While other reviewers rave over the enlightenment and knowledge of Islamic social scientist, economist, historian and philosopher Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406) demonstrated in this volume, I confess that I find the book enlightening for entirely different reasons.

"[T]he Negro nations are, as a rule, submissive to slavery because [they] have little that is (essentially) human and possess attributes that are quite similar to those of dumb animals, as we have stated," writes this supposedly learned man (p. 117).

Now Ibn Khaldun lived much later than the Medieval physician Maimonides (d. 1204), and who composed great and lasting works of Jewish scholarship, rabbinic law, philosophy---and medicine. Yet Ibn Khaldun demonized people based on the color of their skin and/or their beliefs in ways that Maimonides never did. The latter, rather, philosophically differentiated Jewish thinking from that of Aristotle in his much vaunted, still-widely studied The Guide for the Perplexed, Vol. 2, which heavily influenced philosophers, leaders and historians throughout the ages, including Albert the Great, Thomas Aquinas, and Duns Scotus. Probably Maimonides' most famed dictum--- addressed primarily to medical doctors though applicable in all fields---was "First, do no harm."

Maimonides was also very much a progressive, taking into account others' ideas, whereas Maliki jurist and philosopher Ibn Khaldun was on the opposite end of the philosophical spectrum, and a totalitarian.

"In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.... The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense....Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations." (p. 183)

There are many other highly inhuman statements and attitudes presented in this book, and I cannot therefore recommend highly enough that infidels read it---in order to fully understand the "moderate" attitudes espoused even today by a great many mainstream Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims, alike.

--Alyssa A. Lappen

I read the Arabic version of the book, and I must say that this is one of the greatest books ever written. What makes it even more amazing is the fact that it was written such a long time ago. Ibn Khaldoun clearly lays the foundations of the study of history. The laws that he mentions and the examples that he gives are all compelling. Everything he says is backed up by an example. In this book we see originality at its best. If you are interested in history then this book is for you. If you are interested in sociology then this book is for you. If you are interested in religion then this book is for you. If you are interested in any real kind of knowledge then this book is a must. You may disagree with the author, but you will find it very hard to reject his arguments.

it arrived fast, in mint condition, and it is a great book that I plan to keep. thanks

it arrived fast, in mint condition, and it is a great book that I plan to keep. thanks

This book is of true worth to anyone interested in sociology, history , art and religion. It offers a unique medeival perspective on many fields of knowledge. It is well-written and highly organized which makes it highly accessible and apprehendible. Ibn Khaldoun was a great Islamic scholar in the Middle Ages. He uses al Muqqadimah to offer a variety of explanations to social phenomena and historical events. The conclusions he draws are of a high philoshpical value, well-reasoned, and most of which could be efficaciously applied to the modern world. At many instances you will be amazed how this man, who lived centuries ago, knew so much about the modern world we live in. The chapters discussing poetry and magic are especially interesting. This is by no means one of the greates books ever written.

The first work of historiography ever written. ibn Khaldûn is the sanest kind of Aristotelian, a Sufi, and a very unique rationalist in that for him, men and djinn coexist. His theory of history is fascinating, and greatly informs my view of the 21st century. For him, the human world is divided into wild people, and civilized people; for him, the Bedouin and the medieval urban Muslim are the two polar extremes. The city people generate wealth, culture, technology, and reason. They lose their moral fiber through decadent living, and become fat, weak, lazy, and sinful. Meanwhile, the wild people are hungry, wiry and pious. They are closer to God because they do not have the distractions the city people do. Eventually, the wild people sack the cities. Their genetic stock fortifies the indolent urban gene pool, their piety reinvigorates the religious life of the city, and their austerity reforms the city. On the other hand, the town people teach reason, science, technology and culture to the wild people, and get them to be less savage and cruel. After a few generations, the invaders and the urbans are indistinguishable from each other, and a new crop of wild people come and sack the cities. This is the cycle of history. Very compelling.

You can chisel out the sections on temperature and race, temperature and behavior, for these are silly and offensive. He compares Sub-Saharan Africans as just a hair above dumb animals, and he slams Arabs and Bedouin in other ways. However, his sections on economics and social politics are still valid, and he was a pioneer in areas that other Westerners tend to get credit for.

Before Adam Smith outlined the need for "Specialized labor" in a commercial society, there was Ibn Khaldun. Khaldun wrote of the pivotal role of "crafts" and specialization of crafts in a functioning human society. He even suggests that skills in crafts are limited, that is, if you're a master shoe-maker you in all likelihood won't be a master farmer. Therefore, master shoe-makers should make as many shoes as they can and farmers should farm as they can, so as to produce as many goods between the two of them than if they shared their time doing both. Before there was Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig Von Mises, Ibn Khaldun implied the need for Rule of Law. Khaldun chastized the Bedouin who disrupted the social order through their raids, and sent the craftsmen packing. Some sort of consistent legal standard and social order is needed to ensure that specialized labor has the ability to perform its "crafts". Before there was Reaganomics and Arthur Laffer, there was Ibn Khaldun. You want more tax revenue? Cut taxes, which provides incentive for people to work harder and expand their enterprises. More business, more economic growth, more tax revenue. High taxes deter enterprise and shrinks tax revenue. Arthur Laffer? Yes, but Ibn Khaldun 300+ years earlier.

The issue Khaldun is most known for is "squadness", Group Feeling, Group Narcissism, Tribalism, whatever you wish to call it. Governments and regimes come and go based on the strength of the leaders to appeal to group cohesion. This could be religious, blood, nationalist, whatever, but regimes need ideological cohesion in order to survive. Once that group feeling is lost, the regime becomes weak and conquerable if not self destructive. Multiculturalism and Postmodernism would be signs of cultural disorder and eventual social crumbling to Ibn Khaldun. Crane Brinton, Erich Fromm, Erik Hoffer all touched on the "Group Feeling" themes in their own works, in different ways and emphases, and in many ways did it better (they had more historical examples to pull from, since history has dramatically accelerated since Khaldun's time), nonetheless, Khaldun was the one who first articulated this concept of political and social (dis)order.

You can chisel out the sections on temperature and race, temperature and behavior, for these are silly and offensive. He compares Sub-Saharan Africans as just a hair above dumb animals, and he slams Arabs and Bedouin in other ways. However, his sections on economics and social politics are still valid, and he was a pioneer in areas that other Westerners tend to get credit for.

Before Adam Smith outlined the need for "Specialized labor" in a commercial society, there was Ibn Khaldun. Khaldun wrote of the pivotal role of "crafts" and specialization of crafts in a functioning human society. He even suggests that skills in crafts are limited, that is, if you're a master shoe-maker you in all likelihood won't be a master farmer. Therefore, master shoe-makers should make as many shoes as they can and farmers should farm as they can, so as to produce as many goods between the two of them than if they shared their time doing both. Before there was Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig Von Mises, Ibn Khaldun implied the need for Rule of Law. Khaldun chastized the Bedouin who disrupted the social order through their raids, and sent the craftsmen packing. Some sort of consistent legal standard and social order is needed to ensure that specialized labor has the ability to perform its "crafts". Before there was Reaganomics and Arthur Laffer, there was Ibn Khaldun. You want more tax revenue? Cut taxes, which provides incentive for people to work harder and expand their enterprises. More business, more economic growth, more tax revenue. High taxes deter enterprise and shrinks tax revenue. Arthur Laffer? Yes, but Ibn Khaldun 300+ years earlier.

The issue Khaldun is most known for is "squadness", Group Feeling, Group Narcissism, Tribalism, whatever you wish to call it. Governments and regimes come and go based on the strength of the leaders to appeal to group cohesion. This could be religious, blood, nationalist, whatever, but regimes need ideological cohesion in order to survive. Once that group feeling is lost, the regime becomes weak and conquerable if not self destructive. Multiculturalism and Postmodernism would be signs of cultural disorder and eventual social crumbling to Ibn Khaldun. Crane Brinton, Erich Fromm, Erik Hoffer all touched on the "Group Feeling" themes in their own works, in different ways and emphases, and in many ways did it better (they had more historical examples to pull from, since history has dramatically accelerated since Khaldun's time), nonetheless, Khaldun was the one who first articulated this concept of political and social (dis)order.

Arnold Toynbee described this book as " Undoutedly the greatest work of its kind that has ever been created by any mind in any time or place ..." That is what convinced me to read the book, but I don't think it is for everyone.

In addition to being the "earliest critical study of history", the book is truely encyclopedic, coverying sociology, culture, theology, and economics , in addition to history. It covers the rise and fall of dynasties and civilizations ( you can see why Toynbee liked it), the necessary conditions for civilization to arise and what determines the level of civilization that will be achieved by a given population.

To pick one topic on which I have some backgroud, economics , the author sucessfully analyzes the effect of demand and supply on prices, the effect of population growth on the economy, the effect of low stable prices on commerce, and the different ways merchants make profits. All, long before these were understood in Western Europe. He also presents the case for Supply Side Economics ( the proposition that raising taxes will result in lower revenue) 600 years before Art Laffer and Ronald Reagan.

Although he refers frquently to God, Muhammad, and the Qur'an (Koran), and has an entire section devoted to theology , his approach is consistently analytical rather than religious. In many was he is influenced by Aristotle, whom he quotes favorably several times.

Unfortunately I found this a difficult book to read. Although I realize that the book has tremendous historical importance, and was highly original at the time it was written , reading it in the 21st Century I found much of the theory of history to be obvious. Not being familiar with Muslim history , I found many of his examples to be incomprehensible. Lacking a knowledge of Medeival Muslim society and culture, I found much of the institutional discussion to lack content and therefore interest.

I'm sure that for someone better read on early Muslim history and society, this is a great book.But if you are not, I do not reccomend it.

I first came across this amazing gem of a book while browsing through the travel section of a Borders bookstore, while my friend shopped for his software books. Just a casual glance at a couple of pages were enough to take me by storm. I almost felt as if both 'my sensibilia and my intelligibilia' (commonly used words in this book) had taken the first sip of one of the most beautifully intoxicating drink.

I soon brought it home and read it, and I read it like a hog, literally. Although, the language is a bit archaic for me, I suppose the difficulty stems from the fact that I am from a totally different field, (I am a computer systems engineer); at every turn of a page, I wished and prayed that I could pour the entire contents of the book into my head in one moment. Very rarely have I had such a desperate feeling to read a book in it's entirety.

A.J. Toynbee has remarked quite aptly about this book. "Undoubtedly the greatest work of its kind that has ever been created by any mind in any time or place..."

And I totally agree with him.

Besides delving into great details on the science of history and sociology, Ibn-Khaldun has touched upon topics I could never have imagined a scholar of those times would even think of. Mind dazzling discussions on even distant subjects like the classification of sciences, alchemy, medicine, mathematics/algebra/geometry (conics! surds!), lexicography, grammar, politics, warfare, trade, customs duties, taxation, espionage, inheritance, astronomy, astrology, sorcery, magic, physics, metaphysics, agriculture, sufism, Islamic jurisprudence, tips for students and teachers, concept of perception and extra-sensory perception, and tons of totally amazing stuff.

He even indicates where we can get even more detailed information on these topics.

He provides a very close-up view of contemporary scholarly exercise and debates and controversies. Discusses ancient and contemporary scholars and their books, Arab as well as non-Arab (Greek, Roman, Persian, Syrian, Coptic,...), casually reviewing/criticising their works as he goes along (sometimes quite insensitively and also unfairly at times, though I assume it was ultimately a classic way of scholarly interaction acrosss space and time that exists in all ages - perhaps!). However, he does ultimately provide us with great insights into works of ancient and contemporary scientists, scholars and philosophers. He has already added a number of Greek, Arabic and Persian books to the list of books I MUST read now. Amazing book indeed. A must for anybody who is interested in the monumental works in the field of knowledge.

God is the best in Knowledge.

This is a gem of a book that is not well enough known in the West. It is a brilliant account of the ordinary, things that take place around us that we often take for granted. Ibn Khaldun notices these things and explains them in an organized manner.

His theory of 'asabiya' describes the rise and fall of tribes and nations as a very natural process, one that occurs and will occur repeatedly throughout history. His is perhaps the most coherent theory that I know of. It's perhaps a bit simplistic but sometimes Occam's razor, the simplest explanation being the correct one, is true.

Many accuse Ibn Khaldun of leaving God out of the picture but, as a devout Muslim, God was the very being of everything he wrote. Just because nations rise and fall in a natural progression doesn't mean that God is not a part of the picture. God has given us free will and allows the world to operate on this free will, one side effect on a collective scale being the rise and fall of nations. This notion underpins his work.

He also catelogues in great detail all kinds of events, both natural and human, in a very interesting fashion. It is a treasure trove of a book, one that you can revisit in bits and pieces and always come away with a feeling of having learned something you already knew.

This book needs more recognition as it has influenced far more people than may be realized. The kicker is that this book was written over 600 years ago, long before the notion of 'science' as we know it today as an independent and 'objective' approach to the study of reality really existed.

I first read this book as part of a history course, but I only appreciated it when I read it later at a slower pace (the first time was just some pre-exam cramming!). I like to use the analogy of ibn Khaldun being the Isaac Newton of social sciences since their contributions were similar in a way: they both took a very ordinary happenings that people take for granted everyday (the falling objects in Isaac Newton's case, everyday social life in ibn Khaldun's case), researched them and gave some marvellous findings. ibn Khaldun shows how societies and people group together to form communities, cities and eventually countries and nations. He shows through logical reasoning the relationship between social and economic circumstances within a society, plus many other fascinating findings that show that the medieval Arabs must have had some very organized researchers and thinkers. Definitely one of the best books ever written on social sciences.

It is difficult to avoid overusing superlatives when thinking of or reviewing this work. 'Muqaddimah' means 'introduction'; this was ibn Khaldun's introduction to his volumes of world history. The introduction, however, is what has been entered into the library of the world's greatest written works. By those who read more than western books, he is called the father of sociology (westerners grant Weber that title). In addition to groundbreaking and still-relevant sociological ideas, his muqaddimah is filled with major contributions to political science as well. He includes his thoughts on the supposed 'state of nature' and goes on to describe the workings of civilizations, in Braudel's longue duree view.

The book is worth reading for two reasons. First, it is a historical monument -- the birthplace of many important ideas. Second, the ideas are still not common knowledge. His ideas provide a useful and accurate representation of the world, suitable (after adaptation to the time period) to examining Chingis Khan's empire or the position of the United States in global political and economic regime.

One caveat: I read the three-volume, unabridged version. This 300 page paperback version comprises only a small fraction of the complete (and compleat) work.

Another reviewer mentioned the dated scientific theories in this book. In a three-volume 'introduction' to a seven-volume (if memory serves) 'history of the world', ibn Khaldun covered a wide array of topics, including both the social and the natural sciences. The dated natural science is kept strictly seperate from the more lastingly-relevant social science; this makes it an easy job to seperate the wheat from the chaff.

Obviously, I HIGHLY recommend the Muqaddimah to anyone with an interest in political science, anthropology, sociology, or history.

If you are an economist you should know about Arthur Laffer, who invented the Laffer Curve for taxation. After reading Ibn Khaldun, I found that in fact it was he who came up with theory four centuries before Mr. Laffer. I believe all the economics text book should make necessary changes to acknowledge Ibn Khaldun's work. This book remarkably illustrates the Islamic philosophy behind the State Management and Decision-Making. Ibn Khaldun's original work in over 1200 pages. He has also written the Islamic History which I dont believe is available in English.

This book is very interesting. An Arabic language instructor at Georgetown University, Mr. Hakim from someplace in Syria, first told me who Ibn Khaldun was, which got me reading this. Written in the 14th Century, it reflects that interesting combination of great learning, mixed with some scientific limitation. For instance, Khaldun says it's a fact that the sun is cooler, the closer you get to it, based on his obsevations that it gets colder the higher up you go in the mountains. He says there's some kind of reflection thing that happens when the sun's rays hit the surface of the Earth, to make heat. He's right, but he's not. This same thing comes thru in Calvin's commentaries on the Bible, in one of which he soberly states the well known fact that vermin spontaneously appear from nothing if you leave a pile of rags in the corner, or that the continents float on the seas.

In other topical areas, Khaldun hits more timeless chords. His observations about families rising and falling, and on peoples' need to be led, are very incisive. His writing reflects well on the great learning that once permeated the parts of the world controlled by the Arabic-speaking peoples. In that respect, this book conveys a more positive message than a modern critique of the Arab world, found in a book like "The Closed Circle" by David Pryce-Jones.

Khaldun has not much good to say about the Bedouins, which is a cross-current to some of the good things Lawrence of Arabia had to say about them in books like "The Seven Pillars of Wisdom" and "Revolt in the Desert." Because they inhabit flat area, according to Khaldun, they are cowardly nomads who just destroy everything. He says they are inherently inferior to urban people.

Arabs of all kinds tend to lament their fall into relative desuetude after the Turkish rise in the 10th century. This is a rare self-analysis by Khaldun, then, inasmuch as he points the finger at some part of Arab society as containing destructive elements.

He is also critical of Jews in some ways, but again, so are a lot of writers from this time period, and not only Arabs.

So Mr. Hakim recommeds this, and I agree.