Fourth hypothesis 4
Limitations imposed on dualistic and metaphysical reasoning:
A- Restrictions imposed on dual, or binary, reasoning:
To establish the first half of this methodological hypothesis, we must first point to two phenomena that can be observed in our previous discussions. First, it appears that Ibn Khaldun, in addressing matters of faith and the role of religion in civilization, turned to the Holy Quran and the Prophetic Sunnah to draw upon them for answers to the issues he encountered. Second, outside of this domain, he applied the rational method to explain all phenomena of a temporal nature. However, what is most important in our view is that he did not apply these two methods of analysis in a rigid manner or in complete isolation from one another.
Rather, he sometimes employed both methods simultaneously to prove one of the two phenomena we have just mentioned. The introduction provides many examples of this, including his view on the return of Christ or the Mahdi, a view that cannot be categorized under either of the aforementioned methods. On the one hand, Ibn Khaldun accepts the religious perspective on the return of Christ and considers it an indisputable fact. On the other hand, he does not merely analyze the religious aspect of the matter; he expresses his dissatisfaction with the superstitions some attach to it and applies the results of his studies, setting forth three material conditions that he believes are necessary for the return of Christ: his appearance among a strong community united by strong tribal solidarity to support him; his possession of the qualities of a leader to achieve his goals; and his birth in circumstances conducive to the establishment of a powerful state.
Another example in this regard is his view on the value and role of humanitarian work. His opinion was previously cited at the end of our discussion of the first premise above, where he says: “Everything is from God. Humanitarian work is necessary in every gain and acquisition.
b) Limitations imposed on metaphysical reasoning:
To prove the second half of the methodological hypothesis, it may suffice to revisit some of the important methods Ibn Khaldun devised, which we discussed in our previous hypotheses, in order to demonstrate the extent of the difference between his methodology and the metaphysical method. Indeed, the fundamental differences between the two lie in several key points, the most important of which are:
– His belief in the inevitability of permanent social change.
– The dynamic relationship between causes and effects.
– The great attention he paid to the role of contradictions in the life of the community.
To avoid repeating what has already been proven, we will briefly discuss some important examples of that.
The disagreements, especially those relating to the role of contradictions in the conclusions reached.
1- Ibn Khaldun differed from the metaphysical approach in his explanation of phenomena such as urbanization, nomadism, civilization, and social cohesion. His writings reveal that he considered each of these to be a complex phenomenon, subject to change and transformation from one form to another. For example, urbanization can be manual or urban. Nomadic (or primitive) urbanization itself does not have a fixed form, because the type of primitive life it represents can be found in the desert, the mountains, or small villages. Similarly, phenomena such as urbanization and social cohesion do not have a single, fixed form. Moreover, with changes in material lifestyles, the distinctive features and functions of these phenomena—as in the case of social cohesion—change accordingly. Change from one form to another, or from one stage to another, is frequent and is subject to the surrounding environmental changes that occur in human settlement.
2- Ibn Khaldun also differed from the metaphysical approach in his analysis of the essence of each phenomenon individually, revealing that each could contain both good and evil qualities simultaneously. That is , a single thing or phenomenon could encompass contradictory attributes and elements. For example, people living under nomadic rule are characterized by courage, virtue, and straightforwardness, yet at the same time they are crude, backward, and lack the means to adopt the principles of organized life. In addition to analyzing the essence of each phenomenon, Ibn Khaldun addressed other important forms of contradiction arising from the complex relationships of social forces. This includes the theories he developed concerning the rise and fall of empires.
A final note on the significance of the Khaldunian approach to the humanities:
In the introduction to this research, we explained how partial interpretations of the Khaldunian approach – which we reviewed at the beginning of our research – have led to the difficulty of reaching a minimum level of agreement on the basic features of this approach and the foundations upon which it is based, despite the valuable writings that have addressed the subject, especially in recent years.
Having discussed the four methodological assumptions of the science of civilization, we can now offer balanced answers to the questions we posed at the beginning of this research, It was concerning that the stark differences of opinion regarding his methodology might lead the reader of the introduction to believe that this methodology lacked coherence and a clear, distinctive approach. Indeed, as we have explained, we could have reached this conclusion had the research been conducted rigidly, based on a black-and-white distinction between phenomena. However, such impractical methods of research are misleading. Moreover, Ibn Khaldun himself opposed rigid interpretations of events and phenomena, as well as rigid interpretations of certain principles applied in the Islamic Caliphate, preferring instead relative interpretations and concepts.
For example, if we limit our study of Ibn Khaldun’s writings to the reciprocal relationship between religion and society, we will conclude that he was an idealist thinker. Similarly, if we limit it to his economic interpretations or the numerous materialist arguments he employed, we will conclude that he was a materialist thinker. However, we cannot resort to such a technique in our analysis because the thinker whose methodology we are studying employed both of these approaches. Therefore, it becomes unsafe to label his methodology with either of these extreme generalizations, each derived separately from a seemingly binary approach. Thus, we cannot say that his methodology is based solely on religious foundations, nor can we label it as purely materialistic. The conclusion we can draw from all our discussions is that it is a complex and novel methodology. Its value and originality are amplified by the fact that Ibn Khaldun—a devout believer—was not preceded by any thinker from any political or religious ideology who succeeded in achieving such an innovative scientific approach.
