkheim held that the most visible symbol of social solidarity was law. Durkheim
understood law as the form most representative of these types of organization,
mechanical and organic societies. The first type was the repressive or punishing law,
which delegated some form of punishment upon the offender. The second type was
“restitutive,” which did not necessarily imply suffering on the part of the victim, but
consisted of restoring the previous relationships that had been disturbed from their
normal form (Durkheim, 1984). Durkheim claimed that repressive law created a society
characterized by mechanical solidarity and that penal rules expressed the basic
conditions for repressive law. Deviant acts “disturb[s] those feelings that in any one
type of society are to be found in every healthy conscious” (Durkheim, 1984, p. 40).
Penal law demonstrated the strength of collective reaction to a given action in a
mechanical society. Durkheim defined an act as criminal when it offended the collective
conscience. He stated, “It is actually public opinion and opposition which constitutes
the crime” (Durkheim, 1984, p. 40).Durkheim claimed that, unlike repressive law,
restitutory law focuses on restoring society. Moreover, restitutory law worked through
more specialized bodies such as courts, magistrates, and lawyers, while repressive law
tended to remain diffused throughout society (Durkheim, 1984).
Durkheim asserted that there are two types of solidarity. The first, mechanical
solidarity, established a bond between the individual and society because of the
similarities everyone shares. The second, organic solidarity generated social cohesion
Debating the Origins of Sociology: Ibn Khaldun as a Founding Father of Sociology 25
because a type of cooperation existed between the various “parts” or functions of society
(Durkheim, 1984). These relationships were partly organized by a division of labor.
Each individual must have had a function and a unique set of relationships with other
members. Individuality grew at the same time as the parts of society intensified in
complexity. Society became more effective at managing its various functions as the
elements increased their specific duties (Durkheim, 1984). Durkheim described a simple
society as one where its members had quite similar attitudes, beliefs, and material
living conditions. Yet, he recognized that mechanical societies could be placed on a
continuum: some were more complex than others. In this discussion, he mentioned the
“horde,” a social arrangement in which all its members live exactly the same ideal and
material lives. Durkheim contrasted the horde with the clan, which is a more developed
social group, which is established by several hordes coming together. Durkheim
emphasized the level of uniting, fusing or “complete coalescence” of the society as the
main criteria for classification of social types (Durkheim, 1984).
Religion
To conceptualize the term “religion,” Durkheim separated the concepts of “rites” and
“beliefs.” Since rites involved actions motivated by beliefs, first he defined “beliefs.”
Durkheim held that all religious beliefs shared one common characteristic: “they
presuppose a classification of all the things real and ideal, of which men think, in to
two classes or opposed groups, … [the] profane and sacred.” He defined religion as “a
unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, beliefs, and practices
which unite into one single moral community called a church, all those who adhere to
them” (Durkheim, 1976, p. 37).
Suicide
Durkheim asserted that the collapse of social solidarity led to abnormal behavior, a
phenomenon he called anomie. While Khaldun did recognize how the breakdown of
social solidarity resulted in pathological behavior during his time, his conceptualization
of anomie was less systematic than that of Durkheim (Ahmed, 2003). Khaldun understood
the causes of the breakdown of social solidarity leading to anomie in this fashion:
By its nature, kingdom demands peace. When people grow used to being at peace
and at ease, such ways, like any habit, become part of their nature and character.
The new generations grow up in comfort, in a life of tranquility and ease. The old
savagery is transformed. The ways of the desert which made them rulers, their
violence, rapacity, skill at finding their way in the desert and travelling across wastes,
are lost. They now differ from city folk only in their manner and dress. Gradually
their prowess is lost, their vigor is eroded, their power undermined.... As men adopt
each new luxury and refinement, sinking deeper and deeper into comfort, softness,
and peace, they grow more and more estranged from the life of the desert and the
desert toughness. They forget the bravery which was their defense. Finally, they
come to rely for their protection on some armed force other than their own.
(Muqaddimah III, 1958, p. 341).
26 Mehmet Soyer & Paul Gilbert
In Suicide, Durkheim explained the social causes of suicide. He proposed three
different types of suicide, based on the degrees of imbalance between moral regulation
and social integration. He introduced two important “extra social” causes that have
direct effect on suicide rates: the “organic-psychic dispositions and the nature of physical
environment” (Durkheim, 1951, p. 57).
He compared two different perspectives on suicide. The first perspective proposed
that suicide is mental alienation, and a kind of insanity or disease of mind. The second
perspective claimed that mental illness cannot explain suicide. Although suicide may
be influenced by mental disorders, it cannot be generalized to all cases. Durkheim
combined these two perspectives. He stated that in spite of existing psychological causes,
all people who commit suicide are not insane. However, “suicide may occur in a state
of insanity” (Durkheim, 1951, p. 62). He classified four types of insane suicides. The
first type is maniacal suicide: “this is due to hallucinations or delirious conceptions”
(Durkheim, 1951, p. 63). The motives of this type of suicide are not rational. The second
type of insane suicide is melancholy suicide. This “type is connected with a general
state of extreme depression and sadness” (Durkheim, 1951, p. 63). Chronic hopelessness
and desperation are the most prominent characteristics of this type. The third type is
obsessive suicide; for this type “suicide is caused by no motive, real or imaginary”
(Durkheim, 1951, p. 64), but there is a solid fixed idea of death. Although there is not a
clear reason, the patient possesses a desire to kill himself. The final type is impulsive or
automatic suicide. This type is similar to the previous type in that there is not any real or
unreal motivation. It is an unpredictable and automatic process; even the person who
tried to commit suicide cannot explain or even remember the cause (Durkheim, 1951).
Conclusion
Having made this comparative analysis, there were significant similarities between
Khaldun and the other scholars. Khaldun’s theoretical perspective coincided with these
Western theorists in a two-fold fashion: on one hand, societal innovation and change
proceeds from less advanced to advanced; on the other hand, the progress of change
can be connected to and based on certain materialistic perspectives and forces in the
transformation of societies (Dhaouadi, 2006). Moreover, each scholar explained social
phenomenon in terms of principles of social change.
Khaldun based his argument on two claims. The first claim is that the rise and fall
of civilization can be understood as the interruptible processes of evolution and
transformation. The second claim is expounded in Khaldun’s historical-empirical studies
where he analyzed the social behavior of the Arab world. The culmination for Khaldun
is that no civilization lasts forever (Dhaouadi, 2006).
Khaldun and Comte’s conceptual frameworks are similar to the extent that
they share almost the same approach on historical-empirical method regarding social
progress. Furthermore, both created a “new science” to analyze their epoch. Khaldun
anticipated some theories that were developed by Comte. That is, Khaldun discovered
the essentials of sociology such as the systematic analysis of social structure and group
Debating the Origins of Sociology: Ibn Khaldun as a Founding Father of Sociology 27
behavior and the evolution of less-developed societies to advanced societies some five
centuries before Comte coined the word.
The similarities between Khaldun and Durkheim are so compelling that one can
declare Khaldun’s theory of social system, a dualist typology, similar to Durkheim’s
typology. Moreover, Khaldun’s concept of “Asabiyah” and Durkheim’s concept of
“solidarity” are identical. It can be said that Khaldun’s theories on “Asabiyah,” “Division
of labor,” and “Religion” were highlighted and developed by Durkheim some 500
years later.
One limitation to this paper lay in the difficulty to analyze to analyze these theorists
in a structured way since each scholar has his own conceptual theoretical framework.
Furthermore, a limitation in examining Khaldun’s work discloses that while he
anticipated sociological theories such as conflict theories, social organization theories,
and social change theories, the anticipated theories are not methodological and totally
systematic. The question is how a researcher would test and operationalize empirically
some of Khaldun’s concepts.
In conclusion, Khaldun’s theoretical framework demonstrates elements of the later
theories of Comte and Durkheim. Because Khaldun anticipated theories developed by
subsequent well-known theorists, he remains relevant to modern sociology. After
comparing Khaldun’s theoretical framework with these later founding fathers of
sociology, it appears reasonable to suggest that Khaldun was a founding father of
sociology as well. This study provides insights to Khaldun’s sociological framework
and vividly illustrates Khaldun’s relevance to sociological theory. However, it only
provides a beginning to the integration of Khaldun’s theoretical framework within
modern sociological curricula.
References
Ahmed, A. (2003), Islam under Siege: Living Dangerously in a Post-Honor World, Blackwell
Publishing.
Ahmed, A. (2002), Discovering Islam: Making Sense of Muslim History and Society. London,
Routledge.
Ahmed, A. (2002), Ibn Khaldun’s Understanding of Civilizations and the Dilemmas of Islam
and the West Today, Middle East Journal, 56(1), 20.
Ahmed, A. (2005, November), Ibn Khaldun and Anthropology: The Failure of Methodology in
the Post 9/11 World. Contemporary Sociology, 34(6), 591-596.
Ahmad, Z. (2003), The Epistemology of Ibn Khaldun. New York, Routledge Curzon.
Al-Araki, A. M. (1983), Ibn Khaldun: Discourse of the Method and Concepts of Economic
Sociology. http://home.online.no/~al-araki/arabase2/ibn/khald0001.html
Alatas, S. (2006, January), The Autonomous, the Universal and the Future of Sociology. Current
Sociology, 54(1), 7-23.
Alatas, S. (2006, November), Ibn Khaldun and Contemporary Sociology. International Sociology,
21(6), 782-795.
28 Mehmet Soyer & Paul Gilbert
Alatas, S. (2007, May), The Historical Sociology of Muslim Societies, International Sociology, 22(3),
267-288.
Al-Azmeh, A. (1982), Ibn Khaldun: An Essay in reinterpretation. London: Frank Cass.
Ali, S. (1977), Intellectual Foundations of Muslim Civilization. Lahore: Publishers United.
Andreski, S., Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. (2003), Military Organization and Society, London, Routledge
Arnason, J. & Stauth, G. (2004, February), Civilization and State Formation in the Islamic Context:
Re-reading Ibn Khaldun, Thesis Eleven, 76, p. 29-47.
Baali F. (1988), Society, State, and Urbanism: Ibn Khaldun’s Sociological Thought, Albany, Sunny,
Press.
Baali, F., Wardi A. (1981), Ibn Khaldun and Islamic Thought-styles: A Social Perspective. Boston,
G. K. Hall.
Barnes H. & Becker H. (1938), Social Thought: From Lore to Science (Vols. 1-2) Washington, Heath
and Company
Baumer, F. (1978), Main Currents of Western Thought: Readings in Western European Intellectual
History from the Middle Ages to the Present. Yale University Press.
Black, A. (2001), The History of Islamic Political Thought: From the Prophet to the Present. New York,
Routledge
Bogardus, E. (1960), The Development of Social Thought. New York: McKay.
Bradford, R. H. (1963), Pitirim A. Sorokin As Historical and Systemic Analyst. Modern Social
Theories.
Bulliet, R. W. ( 2006), The Case for Islamo-Christian Civilization. Columbia University Press Busch,
B. C. (1968, May), Divine Intervention in the “Muqaddimah” of Ibn Khaldûn. History of
Religions, 7(4), 317-329.
Chapra, M. (2008, April), Ibn Khaldun’s Theory of Development: Does it Help Explain the Low
Performance of the Present-day Muslim World? Journal of Socio-Economics, 37(2), 836-863.
Cohen, G. (1959), Ibn Khaldun: Rediscovered Arab Philosopher. Midstream, 77-9, New York.
Comte, A. (1896), The Philosophy of Positivism, Free Press.
Darling, L. (2007, April), Social Cohesion (‘Asabiyya) and Justice in the Late Medieval Middle
East. Comparative Studies in Society & History, 49(2), 329-357.
Dhaouadi, M. (2006), The Concept of Change in the Thought of Ibn Khaldun and Western Classical
Sociologists. Turkish Journal of Islamic Studies, 16, 43-87.
Dhaouadi, M. (2005, November), The Ibar: Lessons of Ibn Khaldun’s Umran Mind, Contemporary
Sociology, 34(6), 585-591.
Dover, Cedric (1952), The Racial Philosophy of Ibn Khaldun, Phylon, 13(2), 107-119.
Durkheim, E. (1984), The Division of Labor in Society, New York, Free Press.
Durkheim, E. (1912), The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, New York, Free Press.
Durkheim, E. (1941), Suicide, New York, Free Press.
Enan, M. A. (1979), Ibn Khaldun: His Life and Work, New Delhi, Kitab Bhavan.
Faghirzadeh S. (1982), Sociology of Sociology, Tehran.
Fleischer, C. (1983, July), Royal Authority, Dynastic Cyclism, and Ibn Khaldunism in Sixteenth
Century Ottoman Letters. Journal of Asian and African Studies, 18, 198-220.
Flint, R. (1884), Vico. Harvard University: W. Blackwood.
Debating the Origins of Sociology: Ibn Khaldun as a Founding Father of Sociology 29
Frers, L. (2004), Ibn Khaldun and Comte: Discontinuity or progress? http://userpage.fu berlin.
de/~frers/ibn_khaldun.html
Fukuyama, F. (2002), The End of History and the Last Man, New York, Perennial.
Gellner, Ernest (1981), Muslim Society, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Gibb, H.A.R. (1962), Studies on the Civilization of Isalm. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Gierer A. (2001), Ibn Khaldun on Solidarity (“Asabiyah”)- Modern Science on Cooperativeness
and Empathy: A Comparison. Philosphia Naturalis, 38, 91-104.
Goodman, L. (1972), Ibn Khaldun and Thucydides, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 92,
250-270.
Grunebaum V., Gustave E. (1946), Medieval Islam; A Study in Cultural Orientation. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Gumplowicz, L. (1980), Outlines of Sociology. New Jersey: Paine-Whitman Publishers.
Hitti, P. K. (1937), History of the Arabs. London: Macmillan.
Hopkins, N. (1990), Engels and Ibn Khaldun. Alif: Journal of Comparative Poetics, 10, 9.
Hynson, L. M. (1974), Classical Theories of Social Change, 54, 100-101.
Issawi, C. (1950), An Arab Philosophy of History: Selections from the Prolegomena of Ibn Khaldun of
Tunis (1332–1406), (C. Issawi, Trans.), New York, John Murray
Katsiaficas, G. (1996, December), Ibn Khaldun: A Dialectical Philosopher for the New Millennium.
Perspective in African Philosophy.
Lana, R. (1987, December), Ibn Khaldun and Vico: The Universality of Social History. Journal of
Mind and Behavior, 8(1), 153-165.
Lawrence, B. (1983), Introduction: Ibn Khaldun and Islamic Ideology, Journal of Asian and African
Studies.
Lawrence, B. (1983, July), Ibn Khaldun & Islamic Reform, Journal of Asian and African Studies, 18,
221-240.
Lester, F.W. (1907), Pure Sociology: A Treatise on the Origin and Spontaneous Development of Society.
New York, Macmillan.
Lewis, B. (1988), Ibn Khaldun in Turkey. Studies on Turkish-Arab Relations, 3, 107-110.
Lewis, B. (1993), The Arabs in History, New York, Oxford University Press.
Mahdi, M. (2006), Ibn Khaldu’s Philosophy of History: A Study in the Philosophic Foundation of
History, Kuala Lumpur: The Other Press.
Maier J. (1995), Weber & Toennies: Comparative Sociology in Historical Perspective. Transaction
Publishers.
Margoliouth D.S. (1967), ‘Ibn Khaldun’ in Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. New York, Macmillan.
Martindale, D. (1960), The Nature and Types of Sociological Theory. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Moaddel, M. (2002), The Study of Islamic Culture and Politics: An Overview and Assessment.
Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 359-386.
Mohammad F. (1998), Ibn Khaldun’s Philosophy of Social Change: A Comparison with Hegel,
Marx and Durkheim. American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences, 15(2), 26-45.
Moujetan, B.A. (1981), Ibn Khaldun and His Cycle of Fatalism: A Critique, Studia Islamica, 53,
93, 108.
30 Mehmet Soyer & Paul Gilbert
Oppenheimer, F. (1932), Tendencies in Recent German Sociology. TheSociological Review, 24(3).
Outhwaite, W. (2003), The Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought. Wiley-Blackwell.
Pompa, L. (1975), Vico: A Study of the New Science, CUP Archive.
Rabý’, M. M. (1967), The Political Theory of Ibn Khaldun, Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Richard, Michel P. (1977), “Sorokin and Social Change.” Social Science, Vol. 52, No. 2, Spring,
94-98.
Rosen, L. (2005, November), Theorizing from Within: Ibn Khaldun and His Political Culture.
Contemporary Sociology, 34(6), 596-599.
Rosenthal, F. (1967), Ibn Khaldun: The Muqadimmah: An Introduction of History (Vols. 1-3). New
York, Bollingen Foundation.
Rosenthal, F. (1983, July), Ibn Khaldun in his Time (May 27, 1332-March 17, 1406). Journal of
Asian and African Studies, 18, 166-178.
Said, A., Funk N.C., Kadayifci A.S. (Eds.). (2001), Peace and Conflict Resolution in Islam. New
York, University Press of America.
Sarton, G. (1927-47), Introduction to the History of Science, Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins Company.
Schmidt, N. (1967), Ibn Khaldun, Historian, Sociologist, and Philosopher, New York, Ams Press.
Sklair L. (2003), The Sociology of Progress. Routledge.
Sorokin, P. A. (1928), Contemporary Sociological Theories. New York: Harper & Brothers.
Sorokin, P. A. (1947), Society, Culture, and Personality: Their Structure and Dynamics, a System
of General Sociology, New York, Harper & Brothers.
Sorokin, P. A. (1985), Social and Cultural Dynamics: A Study of Change in Major Systems of Art,
Truth, Ethics, Law, and Social Relationships. Transaction Publishers.
Sorokin, P. A. (1998), On the Practice of Sociology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Sorokin, P. A., Zimmerman, C., Galpin C. (1930-33), A Systematic Source Book in Rural Sociology,
Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press.
Spickard, J. (2001, March), Tribes and Cities: Towards an Islamic Sociology of Religion, Social
Compass, 48(1), 103.
Stowasser, B. F. (1983, January), Religion and Political Development: Some Comparative Ideas
on Ibn Khaldun and Machiavelli. Center for Contemporary Arab Studies Occasional Papers Series.
Thompson, J. W. (1942), A History of Historical Writing. New York, The Macmillan Company.
Timasheff, N. S. (1966), Sociological Theory: Its Nature and Growth. New York: Random House.
Toynbee, A. (1934), A Study of History. London: Oxford University Press.
Trevor-Roper, H. R. (1957), Historical Essays. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Turchin, Peter (2003), Historical Dynamics: Why States Rise and Fall. Princeton University Press.
Vico, G. (1984), The New Science of Giambattista Vico, (T. G. Bergin & M. H. Fisch Trans.) Ithaca,
New York, Cornell University Press.
Wallerstein, I. M. (1979), The Capitalist World-economy: Essays, Cambridge University Press.
Weikart, R. (2003), Progress Through Racial Extermination: Social Darwinism, Eugenics, and
Pacifism in Germany, 1860-1918, German Studies Review, 26(2), 273-29.
