towards a new science of civilization - srce

OriginalpaperUDC001:17.023.36(045)(083.77)doi:10.21464/sp31206

ReceivedFebruary13th,2016

Osman BakarSultanOmarʽAliSaifuddienCentreforIslamicStudies,

UniversityofBruneiDarussalam,JalanTungkuLink,BE1410,BN–[email protected]

Towards a New Science of CivilizationA Synthetic Study of the Philosophical Views of

al-Farabi, Ibn Khaldun, Arnold Toynbee, and Samuel Huntington

AbstractThis article presents a synthetic study of the philosophical views of al-Farabi and Ibn Khal-dun from classical Islam and Arnold Toynbee and Samuel Huntington from the modern West on the subject of civilizational science. On the basis of the Aristotelian idea of a true science, this article argues that al-Farabi and Ibn Khaldun were the real founders of civili-zational science. Through his reformulation of the topics constituting the subject matter of this science as first defined by al-Farabi, Ibn Khaldun immediately made the science more comprehensive and created several new sciences as its branches. Within the epistemologi-cal framework of Ibn Khaldun’s new civilizational science, Toynbee developed the study of comparative civilization, which is yet to attain its true status as a science. It is further ar-gued that Huntington’s possible contribution to civilizational science would be through the concept of politics of civilization. A more refined civilizational science may only emerge in this century if the civilizational views of these thinkers and others are to be synthesized.

Keywordscivilization,science,Islam,thephilosophical,epistemology,‘umran,madani,socialorgani-zation,thepolitical,theintellectual

Introduction

Themainaimofthisarticleistodiscussthekeyideasandconceptsthataredeemedintegraltoanyacademicdisciplinethatclaimstobeatruescienceofcivilization.Sincetheconceptofscienceofcivilizationisbynomeansclear toeveryscholaroracademic in the social sciencesand thehumani-ties,noteven tomostof the students specializing incivilizational studiesthemselves,thereisagreatneedtoclarifythefullmeaningofthescienceinquestion.Thisneed,whichwemaintainisprimarilyanepistemologicalone,dictatesaninquiryintothenecessaryandsufficientconditionsforthecreationofthescienceofcivilization.Thisarticleproposestoundertakethisepistemologicalinquirythroughselectedstudiesoftheviewsofwell-knownworldthinkersonthesubjectofcivilization.Forthepurposeofthisstudywehaveselectedfoursocial thinkers, twoofwhomarefromtheclassicalIslamicperiod,whiletheothertwoarefromthemodernWest.Thetwoclas-sicalMuslimthinkersareal-Farabi(870–950CE)1andIbnKhaldun(1332–

1

Foracomprehensiveanddetailedaccountofthelife,worksandsignificanceofal-Farabi,

seeOsmanBakar,Al-Farabi: Life, Works and Significance, Kuala Lumpur: The Islamic

https://doi.org/10.21464/sp31206

SYNTHESISPHILOSOPHICA62(2/2016)pp.(313–333)

O.Bakar,TowardsaNewScienceofCivi-lization314

1406).2ArnoldToynbee(1889–1975)3andSamuelHuntington(1927–2008)4arepresentedhere as theirmodernWestern counterparts byvirtueof theircommonconcernwithcivilizational issues,notwithstandingthewideintel-lectualgapthatseparatesthemfrombothal-FarabiandIbnKhalduninsofarastheirworldviewsareconcerned.Inourview,forthepurposeofstudyingtherathercomplexissueofthesci-enceofcivilization,ourchoiceofthefoursocialthinkersinreviewisquitejustifiedandalsomeaningful.Allofthemdealtwithcivilizationalissues,al-thoughindepthandbreadththeirrespectivetreatmentsoftheseissuessome-whatdifferfromeachother.Theyhaddifferentphilosophicalperspectivesonthemeaningandsignificanceofcivilization.Therearecommonalitiesaswellasdifferencesintheirconceptionsofcivilizationthatareinthemselvesissuesofgreat importance tocomparativecivilizationalstudies inourowntimes.ToynbeeandHuntingtonweretwentiethcenturycontemporaries,whowereseparatedintimefromIbnKhaldunbymorethanfivecenturies.IbnKhaldun,inturn,wasseparatedfromhisfellowMuslimpredecessor,al-Farabi,byan-otherfivecenturies.Thus,intheentirespanofathousandyearsthatseparatedal-FarabifromHuntingtonweseeIbnKhaldunasoccupyingakindofmiddlepositionbetweenthem,atleastinitstemporalifnotalsointellectualsense.However, it is IbnKhaldun’smiddle position, in its intellectual sense be-tweenearlyclassicalIslam,withwhichweidentityal-FarabiandlateWesternmodernitywithwhichweidentifyToynbeeandHuntingtonthatinterestsusmorehere.TheissueofIbnKhaldun’sintellectuallinkwiththephilosophicaltraditionof al-Farabi’s tenth-century Islam thatprecededhimandwithhisfutureadmirersamongthesocialthinkersofthenineteenthandthetwentiethcenturiesisindeedofgreatinteresttocontemporaryscholars.WearguethatitispossibletodefineIbnKhaldun’smiddlepositionthusunderstood.Incivili-zationalterms,aspanoffiveoreventencenturiesisnotconsideredasalongperiodoftime.Suchalengthykindofspanoftime,asthiswouldbeviewedbythepurelyempiricalsciences,isbynomeansproblematictoscholarsofcivilizationalstudieswhoareusuallygiftedwithauniversalandholisticmindtocomprehend,oraneagle’seyetovisualizecivilizationalphenomenaoveralongperiodoftime.Butthereareprerequisitestotherealizationofsuchacomprehensionorvisualization.WemustknowtheintellectuallandscapeandclimateofbothearlyclassicalIslamandlatemodernityintheWestbetweenwhichIbnKhaldunissaidtointellectuallystandwell,aswellashisintellec-tualoutlookandhiscontemporaneousworld.TherehaveactuallybeenmanymodernWesternscholars,includingToynbee,whoseestimationof IbnKhaldunasa thinkerwouldplace the latter inanintellectualpositionthat,whileconnectedtotheearlyIslamicphilosophicalschools,was also advanced enough as to be recognized bymodern socialthinkersbothintheWestandintheIslamicworldastheirownintellectualfather.Accordingtothisview,IbnKhaldunwasblessedwithamindthatwascharacteristically“modern”,thatsethimfarapartfromhisMuslimpredeces-sorsorcontemporaries.Forthisreasonitisunderstandablewhymanymodernscholarswereattractedtohisworks,especiallythecelebratedMuqaddimahthatservesasanintroductiontohisvoluminousworkonhistoryandciviliza-tion,Kitab al-‘ibar (The Book of Lessons).5TheMuqaddimah, inparticular,earnedhimuniversalacclaimasthefounderofmodernsociologyandotherscholarly tributes, includingbeingacknowledgedas the founderof severalothermoderndisciplinessuchaseconomicsandphilosophyofhistory.Forexample,thelateMuhsinMahdi,anIraqi-AmericanandcontemporaryHar-



vardauthorityonclassicalIslamicpoliticalphilosophy,andhiscontemporary,HeinrichSimon,aGermanscholarofclassicalIslamicthought,bothclaimedthatIbnKhaldunwasthefounderofanewscienceofcultureorcivilization

Academy of Science, 1987. This book wasbased on a chapter of the author’s doctoralthesis thatwas presented to theDepartmentof Religion, Temple University in Philadel-phia,USA.Whenthisthesiswasfirstentirelypublishedasabookunderthetitle Classifica-tion of Knowledge in Islam (KualaLumpur:Institute for Policy Studies, 1992) withoutany changesmade to its content, its chapter1, dealing with the life, works and signifi-cance of al-Farabi,was thus retained as thefirstchapterofthenewbook.Thereareonlyafewcontemporarywritingsthatprovidede-tailedupdatedaccountsofal-Farabi’slifeandworks.Itwasonlyfifteenyearsaftertheap-pearanceofourbookonal-Farabi’sbiographythat another work on the same subject waspublished. The work, written by Majid Fa-khry,awell-knownmodernscholarofthehis-toryofIslamicphilosophytowhomwemadeseveralreferencesinourtwoworksjustcited,has the title Al-Farabi, Founder of Islamic Neoplatonism: His Life, Works and Influ-ence (OneworldPublications,2002),whichissimilartoours.InresponsetotheclaimmadeinFakhry’swork that it is the first compre-hensivetreatmentofthisPeripateticphiloso-phertohavebeenmade,itmightbepertinenttopointoutthatsixoutofelevenchaptersofourClassification of Knowledge in Islamaredevoted to the studyof the life and thoughtof al-Farabi. Probably because its title doesnotmentional-Farabithebookescapestheat-tentionofmanypeopleinterestedinknowingmoreabouthis thought.However, thisbookishighlyrelevant toourpresentstudy,sinceit includes treatment of al-Farabi’s idea of‘scienceofcivilization’or‘civilizationalsci-ence’(al-‘ilm al-madani),forthefirsttimeinIslamichistorythatsuchanideawaseverex-pounded.Al-Farabi’sideaofthissciencewillbediscussedlaterinfurtherdetail.

2

Unlike in thecaseofal-Farabi,wehave farmore sources that we could rely upon forour knowledge of IbnKhaldun’s biography.Tostartwith IbnKhaldun isknowntohavewritten an autobiography,whichwas editedbyMuhammadTawital-Tanjiandpublishedunder the title al-Ta‘rif bi ibn Khaldun wa Rihlatuh Gharban wa Sharqan [Biography of Ibn Khaldun and Report on his Travels in the West and in the East], Cairo:Lajnatal-ta’lifwa’l-tarjamahwa’l-nashr,1951.Foritsmorerecentedition,seeThe Autobiography of Ibn Khaldun (inArabic),JiahuBooks,2013.ThisautobiographyhasservedasausefulbasisforlaterhistoriansandscholarsbothintheMus-limworldandinthemodernWesttoproducea more complete account of Ibn Khaldun’s

biography.Thesemodernbiographies,amongtheprominentones,includethoseof WilliamMacGuckin de Slane (in French) and FranzRosenthal,whichwereincludedintheintro-ductions to their respective translations ofthe Muqaddimah, Ibn Khaldun’s celebratedwork. For the biography part of each trans-lation, see IbnKhaldoun,Les prolegomenes d’Ibn Khaldoun, ed. and trans. byWilliamMacGuckindeSlane,Paris: Imprimerie im-périale,1863,Vol.1,pp.vi–lxxxiii;andIbnKhaldun,The Muqaddimah: An Introduction to History, trans. by Franz Rosenthal, Lon-don,Henley:Routledge&KeganPaul,1986,Vol. 1, pp. xxix–lxvii. Another biographyworthyofmentionisthatofMuhammadAb-dullahEnan,Ibn Khaldun, His Life and Work,Lahore, 1941.Themost recent and also themost completebiographyof IbnKhaldun istheworkofAllenJamesFromherz,Ibn Khal-dun: Life and Times, Edinburgh: EdinburghUniversityPress,2011.

3

ThereareseveralworksonthelifeofArnoldJosephToynbee. See, in particular,WilliamH.McNeill,Arnold J. Toynbee: A Life,Ox-ford: Oxford University Press, 1989; andLouise Orry, Arnold Toynbee, Brief Lives,Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1997.How-ever,therearemanyworkswrittenabouthisthoughtsparticularlypertainingtohistoryandhumancivilization as contained inhismag-numopus,A Study of History (Oxford:Ox-fordUniversityPress,1934–1961),atwelve-volumebookonuniversalhistoryforwhich,byandlarge,hebecamewidelyknown.

4

A realbiographyofHuntington isyet tobewritten. He died only in 2008 making himthemost recent of our four selected figuresunderstudy.Likeal-Farabi,IbnKhaldunandToynbee, Huntington also has at least onewell-knownworkdealingwithcivilizationalissuesthatmayservetheverypurposeofourpresentstudy,whichistoassesstheirpossiblecontributionstothecreationofanewscienceof civilization. ForHuntington, thework inquestionisThe Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order,NewYork:Simon&Schuster,1996.

5

The full title of the book is Kitab al-‘ibar wa diwan al-mubtada’ wa’l-khabar fi tarikh al-‘arab wa’l-barbar wa man ‘asarahum min dhawi al-sha’n al-akbar [The Book of Lessons, Record of Beginnings and Events in the History of the Arabs and the Berbers and Their Powerful Contemporaries],Bulaq,1867–1868,7vols.Hereafter,theintroductiontothisbookwillbecitedastheMuqaddimah.



(‘ilm al-‘umrān).6Thisclaimwillbeexaminedlaterasitisofgreatsignifi-cancetothepresentstudy.Weareparticularlyinterestedininvestigatingtheissueofwhether there is an epistemological continuity in the treatment oftheideaofcivilizationfromal-FarabithroughIbnKhalduntoToynbeeandHuntington.Forthescienceofcivilizationtobeseenasanevolvingscientificdisciplinethatdatedbackinitsorigintopre-moderntimesitisdesirabletoshowthattheenvisagedepistemologicalcontinuityactuallyexists.ItseemstousthatIbnKhaldunservedastheindispensablelinkinthiscontinuity.Toynbee,acontemporaryofbothMahdiandSimon,knewIbnKhaldunandhisMuqaddimah andseemedinspiredbyhim.Hewaslavishinhispraiseofthelatter.InA Study of History ToynbeepraisedIbnKhaldunas“themostilluminatinginterpreterofthemorphologyofhistorythathasappearedany-whereintheworldsofar”.7Toynbeealsoreferredtohimas“theoutstandinggenius in thefieldof thestudyofmorphologyofhistory”.8Hewenton tospeakofIbnKhaldun’s“illuminatinggeneralconclusionsabouttherelationbetweenpoliticsandreligion”.9Inyetanotheracknowledgmentofhisintel-lectualappreciationofhismedievalMuslimpredecessor,Toynbeewrotethefollowing:

“Fromhisobservationshedevelopedapenetratinganalysisofsocialmorphology,embracing,inapanoramicvision,therisesandfallsofempiresandcivilizations.”10

AlthoughToynbee’sexplicitreferencestoIbnKhaldunortheMuqaddimahareratherfew,11wemaydiscernadeepinfluenceofthelatteronthestructureofA Study of Historyandtherangeofcivilizationalideasandissuesthatheaddressedinthework.WemayclaimthattheelevenchaptersofthisworkofToynbeearestructuredalongthelinesoftheMuqaddimah,notwithstandingtheseveralnewthemesincivilizationalstudies thathetreated,particularlyinter-civilizationalrelationsandcomparativecivilization.12

The science of civilization: The Aristotelian roots

Beforediscussing the issueof theepistemicstatusof thescienceofcivili-zation, it isnecessary tofirstmakeclearwhat it takes tocreateanewsci-ence or scientific discipline. In otherwords,we are interested in knowingthefundamentalconstituentsofwhatwecallscienceorscientificdisciplinewhetherthispertainstothestudyofthenaturalorthehumanworld.PriortoIbnKhaldun,theIslamicintellectualtraditionwasalreadyinpossessionofwell-establishedschoolsof thought– legal-ethical,philosophical, theologi-cal,andmystical–thatfoundgeneralagreementamongthemonthemeaningofscientificdiscipline(‘ilm withtheplural‘ulūm),albeitnotwithoutheateddebatesanddisputes.Oneoftheseintellectualschools,popularlyknownasthePeripatetic(mashsha’i)schoolofIslamicphilosophy,wasfoundedbyal-Kindi13(c.801–c.873CE)butprofoundlyshapedanddevelopedbytwoofhisleadingintellectualsuccessors,namelyal-FarabiandIbnSina(980–1037CE).14Withal-Farabibornafewyearsbeforeal-Kindidied,andIbnSina,inturn,onlythreedecadesafterthedeathofal-Farabi,thethreethinkerstogeth-erformedanalmostunbrokenchainofphilosophicaltraditionthatstretchedoveraperiodofapproximatelytwohundredandfiftyyears.ThisphilosophicaltraditionsurviveduntilthetimeofIbnKhaldun.Infact,itfoundanewleaseoflifeduringthesecondhalfofthethirteenthcenturyrightintoIbnKhaldun’scenturythroughtheremarkableintellectualactivities



andcorpusofthephilosophic-scientificcircleledbyNasiral-Dinal-Tusi15(1201–1274CE).Al-Tusi’sfamousstudentandaleadingmemberofhisintel-lectualcircle,16Qutbal-Dinal-Shirazi17(1236–1311CE)diedtwodecades

6

SeeMuhsinMahdi,Ibn Khaldun’s Philosophy of History,Chicago:TheUniversityofChi-cagoPress,1964(firstPhoenixedition);firstpublished in 1957 by GeorgeAllen & Un-winLtd.,London.ItwasMahdiwhointhisworkfirstundertookanin-depthstudyofIbnKhaldun’s‘ilm al-umrān,whichhetranslatedinto English as ‘the science of culture’ (p.10).HeinrichSimonwroteanentireworkinGermanunderthetitleIbn Khalduns Wissen-schaft von der Menschlichen Kulturasadoc-toral thesis thatwas completed in 1956 andpresented in the sameyear to theHumboldtUniversityinBerlin.Butitwasonlyin1959,twoyearsafterthepublicationofMahdi’sIbn Khaldun’s Philosophy of HistorythatSimon’sthesis was published (Leipzig, 1959). Ap-parently,thetwoscholarswerestudyingIbnKhaldun’snewsciencearoundthesametimebutindependentlyofeachother.AccordingtoSimon,hehadaccesstoMahdi’sabovebookwhenhisworkwas already in print. For anEnglishtranslationofSimon’swork,seeIbn Khaldun’s Science of Human Culture, trans.withprefacebyFuadBaali,Lahore:Sh.Mu-hammadAshraf,1978.

7

Arnold Toynbee, A Study of History: The One-Volume Edition Illustrated,London:Ox-ford University Press, Thames and HudsonLtd.,1972,p.489.For thepurposeofrefer-encestoToynbee’sA Study of History inourpresentarticle,weareusingthisnewone-vol-umeedition,whichwasrevisedandabridgedby the author himself in collaboration withJaneCaplan.Hereafter, thisworkiscitedasASH to distinguish it from the original ten-volumework.

8

ArnoldToynbee,ASH, p.490.

9

Ibid.,p.491.

10

Ibid., p.494.

11

The references aremostly found in PartXIof the book entitled “Why Study History?”in the section with the heading “HistoriansinAction,” pp. 489–499. Ibn Khaldun wasoneofthehistoriansinactionsingledoutbyToynbee for the purpose of buttressing hisphilosophyofhistory.

12

A.Toynbee,ASH,pp.7–10.

13

Entitled the “Philosopher of theArabs”, al-Kindiwas noted for his encyclopedic intel-lectualinterestbutwithaconcentrationonthephilosophicalandnaturalsciences.Aprolificauthorwithabout270workstohiscreditandwithimmenseinfluenceinboththemedievaland Renaissance West, al-Kindi has beendescribed by historians of classical Islamicthought as primarily a philosopher-scientist,justlikeothermembersofhisschool.Forthisreason, thephilosophical school he foundedhas also been described as “the school ofphilosopher-scientists”. In justifying the useofthisterm,Nasrarguesthat“inthisschool,sciencewascombinedwithphilosophyand,infact,wasconsideredasabranchofitjustas in another sense philosophy began withthe classification of the sciences. The greatfiguresof this school, likeal-Kindihimself,werephilosophersaswellasscientists.”SeeSeyyedHosseinNasr,Three Muslim Sages,Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress,1969,pp.9–10.SeealsoOsmanBakar,Classifica-tion of Knowledge in Islam,Cambridge:TheIslamicText Society, 1998, pp. 31–32, note7 [1st edition: Kuala Lumpur: Institute forPolicyStudies,1992].

14

Al-Farabi and Ibn Sina were the two intel-lectualgiantsof Islamwhobelonged to thisschool. Another intellectual giant of Islam,al-Ghazzali (1058–1111 CE) who was bornjustayearafterthedeathofIbnSina,butbe-longing to the school of kalām (“dialecticaltheology”),theirbittercritic,consideredthemasthetwomostoutstandingmembersofthePeripateticschool.

15

Onthisfigure,hisintellectualsignificanceandtheintellectualclimateofhistime,seeHamidDabashi,“KhwajahNasiral-Dinal-Tusi:thephilosopher/vizierandtheintellectualclimateofhistimes”,in:History of Islamic Philoso-phy,ed.bySeyyedHosseinNasrandOliverLeaman, London, New York: Routledge,1996,Vol. 1, pp.527–584.SeealsoSeyyedHosseinNasr,Science and Civilization in Is-lam, Cambridge: Harvard University Press,1968, pp. 54–56 [reprint: Cambridge: TheIslamicTextsSociety,2003].

16

Thisnew intellectual circlehas its center inMaraghahinpresent-dayAzerbaijan.

17

On the life, thoughtand significanceof thisphilosopher-scientist seeO. Bakar,Classifi-cation of Knowledge in Islam,chapter10.



beforeIbnKhaldun’sbirth.IbnKhaldunreferredtoal-TusiseveraltimesintheMuqaddimahandspokeofhimasadistinguishedscientistandscholar,18butnotevenoncedidhementionQutbal-Din.IntermsofhiswritingsandintellectualinfluenceinthelatterhistoryofIslamicthought,especiallyinthetraditionofclassifyingthesciences,Qutbal-Dinwasactuallyanimportantfigure.Likeallthefourprominentmembersoftheschooljustmentioned–al-Kindi,al-Farabi, IbnSina,andal-Tusi–Qutbal-Dinalsoauthoredaworkontheclassificationof thesciences.19Athoroughacquaintanceandadeepunderstandingof theclassification tradition thatpreceded IbnKhaldunareespeciallyneededinourpresentinquiryintotheepistemicstatusandcharac-teristicsofthescienceofcivilization.Itwastheclassificationtraditionthatinspired thevariousattempts, sinceal-Farabi andupuntil IbnKhaldun, toarriveatacomprehensivescienceofsociety.Aswehavearguedinseveralofourworks,Qutbal-Din’sclassificationhadanumberofnewfeaturesthatindicatedhisdepartureonseveralissuesfromthelongestablishedandpopularlyacceptedclassificationsystemasrecordedanddiscussedintheMuqaddimah.20Amongthenewfeaturesaretheintroductionofanewcategoryofknowledgeasindicatedbytheterm‘ulūm dīniy21 thathehadcoinedandareinterpretationofthenaqliy-’aqliy divisionofknowledge.Forsomereasonorother,Qutbal-Din’sclassificationescapedtheattentionofIbnKhaldun.Inourcomparativestudyoftheclassificationsofthesetwoscholarswemaintainthat,mostprobably,thelatterwasnotawareoftheexist-enceoftheformer’swork,partlybecauseitwascomposedinthePersianlan-guage.22HadIbnKhaldunknownitandalsorealizeditschallengingepistemo-logicalimplicationsforotherknowledgeclassificationsystems,includinghisown,hewouldprobablyhaveprovidedaninterestingresponse.Regardlessofhowmuchheknewthewritingsofal-TusiandotherintellectuallyprominentmembersofhisMaraghahcircle,theimportantpointtobenotedisthatIbnKhaldunknewtheworksofal-FarabiandIbnSinaparticularlywell,whichconstitutedamajorsourceofinfluenceonhisphilosophicalthought.TheMu-qaddimahcontainsmanyreferencestotheideasofthesetwofamousMuslimPeripatetics,eitherdirectlyorindirectly.ThismeansthatIbnKhaldun’snewscienceofculturecannotbefullyappreciatedunlessattemptsarealsomadetounderstandtheworksofhispredecessorsdealingwithhumansociety.Aroundthemiddleofthetwentiethcentury,whentherewasagrowingacade-micinterestintheWestinIbnKhaldunandtheMuqaddimah,butitsacademiawasstillmostlyinthedarkontheIslamicphilosophicaltraditionpriortohim,wesawtwodistinctresponsesfromthem.OneresponsewastheattempttotreatIbnKhaldunasasolitaryfigurewhosomehowdidnothaveanypredecessorsinfluencinghim.Anotherresponse,asHeinrichSimonputit,wastheattempt“toestablishtheconnectionofIbnKhaldun’sworkwiththephilosophicaltradi-tion”23thatprecededhim.Simon,whoidentifiedhimselfwiththesecondre-sponse,rationalizedhisdoctoralstudyofIbnKhaldun’snewscienceofculturebysayingthatwhathewantedtoimpressupontheworldofscholarshipofhistimewasthathisintellectualachievementwasattainednotinspiteofnothavingcontributionsofideasfromhispredecessors,butratherbecauseofthestrong“tieswhichunitehimwithhispredecessors”that“determinehisbasicphilo-sophicalposition”.24AswecometoknowmoreaboutthehistoryofIslamicphilosophy,Simon’sthesisbecomesmorecorroboratedandstrengthened.AnintegralpartofthephilosophicaltraditiontowhichIbnKhaldunwasheirwas the knowledge classification tradition already discussed. TheMuslimPeripateticcontributiontotheoverallIslamicclassificationtraditionwasim-mense.As a result of this tradition,whichhad its roots inAristotle’s con-



ceptionofscienceandclassificationof thesciences, the ideaofscienceorscientificdisciplinethatwasepistemologicallysoundbecamemorerefinedandclassificationsof thesciencesmoreelaborate.Both in itsnameand initsthoughtsandintellectualperspectivestheIslamicPeripateticschoolwascloselyassociatedor identifiedwithAristotlewhomtheyreferredtoastheFirstTeacher(al-mu‘allim al-awwal).Al-FarabihimselfwashonouredwiththetitleoftheSecondTeacher(al-mu‘allim al-thani).Modernscholarshavesuggesteddifferentreasonswhythishonorifictitlewasconferredonal-Fara-bi.25IbnKhaldunseemstohaveprovidedthegistoftheanswerwhenheof-feredthefollowingexplanation:

“He[Aristotle]improvedthemethodsoflogicandsystematizeditsproblemsanddetails.Heassigned to logic itsproperplaceas thefirstphilosophicaldisciplineand the introduction tophilosophy.Therefore[Aristotle],iscalledtheFirstTeacher.”26

However, SayyedHosseinNasr, a leading contemporary scholar of Islam,whoiswell-versedwiththeIslamicphilosophicaltradition,gaveafullerandappealingexplanationofwhyAristotleandal-FarabiwerehonoredwiththetitlesoftheFirstandtheSecondTeachersrespectively.AccordingtoNasr,theterm‘teacher’ormu‘allim asusedinreferencetobothofthem“[…]doesnotmeanonewhoteachesorisamasterofthesciences.Rather,itmeansonewhodefines,forthefirsttime,theboundariesandlimitsofeachbranchofknowledgeandformulateseachscienceinasystematicfashion.”27

18

The Muqaddimah,Vol.3,pp.148,315.

19

FortheclassificationsoftheseMuslimPeri-pateticsseeAl-Kindi,Fi aqsam al-‘ulūm [On the Divisions of the Sciences],which isdis-cussedindetailsinGeorgeN.Atiyeh,Al-Kin-di, the Philosopher of the Arabs,Rawalpindi:IslamicResearchInstitute,1966,pp.32–40;al-Farabi,Kitab ihsa’ al-‘ulūm [The Book of Enumeration of the Sciences],ed.byʽUthmanAmin,Cairo:Daral-Fikral-’Arabi,1949;IbnSina, Fi aqsam al-‘ulūm al-‘aqliyyah [On the Divisions of the Sciences),trans.MuhsinMahdi in: Ralph Lerner, Muhsin Mahdi,Ernest L. Fortin (eds.), Medieval Political Philosophy: A Sourcebook,NewYork: FreePressofGlenco,1967,pp.95–97.AsforNa-sir al-Din al-Tusi, his classification, whichis confined to the division of practical phi-losophy into ethics, economics and politics,isdiscussedindetailsinThe Nasirean Ethics by Nasir ad-Din Tusi,trans.byG.M.Wick-ens, London: GeorgeAllen & Unwin Ltd.,1964.ForQutbal-Din’sclassificationseehisDurrat al-taj li-ghurrat al-dibaj fi’l-hikmah [Pearls of the Crown, the Best Introduction to Wisdom],Vol. 1, ed. bySayyidMuhammadMishkat,Tehran:Majlis,1317–1324AH.

20

See O. Bakar,Classification of Knowledge,chapter11onQutbal-Din’sclassificationofthesciences;seealsoOsmanBakar,Islamic Civilization and the Modern World: Thematic Essays, Gadong, Brunei Darussalam: UBDPress,2014,chapter4.

21

Literally,thetermmeans‘religioussciences’.Qutb al-Din’s definition of ‘ulūm dīniy asbeingeither transmitted (naqliy)or rational-intellectual (‘aqliy),orboth, is rathernovel.While his religious sciences are viewed asidentical to the Sharia sciences, a featurealready present in al-Ghazzali’s classifica-tion, Qutb al-Din also posits the existenceof another category of knowledge which isneither philosophical (ḥikmiy), nor religiousandwhichhecallsnon-philosophical(ghayr ḥikmiy)andnon-religious(ghayr dīniy).

22

For this comparative study and the implica-tionsofQutbal-Din’sclassificationforsub-sequent classification attempts in Islam, seeO.Bakar, Islamic Civilization and the Mod-ern World,chapter4.

23

H.Simon, Ibn Khaldun’s Science of Human Culture,p.8.

24

Ibid.,pp.8–9.

25

For a discussion of these different explana-tionsseeSeyyedHosseinNasr,“ChiraFara-biramu‘alim-ithanikhandihand?”inhisEs-says on Farabi,FirstPart,pp.9–14.

26

The Muqaddimah,Vol.3,p.139.

27

S.H.Nasr,Three Muslim Sages,p.134,note13.



Itwasinlightofthisunderstandingoftheterm‘teacher’,Nasrargued,thatboththinkerswerecalledassuch,sinceitisawell-knownfactthateachofthemauthoredwhatwas at once the earliest and themost influential clas-sification of the sciences of the time. In fact, theirworks continued to bereferred to by historians of philosophical and scientific thoughts until ourpresenttimes.InthecaseofAristotle,werefertohisthreefolddivisionofthesciencesintotheoretical,practical,andproductiveasdescribedinPorphyry’sIsagogewhich,intheSyriaclogicaltraditiontowhichal-Farabibecameheir,wasplacedattheheadoftheOrganonasanintroduction.28Asforal-Farabi,theclassification inquestion isentitled Ihsa’ al-‘ulum (Enumeration of the Sciences).29Nasrfurtherstrengthenedhisargumentbyaddinganothercase,whichisthatofMirDamad(d.1631or1632CE),aPersianphilosopher,whoisfondlyreferredtowithintheTwelve-ImamShi’iteworldoftheSafavidsasthe“ThirdTeacher”forhavingperformedthesamekindoftaskAristotleandal-Farabihaddone,butonamuchsmallerscale.30

Al-FarabiisknowntobeoneofthegreatestMuslimcommentatorsofAris-totle.Hewrote commentarieson the entireOrganonwhichconstitutes thewholecorpusofAristotelianlogic.Thesecommentariescontaintheideasandprinciplesthatweretoserveasthebasisofal-Farabi’sconceptionofscientificdisciplineordemonstrativescienceandhisknowledgeclassificationsystem.TheMuslimPeripateticswere thus regarded as disciples of ancientGreeklearning,andparticularlyasthefollowersofAristotle,whowereinstrumentalin transmitting, commenting and interpretingAristotle and the pre-IslamicAristoteliantradition.However,itwouldbemisleadingtoviewthemembersofthisschoolasmeretransmittersandfollowersofAristotle.IneverysciencethattheyhadinheritedfromAristotleandhistradition,bethislogic,physics,ethicsorpolitics,theyhadshownintheircommentariesofhisworksacriticalandindependentmindatwork.WhileretainingmostofhisteachingswhichtheysawasbeingaffirmedbybothreasonandtheIslamicrevelation, theydeparted fromhispositiononmany issues, thereby introducing innovativeideas.Al-Farabi’sknowledgeclassificationsystem isagoodcase inpoint.WhileinspiredbyandbasinghimselfonAristotle’sclassificationofthesci-ences,al-Farabiproducedanoriginalworkonthesubjectthat,amongothers,takesintoaccountthekindoftimeandculturalspaceinwhichhelivedandthought.ThereisbothcontinuityanddiscontinuitybetweenAristotle’sclas-sificationofthesciencesandthatofal-Farabi.31Inthecontextofourpresentstudyweareinterestedintheissueofthecontinuityofepistemologicalprob-lemsencounteredinthenotionoftheall-embracingscienceofsociety,whichAristotleandal-Farabicalled“architectonic”and“al-‘ilm al-madani”respec-tively.AstowhatwouldbethemostaptEnglishrenderingoftheterm,al-‘ilm al-madaniisitselfamatterofdisputeamongmodernscholarsofIslamicthought,particularlythosespecializinginFarabianstudies.Similarly,whileoriginallybasingtheirdefinitionofscientificdisciplineontheAristoteliannotionofscience,theMuslimphilosophersconcernedwithlogicandepistemology,ofwhomal-Farabiisanexcellentexample,continuouslyrefinedtheconceptionuntiltheyarrivedatauniversallyaccepteddefinitionthattranscendsthedifferentschoolsofthought.AccordingtoAristotle,

“Everydemonstrativescienceisconcernedwiththreethings:thesubjectswhichitposits(i.e.thegenuswhoseessentialattributesitstudies),theso-calledcommonaxiomsuponwhichthedemonstrationisultimatelybased,andthirdlytheattributeswhoseseveralmeaningsitassumes.There isno reason,however,whycertain sciences shouldnotdisregard someof these threethings;e.g.,omittoposittheexistenceofthegenusifitsexistenceisevident(fortheexistenceofnumberisnotsoobviousasthatofhotandcold),ortoassumethemeaningoftheattributes



ifitisquiteclear;justasinthecaseofthecommonprinciplesthemeaningof‘whenequalsaresubtractedfromequalstheremaindersareequal’isnotassumed,becauseitiswell-known.Neverthelessthereholdsgood,thisnaturalthreefolddivisionintothesubject,theobjectandthebasisofdemonstration.”32

However,quiteearlyintheIslamicphilosophicaltradition,atleastamongthePeripatetics,arefinementoftheAristoteliandefinitionofsciencehadalreadyoccurred.Whenal-FarabicomposedhisEnumeration of the Sciences hewasalreadyinpossessionofatheoryoftheepistemicstructureandfundamentalconstituentsofatruesciencethatwastobeinheritedbyhissuccessorsinthephilosophictradition.InAristotle’sdefinitionandcharacterizationofdemon-strativesciencequotedaboveweseethatthisscienceisstructuredwiththreeepistemicelementsasitscomponents,namelyitssubjectmatterorobjectofstudy, foundationalaxioms,andobjectorgoalofdemonstration.Al-Farabibroadenedthisdefinitionsoastoincludedisciplinesthatemploydialecticalsyllogismsapartfromthedemonstrativescienceswhichemploydemonstra-tivesyllogisms.33Thus, inhisclassificationofthesciencesheincludesthereligiousscienceofkalām,whichinhisviewlargelyemploysdialecticalsyl-logism.Sinceinhisnotionofscienceal-Farabiisnolongermerelyconcernedwiththedemonstrativetypeofproof(burhān),butalsowiththedialecticaltype (jadal),aslightmodification toAristotle’sdefinitionofscientificdis-cipline isnecessary.Themodificationpertains to the inclusionofmethodsofproofinthelistofthefundamentalstructuralelementsofascience,sinceeachscienceisnowseenashavingitsownmethodsofinquiryintoitssubjectmatterandestablishingproofs. Inotherwords,each truescience isepiste-mologicallystructuredinsuchawaythatithasafourfolddivisionoffunda-mentalconstituentelementsthatdefineit,andnotathreefolddivision.Thefourelementsinquestionarenowidentifiedassubjectmatterofthestudy,foundationalaxiomsaboutthesubjectmatter,methodofstudy,andgoalsandobjectivesofthestudy.These four characteristic features that are common to all the true scienceswere already common knowledge, at least among students of philosophy,whenUmarKhayyam(1048–1131CE),anotherPeripateticandaconfessedfollower of IbnSina,34 reproduced the followingdescription of a true sci-ence.AccordingtoKhayyam,everyscientificdiscipline“possessesasubjectmatter(mawḍu‘)whoseproperties,essentialorotherwiseitinvestigates,andprimaryprinciplesorpremises(muqaddamāt) whichitassumestobetrue”.35

28

OntheplaceoftheIsagoge intheSyriaccur-riculum of Aristotelian logic that al-Farabihad inherited, see al-Farabi, A Short Com-mentary on Aristotle’s Prior Analytics,trans.by Nicholas Rescher, Pittsburgh: PittsburghUniversityPress,1963.

29

ThisclassificationisdiscussedindetailinO.Bakar,Classification of Knowledge in Islam,chapters1–6.

30

S.H.Nasr,Three Muslim Sages,p.134.

31

Foradetailedtreatmentofthisissue,seeO.Bakar,Classification of Knowledge in Islam,particularlychapters5and6.

32

Aristotle,Posterior Analytics,76b3ff.

33

Foradetaileddiscussionofal-Farabi’scon-ception of syllogism and its different typesand their corresponding methods of proof,seeO.Bakar,Classification of Islam,chapter3,sectiontitled“Al-Farabi’sTheoryofMeth-odology,”pp.83–89.

34

Khayyamisgenerallyregardedastheworld’sgreatest mathematician in the medieval pe-riod.

35

SeeOsmanBakar,“EconomicsasaScience:Insights from Classical Muslim Classifica-tionsoftheSciences”,Islam and Civilization-



Eachscience,headds,seekstoprovide“anessentialdefinitionoftheobject[beinginvestigated]andtheprinciplesandrulesoftheart”.36Terminologi-cally speaking,however, therewas somevarianceamong thephilosophersintheirusageofwords.Thetechnicaltermusuallyusedforthegoalofar-rivingatanessentialdefinitionof thesubjectmatterunder investigation ishadaf (plural:ahdāf),37whichinitsultimateformisgenerallyreferredtoastheperfectdefinition(al-ḥadd al-tamm)or theperfectconception(al-ḥadd al-tamm).38Asforthemethodofinvestigatingandstudyingthesubjectmat-ter that comprises “the principles and rules of the art”, to useKhayyam’sexpression,thecommontermusedisṭariqah(plural:ṭuruq).Inlightofthisidentificationofthefourfolddivisionofscienceintothesubjectmatter,thegoal,thefoundationalassumptions,andthemethodofproof,itisimportantthatweverifywhetherornotthesefourcriteriaofatruesciencehavebeenfulfilledbytheongoingstudiesofcivilizationfromthetimeofal-Farabiuntilthecontemporaryperiod.

Al-Farabi’s al-‘Ilm al-Madani: Is it the science of civilization?

Inhisnovelclassificationofthesciences,Ihsa’ al-‘ulūm,whichdepartedfromtheAristotelianclassificationinanumberofrespects,al-Farabiintroducedanewsciencewhichhetermedal-‘ilm al-madani.Thetermwasindeednewandsowaspartofitscontent.Thenewscienceappears,atfirstglance,asakindofreplacementorsubstituteforthethreefolddivisionofpracticalphi-losophyintoethics,economics,andpoliticsthatwastobefoundinthepre-cedingAristotelianclassificationofthesciences.Inal-Farabi’sclassificationethics,economicsandpoliticsdonotappearasdistinctbranchesofpracticalphilosophythataregivenseparatetreatments.Withoutdoubt,thetermal-‘ilm al-madani hasraisedahostofissuessomeofwhich,inourview,arefarfrombeingsettledevennow.Thefirstissuemaybestatedaswhetherornotitistrue that the new science is given prominence in al-Farabi’s classificationattheexpenseofthetraditionalsciencesofethics,economics,andpolitics.AccordingtoFauziNajjar,oneoftheleadingtwentiethcenturyscholarsofFarabianstudies,especiallyofhispoliticalthought,al-FarabiignoredtheAr-istotelian threefolddivisionofpracticalphilosophy intoethics, economics,andpoliticsandkeptsilenceaboutthefirsttwosciences.39Najjarpositstheviewthattheeclipsingofethicsandeconomicsbyal-FarabiintheIhsa’ al-‘ulūm wasmotivatedbyhisdesiretogiveapredominantpositiontopoliticalscience,thethirdinthetraditionaltriadconstitutingpracticalphilosophy.Najjar’sviewsneedsomecomments.It is true, though, that in theclassifi-cationwork in his treatment of the social sciences al-Farabi abandons thepopularAristotelianapproachoffocusingonethics,economics,andpoliticalscience.Butitwouldbequitemisleadingifweweretosaythatheissilentonethicsandeconomics,ifbybeingsilentNajjarmeansthattheepistemologicalconcernsofthetwosciencesarenotdiscussedatallinhisal-‘ilm al-madani. Uponcarefulreadingoftheepistemiccontentandscopeofthisnewscience,weareconvincedthatal-Farabiwasinterestednotinpresentingal-‘ilm al-madani asbeingexclusivelyconcernedwithpoliticstotheextentofignoringethicsandeconomicsasclaimedbyNajjar,butratherincomprehendingtheAristotelianthreefolddivisionofpracticalphilosophy.Onthecontrary,inourview,al-Farabisawhisal-‘ilm al-madani asanewandanall-embracingsci-enceofhumansociety,themostcomprehensivetohaveeverbeenconceived



by any humanmind before and contemporaneous to him. Further, he sawitasanepistemologicalattempttointegratepolitics,ethics,andeconomicsintoabroaderandmoreexclusivenewscience.Weventuretoclaimthathisal-ilm al-madani asdescribedintheIhsa’ al-‘ulūmmayberegardedasthefirstsuccessfulattemptinthehistoryofhumanthoughtpriortohistimeataformulationofalegitimatescienceofcivilization.Thisnewscienceishis‘ar-chitectonicscience’inthesensethatitisclearlyseenasthemostembracingofallsciencesthenknown.Itmaybeviewedasal-Farabi’sanswertoAristo-tle’ssearchforthearchitectonicsciencethatcomprehendsallothersciences,whichhiscommentatorsinsubsequentgenerationsmostlyreferredtoasthesupremepoliticalsciencebutwhichremainedproblematicinitsconceptualformulationandepistemicidentification.Inourwork,Classification of Knowledge in Islam, writtenthreedecadesago,weassertedonthearchitectonicnatureofal-Farabi’sal-‘ilm al-madani.Uponanalysisofthecontentofthisnewsciencewewrote:

“Ingeneral,al-Farabi’spoliticalscience(al-falsafah al-madaniyah)embracesanthropology,so-ciology,philosophyoflaw,practicalpsychology,ethics,andpublicadministration.Assuch,itisthemostcomprehensivebranchofthehumanities.”40

Ourusageoftheterm‘politicalscience’inthisquotedpassageasarenderingoftheArabictermal-falsafah al-madaniyah,asfoundintheIhsa’ al-‘ulūm and severalotherwritingsof al-Farabi,needsclarification.At the timewewrotetheworkwewereverymuchawareofthecomprehensivenessofthesubjectmatterofal-Farabi’sal-‘ilm al-madani,theuniquenatureofthenewscience,andalsotheepistemicproblemsandconceptualissuesthathadtobefacedandresolvedifwecontinuedtousetheterm‘politicalscience’torenderal-Farabi’sal-‘ilm al-madani.Despitehaving thisawarenessandnotbeinghappywithit,wecontinuedwithitsusagefor,whatwethoughtthen,thelackofabetterterm.ButtherewasalsothereasonofwantingtoconformtotheterminologicalusageoftheleadingscholarsofFarabianstudies.Withoutexception,scholarsofclassicalIslamicthought,particularlyofFara-bianstudies,haverenderedal-‘ilm al-madani intoEnglishas‘politicalsci-ence’.41Inaway,thesescholars,asaresultofbeingboundto“traditional”terminologicalusage,areonlyperpetuatingtheproblematiclegacyofAris-totle’snotionofpoliticalscienceasthesupremearchitectonicsciencewhen,infact,al-Farabihimselfhadfoundawayoutofthisepistemologicalmess.

al Renewal,Vol.1(2010),No.3,p.428.Ourquotation of ‘Umar Khayyam and anotherquotation that follows are from our transla-tionsof therelevantpassages inhisoriginalwork Fi sharh ma ashkala min musadarat kitab Uqlidus [Concerning the Difficulties of Euclid’s Elements],ed.by‘Abdal-HamidSabra, Alexandria: Munsha’at al-Ma’arif,1961,p.2.

36

O. Bakar,“EconomicsasaScience”,p.428.

37

Anotherterm,ghāyah,isfoundinal-Farabi’swritings.

38

Foral-Farabi’sunderstandingofthisultimateepistemological goal of a science, see O.

Bakar,Classification of Knowledge in Islam,pp.58–61.

39

SeeFauziM.Najjar,“Al-FarabionPoliticalScience”,The Muslim World,Vol.48(1958),No.2,p.94,doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1478–1913.1958.tb02245.x.

40

O. Bakar,Classification of Knowledge in Is-lam,p.145.

41

Leading scholars of Farabian thought suchas Muhsin Mahdi, Fauzi Najjar and FranzRosenthalhavealladoptedthesametransla-tion.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1478%E2%80%931913.1958.tb02245.x



Themostproblematicissuethatarisesfromtheaboveidentificationofal-‘ilm al-madani withpoliticalsciencewashowtolegitimizetheepistemicstatusofwhatNajjarcalls‘politicsproper’(siyāsah)andthatofarchitectonicpolitics.Itdidnotoccurtousthenthatitwouldbemoreepistemologicallysoundifweweretorenderal-‘ilm al-madani ascivilizationalscienceorscienceofcivili-zation.Now,thankstotheprogressmadeincivilizationalorculturalstudiesinmodern timesand, interestingly, thanksalso innosmallmeasure toourbetterunderstandingofIbnKhaldun’snewscienceofculture(‘ilm ‘umrān),wehavestrongerreasonstogowiththeclaimthatal-‘ilm al-madani deservestobeinterpretedasscienceofcivilization,theepistemicoutlinesofwhichareprovidedintheIhsa’ al-‘ulūm.Wemaintain,however,thatitisnotenoughtosupporttheclaimbyrelyingonthisclassificationworkalone.Thereareseveralotherworksofal-Farabi thatareverymuchrelevant to the taskofstrengthening theclaim, includingThe Politics of Civilization (Al-siyāsah al-madaniyah),42 The Attainment of Happiness (Taḥṣsil al-sa‘ādah),43 Ex-tractions of Civilizational Wisdom (Fuṣūl al-madani),44 andThe Virtuous City (Madīnat al-faḍilah).45WhilebyitselftheIhsa al-‘ulūm merelyprovidestheoutlinesortheskeletonofthenewscience,al-Farabi’sotherworksmentionedaboveprovideingreaterdetailsitsthematicandepistemologicalcontentsthatweremadeavailablebytheexistingbodyofknowledgeofhistime.Withal-Farabi, following theabovecontention, the termused for civiliza-tionismadaniyah.Thesubjectmatterofhisnewscience–madaniyah –isdefinedas“thevariouskindsofvoluntaryactionsandwaysoflife,humantendencies,moralsandstatesofcharacterthatleadstotheseactionsandwaysoflife,theendsforthesakeofwhichtheyareperformed,andhowtheymustexistinman”.46Itfurthercomprisesthemethodsormeansof“distinguishingbetweenendswhicharetruehappinessandthosewhicharepresumedtobesoalthoughtheyarenot”.47Further,detailingthecomponentsofthesubjectmat-terofhisscienceofcivilization,al-Farabiincludespolitics(siyāsah)whichheidentifieswiththeoperationoftheroyalcraftthatrequiresleadershipandgovernance.Politicsisessentiallyconcernedwith“thewayoforderingthevirtuousstatesofcharacterandwaysoflifeinthecitiesandnationsandmak-ingknowntheroyalfunctionsbywhichthevirtuouswaysoflifeandactionsareestablishedandorderedamongthecitizensofthecities,andtheactivitiesbywhichtopreservewhathasbeenorderedandestablishedamongthem”.48Quiteclearly,al-Farabi’sscienceofcivilizationpossessesawell-definedsub-jectmatterthathastobenecessarilyall-embracinginitstreatmentofmanandhumansocietybyvirtueofthefactthatitisnothinglessthanacivilization.Althoughthe latterPeripateticssuchasIbnSina,Nasiral-Dinal-Tusi,andQutbal-Dinal-Shirazididnotpursueal-Farabi’spioneeringcivilizationalap-proachtothestudyofhumansocialorganization,theyhadindirectlyhelpedenrichandrefinethenewscience,bothitssubjectmatterandmethodology,throughtheirsuccessivetreatmentsofthesciencesofethics,economicsandpolitics.Withrespecttothehumandimensionofsocialorganization,includ-ingitsmetaphysicalandspiritualsignificance,thesubjectmatterofal-Fara-bi’sal-‘ilm al-madaniwasepistemologicallycomprehensiveandfar-reach-ingenoughastobeunsurpassedbythesubjectmatterofIbnKhaldun’s‘ilm al-‘umrān.However,theMuqaddimah wastoshow,fivehundredyearslater,that,fromtheperspectiveofIbnKhaldun’stime,al-Farabi’svisionofcivili-zationwasratherneglectfulofthephysical,demographic,andhistoricaldi-mensionsofhumansocialorganization.49

Themostfundamentalaxiomorfoundationalassumptionofal-Farabi’ssci-enceofcivilizationpertainstotheideaandrealityofhumanhappiness.The



mostfundamentalpremiseofthisscienceisthattheultimategoalofhumanlifeissupremehappiness(al-sa’ādat al-quswā).50Al-Farabipresentsanideaofhappinessthathastwophases,thefirstbeinghappinessinthisearthlylife(al-sa’ādat al-dunya’),andthesecondinposthumouslifewhichiswhathecalls supreme happiness.There is a continuity between the two phases ofhappiness.Thesecondhappiness isconditionaluponthefirst.51Aperson’spresentearthlylifewilldeterminethedegreeorstateofhishappinessorhismiseryintheposthumouslifeasthecasemaybe.Happinessinthepresentliferesultsfromaperson’sacquisitionofvirtues.Accordingtoal-Farabi,thepursuitofcollectivelifeandcivilizationisthepursuitofhappiness.However,hedistinguishesbetweentruehappinessandfalsehappiness.Noteverycivi-lizationalpursuit,especiallyofthematerialtype,willleadtotruehappiness.Histheoryofcivilizationiscentredonthedoctrineofhappiness.Thus,inhisscienceofcivilization,spiritualandmoralhealthandacquisitionofvirtuesonwhichitessentiallydependsarefeaturedasbeingamongitsmajorthemes.Hisdoctrinesonhappiness,psychologicalhealth,andacquisitionofvirtuesandhumanperfectiontogetherwiththeirepistemologicalconsequencesforanthropology,ethics,politics,andeconomicsserveasthefundamentalaxi-omsorassumptionsofhisscienceofcivilization.Asawhole, thissciencepossessesamulti-layeredfoundationalassumptioncomprisingessentiallythemetaphysical,thecosmological,theanthropological,theethical,thepolitical,and the economic.However, aswe shall later see, IbnKhaldun’s ‘ilm al-‘umrān clearlyshowsthatthefoundationalelementsofthescienceofcivili-zationconstructedorassumedbyal-Farabiarenotcomplete.Onthebasisofallhisworksoncivilizationalstudies–worksinwhichthewordmadani ormadaniyah appearintheirrespectivetitles–themetaphysical,thecosmologi-cal,thepolitical,andtheethicalfoundationsofal-Farabi’sscienceofciviliza-tionseemtobequitesolid.Buttheanthropologicalandthesocio-economicfoundationsareinneedofnewconstructions.As for themethodologicaldimensionofal-Farabi’s scienceofcivilization,itsprincipalmethodofstudyisthedemonstrativemethodtermedal-burhān.

42

See al-Farabi, Kitab al-siyasah al-madani-yah,ed.byFauziNajjar,Beirut: ImprimerieCatholique,1964.

43

See Alfarabi, “The Attainment of Happi-ness”, in:Alfarabi,Philosophy of Plato and Aristotle, ed. and trans. by Muhsin Mahdi,Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1962,pp.13–52.

44

SeeAl-Farabi,The Fusul al-Madani / Apho-risms of the Statesman, ed.and trans.byD.M.Dunlop,Cambridge:CambridgeUniver-sityPress,1961.

45

SeeAbuNasral-Farabi,On the Perfect State,ed. and trans. by Richard Walzer, Oxford:ClarendonPress,1985.

46

R. Lerner, M. Mahdi (eds.), Medieval Po-litical Philosophy,p.24.SeealsoO.Bakar,Classification of Knowledge in Islam,p.103.

47

O.Bakar,Classification of Knowledge in Is-lam,p.103.

48

R.Lerner,M.Mahdi(eds.),Medieval Politi-cal Philosophy,pp.25–26.SeealsoO.Bakar,Classification of Knowledge in Islam,p.143.

49

Astudyofthehistoricaldevelopmentofthephysical, demographic, and institutional di-mensions of civilization during the periodthat separated the livesof al-Farabi and IbnKhaldun would be an interesting academicpursuit,butthescopeofthisarticledoesnotallowus toundertake it,notwithstanding itssignificancetothepresentstudy.

50

O.Bakar,Classification of Knowledge in Is-lam,p.143.

51

This doctrine of al-Farabi on happiness ac-cordsfullywiththeteachingsoftheQur’an.



Forhim,thismethodisthebestemployedinallthephilosophicalsciencesbyvirtueofitsmostexcellentformsofargumentsandproofs.Touseamodernterm,al-burhān maybedescribedasthescientificmethodinitsbestform.Inseveralofhiswritingshearguedwhyal-burhān isindeedthebestamongallmethods.Hisscienceofcivilization isalmost identical topracticalphi-losophyand,thus,theappropriatemethodofstudywouldbeal-burhān.Hewrotemanyworksonvariouscomponentsanddimensionsofmadaniyah,thesubjectmatterofhisscienceofcivilization,especiallythepolitical(siyāsah)whichearnedhimthetitleof“founderofpoliticalphilosophyinIslam”.52Intheseworksheprincipallyappliedthemethodofal-burhān.Inhisdescriptionofthesubjectmatterofal-‘ilm al-madani, Farabi hasde-fineditinsuchawaythattherewealreadyhaveabroadoutlineoftheprop-ertiesandattributesofcivilizationthatcanguidestudentsofthescienceofcivilization toamoredetailedknowledgeofmadaniyah,orcivilization, inallitsaspectsanddimensions.Inal-Farabi’sclassicalterminology,thegoalofthetheoreticaldimensionofthescienceofcivilizationistoattainaperfectdefinitionofcivilizationthroughalonginteractiveprocessofcivilizationalexperienceandphilosophical reflections aidedby scientific studies.As forthepractical or applieddimensionof the science, it is toguide, especiallythoseentrustedwithrulership(ri’āsah)ofcitiesandnations,toorganizeandadministercivilizationallifethatwillleadtohappiness.Inmodernterms,thegoalofthescienceofcivilizationistoproduceaccumulativeknowledgeofthenatureandcharacteristicsofcivilizationinlightofthedefinitiongiventoitandthefoundationalassumptionsmadeaboutitsreality.

Ibn Khaldun and his science of civilization

Manymodern scholars are in agreement that IbnKhaldun founded a newscience,whichhe termed ‘ilm al-‘umrān.These scholars includeToynbee,Simon,Nasr,Mahdi,allofwhomhavebeenquotedearlierinthisarticleinre-lationtoIbnKhaldun’snewscience,andAzizal-Azmeh.53Al-AzmehassertsthathisbookIbn Khaldun: An Essay in Reinterpretation “analysesthelogicaccordingtowhich,inrealterms,theprojectoftheNewScience[ofIbnKha-ldun]validatesitsstatusasanhistoricalOrganon”.54ThissectionwillshowthatnotonlyisIbnKhaldun’s‘ilm al-‘umrān atruescienceofcivilization,butalsomoredeveloped,refinedandsophisticatedthanal-Farabi’s‘ilm al-mada-ni.Thisshouldnotcomeasasurprise,sincemuchcivilizationalprogresswasachievedduringthefivecenturiesthatseparatedthetwothinkers.Tobeginwith,IbnKhaldunhimselfclaimsthattheMuqaddimahisanembodimentofhisnewscienceofcivilization(‘ilm al-‘umrān).Hewrites:“He[God]ledustoasciencewhosetruthweruthlesslysetforth.IfIhavesucceededinpre-sentingtheproblemsof(thisscience)exhaustivelyandinshowinghowitdiffersinitsvariousaspectsandcharacteristicsfromallothercrafts,thisisduetodivineguidance.If,ontheotherhand,Ihaveomittedsomepoint,oriftheproblemsof[thisscience]havebecomeconfusedwithsomethingelse, thetaskofcorrectingremainsforthediscerningcritic,butthemerit isminesinceIclearedandmarkedtheway.”55

Thus,inhisownassessment,hisnewscienceiscomprehensiveandexhaus-tiveanditisdifferentfromallothersciences.Further,heisconvincedthathisnewsciencestandsonasolidfoundation.Theconstitutionofhisnewscienceisexplainedindetailinsixchapterstheheadingsofwhicharelistedattheendofhispreliminaryremarksin“BookOne”oftheKitab al-‘ibar.56Asawhole,IbnKhaldunmaintainsthat



“[…]itisanentirelyoriginalscience.Infact,Ihavenotcomeacrossadiscussionalongtheselinesbyanyone.”57

IbnKhaldunclearlymaintainsthattheobjectofhisstudyiscivilization(‘um-rān).58 By civilization or ‘umrān he means “human social organization”,whichis“somethingnecessary”.59RosenthalaffirmsIbnKhaldun’sclaimthat“the object of his new science is human social organization or civilization(‘umrān)”.60Thesemanticfieldoftheword‘umrān,asusedbyIbnKhaldunintheMuqaddimah,suggeststhatitwouldbeamorefittingtermthanmadaniyahtodenotecivilizationinitsmostcomprehensivesense.Wehaveputforwardtheideaoftheterritorialbaseofacivilizationinourstudyofcomparativecivi-lization.61Thisideaisbasicallyconcernedwiththegeographicallocationandthedemographicfeaturesofaparticularcivilization.Withthisideainmind,wemayspeakofthephysicalanddemographicdimensionsofsocialorganization.Interestinglyandalsobeneficially,inIbnKhaldun’susage,theword‘umrānacquiresawiderangeofmeaningsthatareconnectedinonewayoranotherwithcivilization.Etymologically,‘umrān meanscultivationandconstruction,sinceitsrootwordhasthemeaningofto“buildupandcultivate”.Conceptu-ally,itmeansanyhumansettlementorsocialorganizationregardlessofitssizeorcomplexity.62Sincetherewouldbenosettlementororganizationwithoutaphysicallocationandhumanpopulation,understandablyIbnKhaldunisalsofoundtobeusingtheword‘umrān tomeanpopulation.63

Inlightofthesebasicideasconveyedbytheterm‘umrān,IbnKhaldunwasabletospeakofcivilizationaldevelopmentandprogress64ofwhichbothgeo-

52

Oneof theseworks inwhose title thewordmadaniyah occurs is Kitāb al-siyāsah al-madaniyah. In keeping with the practice intwentiethcenturyscholarshiponclassicalIs-lamicpoliticalthoughtoftranslatingmadani as political, Najjar rendered the above titleof al-Farabi’s book into Al-Farabi’s Politi-cal Regime. See al-Farabi, Kitab al-siyasat al-madaniyah [Al-Farabi’s Political Regime],ed. by Fauzi Najjar, Beirut: ImprimerieCatholique, 1964. We prefer to translate itasThe Book of Civilizational PoliticsorThe Book of Politics of Civilization.Interestingly,inhiscontroversialbookThe Clash of Civi-lizations Huntington isfoundtobeusingtheterm‘politicsofcivilizations’,butheandal-Farabiaretalkingaboutdifferentissues.Thepoint is that, terminologically wise, the ex-pression‘politicsofcivilization(s)’isnotoutofplacealtogether.Justasanote,itwouldbeproblematicindeedtotranslateal-siyāsah al-madaniyah intoEnglishifweweretounder-standsiyāsah aspoliticsproperandmadani-yah aspoliticsinacomprehensivesenseandthenhavethemcoinedtogether.

53

ForAl-Azmeh’s relevantwork on IbnKha-ldun, seehis Ibn Khaldun: An Essay in Re-interpretation, London, Totowa, NJ: FrankCassandCompanyLtd.,1982.

54

Ibid.,p.xi.

55

The Muqaddimah,Vol.1,p.83.

56

Ibid.,p.85.

57

Ibid.,p.78.

58

Ibid.,p.91.

59

Ibid.,p.89.

60

Ibid., p. 91.

61

ForourdiscussionofthisideaseeO.Bakar,Islamic Civilization and the Modern World,chapter 1 titled “Islamic Civilization as aGlobalPresencewithSpecialReferencetoItsKnowledgeCulture”.

62

The Muqaddimah,Vol.1,p.lxxvi.

63

For example, Ibn Khaldun uses the word‘umrān when referring to the population ofNorthAfrica and theMaghrib, theWesternwingoftheclassicalIslamicworld,asmostlyconstitutedbythenon-ArabBerbers.SeetheMuqaddimah,Vol.3,p.352.

64

The Muqaddimah,Vol.1,pp.lxxvi–lxxvii.



graphicalandpopulationsizeareamongthedeterminingfactors.Theseideasalsoallowhimtospeakoftwotypesofcivilization,namely,thesimplerkindof civilization,which is thedesertorBedouin typeand themorecomplexkind,whichisthesedentaryorthecity-basedcivilization.Thesetwotypesofcivilizationaresocalledbecauseoftheirdifferentstagesofsocialdevelop-ment. IbnKhaldunuses the termḥaḍārah todenotesedentarycivilizationor‘umrān in itsmostdevelopedstage.Thus,contrary to thecontemporaryunderstandingamongmanyMuslims,ḥaḍārah isnot thesame inmeaningas‘umrān.Ḥaḍārah basicallyreferstourbancivilizationandis,thus,apar-ticularformof‘umrānratherthantohumansocialorganizationasawholeor‘umrān assuch.Accordingtohim,civilizationaladvancementiscommonlymeasuredaccordingtothenatureandqualityoftheproductionandconsump-tionofmaterialgoods.WhileaBedouintypeofcivilizationpursuesonlyma-terialgoodsthatarecategorizedasnecessitiesinlife,anurban-sedentarytypeisalsoinpursuitofconveniencesandnecessities.Asahistorian,IbnKhaldunalsoobservedthatthepeakofcivilizationalachievementswastobefollowedbycivilizationaldecline.Fromabroaderhistoricalperspective,hewasabletoanalysethesocialphenomenonoftheriseandfallofcivilizations,whichwastoemergeasimportantthematiccontentofhisscienceof‘umrān.Quiteclear-ly,IbnKhaldunwasabletoaccomplishadetailedstudyofmanydimensionsofsocialorganization,particularlythephysical,demographic,historical,andsocio-economicthatweremissinginal-Farabi’sscienceofcivilization.Ibn Khaldun’s ḥaḍārah may be identified, more or less, with al-Farabi’smadaniyah,sincetheterritorialbasisofthelattertypeofcivilizationisidenti-fiedwithcitiesandtowns.Inthissense,al-Farabi’smadaniyah maybeseenasaspecialkindof‘umrān, therebyvalidatingtheviewthatIbnKhaldun’sscienceofcivilizationisfarmorecomprehensivethanthatofal-Farabi.ThetopicscoveredunderthesubjectmatterofIbnKhaldun’sscienceof‘umrān arefarmorenumerousanddetailedthanthosepresentedbyal-Farabiinhisscienceofcivilization.However,thereisepistemologicalcontinuitybetweentheirsubjectmatters,whichoverlapattheircore.Thiscommoncorepertainstothehumandimensionofsocialorganizationthatischaracteristicofurbancivilization,ormadaniyah, ifwearetouseal-Farabi’sterminology.Morespe-cifically, thiscommoncoreconcernsthepoliticalandethicaldimensionsofurbansocialorganizationandcivilizationalissuesthatareuniversalandthusindependentofthesize,typeandstageofdevelopmentofsocialorganization.IbnKhaldunmentionssomeofthefoundationalassumptionsofhis‘ilm al-‘umrāninhisintroductiontothescienceofhistorywhichhedefinesas“infor-mationabouthumansocialorganization,whichitselfisidenticalwithworldcivilization”.65Theseassumptionsconcerningcivilizationincludethesocialandpoliticalnatureofman, thehumanneedforpoliticalauthorityasare-straininginfluence,theneedforlanguages,andthecivilizationalroleoftheSharia.66IbnKhaldunmaintainsthatitisthroughthehigherpurposesoftheShariathatcivilizationispreserved.

“Therefore,[thelaws]payattentiontothethingsthatbelongtocivilization.”67

Quiteclearly,exceptfortheplaceofthedoctrineofhappinessinal-Farabi’sfoundational assumptions on civilization,which properly belongs tometa-physical or spiritual anthropology, IbnKhaldun’s foundation of science ofcivilizationisalmostidenticaltothatofhispredecessor.ThemethodofstudyemployedinIbnKhaldun’snewscienceisprimarilythatof thedisciplineofhistory.Thephilosophicmethodof inquiryadoptedby



al-FarabiwasretainedandfurtherrefinedbyIbnKhaldun,sincethelatter’snewsciencerequireshimtodealwithphilosophicalissuespertainingtohis-tory.Furthermore,sinceIbnKhaldunwasdealingwiththesocialcontextsofhumancivilizationalorganizationanditsunderlyingsociological issues,hehadtodevisenewmethodsofstudythatwereappropriatetohisempiricalin-vestigationsofsocialphenomena.Consequently,andrathersignificantly,IbnKhaldunachievedseveralfirstsinthecourseofpursuinghishistoricalstudyofhumansocialorganization.Heisjustlycalledthefounderofphilosophyofhistoryandmodernsociology.ThegoalofIbnKhaldun’sscienceofcivilizationisadeepknowledgeofthenatureandcharacteristicsofhumansocialorganization.Hehimselfmadeamajorcontributiontothisbodyofknowledge,improvingvastlyontheknowl-edgecontributedbyal-FarabiandhissuccessorsintheIslamicphilosophicaltraditionduringthefourtofivecenturiespredatinghim,andaddinghisownoriginalideasandthoughtsonhumansociety.IbnKhaldun’scontributiontothegoalofthescienceofcivilizationmaybegaugedfromthecontentsoftheMuqaddimah.Hesummarizedthecontentsinsixchapters:“[1]onhumancivilizationingeneral,itsvariouskinds,andtheportionoftheearththatiscivi-lized;[2]ondesertcivilization,includingareportontribesandsavagenations;[3]ondynasties,the caliphate, and royal authority, includingadiscussionofgovernment ranks; [4]on craftswaysofmakingaliving,gainfuloccupations,andtheirvariousaspects;and[6]onthesciences,theiracquisitionsandstudy.”68

The contributions of Toynbee and Huntington to the science of civilization

ToynbeeconsidersIbnKhaldun’sphilosophyofhistoryandscienceofsociol-ogyasunsurpasseduntilmoderntimesinsofarastheirrespectivescopesofepistemicconcernanddepthsofanalysisareconcerned.Theultimateepis-temicboundariesof the scienceofcivilizationdrawnbyal-Farabiand IbnKhaldunseemtobefinal.TheheadingsoftheelevenchaptersthatconstituteToynbee’smonumentalworkA Study of History seem to confirmhis ownestimationof theepistemicworthand significanceof theMuqaddimah. Inthis respectToynbee’s treatment of history and civilization in the singulardoesnotextendbeyondthescopeoutlinedbyIbnKhaldun.WhereToynbeemadeasignificantcontributiontothestudyofthescienceofcivilizationisindevelopingitsnewbranch,namely,thestudyofcivilizationaldiversityandcomparative civilization. He commented that, quantitatively speaking, IbnKhaldun’sstudyofcivilizationsisratherlimited.Heonlystudiedonecivili-zation,whichwashisownIslamiccivilization,69andthisissomethingwhichhecouldhardlybeproudof.However,tohiscredit,saysToynbee,“hewasable,bynotingthedifferenceintheeffectsoftwoArabinvasionsofNorth-WestAfrica,toarriveatilluminatinggeneralconclusionsabouttherelation

65

Ibid.,p.71.

66

Ibid.,pp.79–80.

67

Ibid.,p.80.

68

Ibid.,p.85.

69

“[…] Ibn Khaldun, working in North-WestAfrica and Egypt in the fourteenth centuryoftheChristianEra,hadonlyasinglecivili-zation–hisownIslamiccivilization–athiscommand,sincehisknowledgeofnon-Islam-iccivilizations,contemporaryorantecedent,wasdim.”A.Toynbee,A Study of History,p.491.



betweenpoliticsandreligion”.70Incontrast,Toynbeetellsusthat,bytheyear1961,hewasable to survey thirty-onecivilizations, excluding theAfricancivilizationsthathehasjustbeguntostudy.Thereisnodoubtthatintermsofquantityanddiversity,thankstotheworkofWesternarchaeologistsandorientalistssincethebeginningofthenineteenthcentury,Toynbeehasafarricherstudyofhumancivilizations,especiallytheirmorphologicalaspect.Toynbee’shistoricalstudyofthecivilizationsoftheworlddemonstratesthepluralityanddiversityofhumancivilizations.Thestaggeringwealthof in-formationathisdisposalon thesecivilizationsenableshim toundertakeacomparativemorphologicalstudyofcivilizations.Itcontributestoagreaterawarenessinthetwentiethcenturyofcivilizationaldiversity,butitsimplica-tionsforthecontemporaryworldorderarestillslowtobeappreciated.Justasthepluralityanddiversityofreligionscallsfortheintroductionanddevel-opmentofcomparativereligion,sothefactofcivilizationaldiversityneces-sitatestheformulationofanewscienceofcomparativecivilizationasanewbranchoftheuniversalscienceofcivilizationfoundedbyal-FarabiandIbnKhaldun.AsadmittedbyToynbeehimself,itwasIbnKhaldunwhofoundedamorphologicalstudyofcivilizations.Theideaofacultureorcivilizationasbeingsimilartoabiologicalorganism,whichservesasthebasisofthemor-phologicalstudyofcivilizations,hasitsrootsinIbnKhaldun’sconceptofthegenusofhumansocialorganizationor‘umrānthatcomprisesmanyspecieswithvaryingsizes,processesofgrowthanddevelopment,andlife-spans.ForIbnKhaldun,‘umrānisindeedalivingculturalorganism.Anepistemologi-calcontinuitybetweenIbnKhaldun’s‘ilm al-‘umrān andToynbee’sstudyofworldcivilizationsisthuspreserved,atleastthroughthescienceofcompara-tivecivilizationalmorphology,whichmayberegardedasabranchofthesci-enceofcivilization.Thethemeofcivilizationalpluralityanddiversityseemstobegainingmoreattentionfromcontemporaryscholarsofdifferentacademicdisciplines,partlybecausetheissueitselfismulti-disciplinaryinnature.Huntingtonapproachesthestudyofthisthemeprimarilyfromtheperspectiveofinternationalpolitics.ItwashispoliticalanalysisofthisthemeonthebasisofcontemporaryglobalpoliticalconfigurationsthatledhimtowritehiscontroversialworkThe Clash of Civilizations.Thiswork provides an historical account of relationships,especiallybilateral, between theworld’smajor and still surviving civiliza-tionsandtheirpoliticalsignificanceforthecontemporaryworld.Inthiswork,Huntingtondiscussestherelatedissueofwhathecallstheglobalpoliticsofcivilizations.Butbythistermherefersmainlytothegrowingcivilizationalrivalryduringthelastseveraldecadesthatcouldprecipitateamajorclashofcivilizations,principallyinvolvingIslamanditscivilization.However,inter-civilizationalrelationsandpoliticsneednotbeviewedonlyfromtheperspectiveofconflicts,realorimagined,sincetherearedeeperrea-sonswhyweneedtofocusonethicsinthepoliticsofcivilization.Theserea-sonsaretobefoundintheveryfoundationofthescienceofcivilizationitself.Itistheraison d’êtreofthescienceofcivilizationasestablishedbyal-FarabiandIbnKhalduntohelpsecuremutualcooperationamonghumangroupsatalllevelsofsocialorganizationforthesakeofthecommongoodandthere-alizationofhigherpurposesofhumanlife.Asearliermentionedinthisarticle,al-FarabiwroteaworkentitledThe Politics of Civilization,whichisbasicallyconcernedwith these civilizational issues.Despite the politicalmisgivingsofmanypeopletowardHuntington’s“clashofcivilizations”thesis,hisworkshouldbe re-studied,not somuch from theperspectiveof transientglobal



politicsthatisshapingourcontemporaryworld,asfromtheperspectiveofinter-civilizationalunderstandingandcooperationaspartiallyresurrectedintheUnitedNations’globalagendaof“AllianceofCivilizations”.Inparticu-lar, perhaps new insightsmight be gained from a reading ofHuntington’schapteron“TheGlobalPoliticsofCivilizations”inhisThe Clash of Civiliza-tionsinlightofal-Farabi’sThe Politics of Civilization.Bethisasitmay,asthescienceofcivilizationscontinuestogrowproducingnewbranches,majorandminor,thepoliticaldimensionofhumancivilizationneedstobefurtherrefinedandstrengthened.

Conclusion: The significance of this synthetic study

Thisstudyshowsthatthescienceofcivilizationthathasawell-definedobjectofstudy,foundationalaxioms,andmethodsandgoalsofstudyhasitsoriginsinclassicalIslamofthetenthcentury.Thefirstfounderofthesciencewasal-Farabi. Itwas furtherdevelopedbyal-Farabi’s intellectual successors inthephilosophicaltraditionofIslamuntilthetimeofIbnKhalduninthefour-teenthandearlyfifteenthcenturies.ItwasIbnKhaldunwhotransformedal-Farabi’sal-‘ilm al-madani intoamorecomprehensivescienceofcivilizationthroughhisconceptionof‘umrān(‘humansocialorganization’)thatseemstobefinal,insofarasitsultimateepistemicboundariesareconcerned,althoughthisuniversalsciencehasmanypotentialbranchesthatareonlyawaitingtheappropriatetimesandconditionstobeactualizedasrealoffshoots.Althoughal-Farabimaybelegitimatelycalledthefirstfounderofthisnewscience, epistemologically speaking, this claim does not prevent us fromclaiming that IbnKhaldun is another founder of this science, although hebelongedtoanerafivecenturiesafteral-Farabi.Thecomprehensivenatureof thescienceofcivilizationpermits thinkersof the laterperiods tocreatenewdisciplineswithin itsepistemic framework.Thus IbnKhaldunclaims,and justifiablyso, thathehascreatedaneworiginalscience,namelysoci-ologyandfoundedaphilosophyofhistory.Theseclaims,providedthatweunderstand thevariousepistemologicalcontexts inwhichheuses the term‘umrānandalsotheepistemologicalscopeofal-Farabi’sal-‘ilm al-madani,donotcontradicttheearlierclaimthatthelatterwasafounderofthescienceofcivilization.Similarly,inclaimingthatIbnKhaldun’s‘ilm al-‘umrān pos-sessesanumberofqualitiesthatareunsurpasseduntilmoderntimes,Toynbeewasstillabletohelpdevelopthescienceofcivilizationalmorphologyasanewbranchofthescienceofcivilization.AlthoughHuntingtondidnotfoundanynewbranchofthescience,hisreflectionsonthethemeofthepoliticsofcivilizationscouldgenerate ideasand insights thatwouldcontribute to therecognition of civilizational politics or comparative civilization as anotherbranchofthescienceofcivilizationhavingthestatusofscience.Themain significance of this synthetic study, inwhich synthesis of ideasisemphasized,isthatweareabletoshowthat,atleastinitsmainoutlines,thescienceofcivilizationfoundedbyal-Farabimorethantencenturiesagohasdevelopedintoacomprehensiveuniversalsciencethankstothecontribu-tionsofclassicalthinkersinIslam,IbnKhalduninparticular,andthemodernthinkersof theWest, especiallyToynbee.This sciencenowawaits twenty-firstcenturyenrichmentfromthecommunityofscholars.

70

A.Toynbee,ASH,p.491.



Osman Bakar

Prema novoj znanosti o civilizacijiSintetičko proučavanje filozofskih pogleda al-Farabija, Ibn Halduna,

Arnolda Toynbeeja i Samuela Huntingtona

SažetakOvaj rad predstavlja sintetičku studiju o filozofskim stajalištima al-Farabija i Ibn Halduna iz klasičnog islama te Arnolda Toynbeeja i Samuela Huntingtona s modernog Zapada o temi znanosti o civilizaciji. Na temelju aristotelovske ideje o istinskoj znanosti, ovaj članak dokazuje da su al-Farabi i Ibn Haldun bili istinski utemeljitelji znanosti o civilizaciji. Reformuliranjem tema koje tvore predmet ove znanosti, koju je definirao al-Farabi, Ibn Haldun ju je odjednom učinio razumljivijom i izumio je nekoliko novih znanosti kao njezinih ogranaka. Unutar episte-mološkog okvira Ibn Haldunove nove znanosti o civilizaciji, Toynbee se poduhvatio istraživanja komparativne civilizacije, što tek treba zadobiti status znanosti. Nadalje se pokazuje da bi Hun-tingtonov mogući doprinos znanosti o civilizaciji mogao biti u konceptu politike civilizacije. U ovom stoljeću rafiniranija znanost o civilizaciji može nastati samo ako se sintetiziraju civiliza-cijska stajališta ovih i drugih mislitelja.

Ključne riječicivilizacija,znanost,islam,filozofsko,epistemologija,‘umrān, madani,društvenaorganizacija,po-litičko,intelektualno

Osman Bakar

In Richtung einer neuen Wissenschaft von der ZivilisationEine synthetische Studie der philosophischen Ansichten

von al-Farabi, Ibn Chaldun, Arnold Toynbee und Samuel Huntington

ZusammenfassungDieser Artikel präsentiert eine synthetische Studie der philosophischen Ansichten von al-Farabi und Ibn Chaldun aus dem klassischen Islam sowie von Arnold Toynbee und Samuel Huntington aus dem modernen Westen zum Thema Zivilisationswissenschaft. Auf der Grundlage der aristo-telischen Idee einer wahren Wissenschaft vertritt dieser Artikel die Ansicht, dass al-Farabi und Ibn Chaldun die eigentlichen Gründer der Zivilisationswissenschaft waren. Durch seine Neu-formulierung der Themen, die den Gegenstand dieser Wissenschaft bilden, wie sie zuerst von al-Farabi definiert wurde, machte Ibn Chaldun sie abrupt umfassender und schuf mehrere neue Wissenschaften als ihre Zweige. Innerhalb des epistemologischen Rahmens von Ibn Chalduns neuer Zivilisationswissenschaft trieb Toynbee die Erforschung der komparativen Zivilisation voran, die ihren wahren Status als Wissenschaft noch zu erlangen hat. Es wird weiterhin argu-mentiert, Huntingtons möglicher Beitrag zur Zivilisationswissenschaft würde in dem Konzept der Zivilisationspolitik liegen. Eine raffiniertere Zivilisationswissenschaft könnte sich in diesem Jahrhundert nur dann herauskristallisieren, wenn die zivilisatorischen Blickwinkel dieser und anderer Denker synthetisiert werden.

SchlüsselwörterZivilisation,Wissenschaft,Islam,dasPhilosophische,Epistemologie,‘umrān, madani,sozialeOrga-nisation,dasPolitische,dasIntellektuelle



Osman Bakar

Vers une nouvelle science de la civilisationÉtude synthétique des points de vue philosophiques

de al-Farabi, Ibn Khaldoun, Arnold Toynbee, et Samuel Huntington

RésuméCet article présente une étude synthétique des perspectives philosophiques d’al-Farabi et d’Ibn Khaldoun issues de l’islam classique, et celles de Arnold Toynbee et de Samuel Huntington de l’Occident moderne. En se basant sur les idées aristotéliciennes de la science vraie, cette article démontre que al-Farabi et Ibn Khaldoun ont été les véritables fondateurs de la science de la civilisation. En reformulant les thèmes qui constituent l’objet de cette science définie par al-Farabi, Ibn Khaldoun l’a aussitôt rendue plus compréhensible et a créé de nombreuses sciences nouvelles qui consistent en des ramifications de cette science. Dans le cadre de la nouvelle science de la civilisation d’Ibn Khaldoun, Toynbee développe une étude comparée des civilisations, recherche qui doit encore atteindre le statut de science. Plus loin, il est montré que l’éventuelle contribution de Huntington aux sciences des civilisations pourrait se situer dans le concept de la politique des civilisations. Une science de la civilisation plus recherchée pourrait émerger au cours de ce siècle à la condition de synthétiser les diverses perspectives sur la civi-lisation de chacun des auteurs.

Mots-cléscivilisation,science,islam,philosophique,épistémologie,‘umrān, madani,organisationsociale,po-litique,intellectuel

towards a new science of civilization - srce

Documents