The third major problem of practical philosophy in a com­ munity based on the Law and composed of the few and the

many is, then, the elucidation of the proper function of know­ ledge in the community, the deflnition of the ends of the two groups of sciences under discussion, and a critique of the various sciences existing in the community at a certain time. This is precisely the object of Ibn Khaldûn in his discussion of the various sciences existing in the Islamic community of his time : to disentangle and expose the various mixtures of positive and philosophic sciences. As to his method, Averroes had already indicated its salient feature.® Ibn Khaldûn applies that same method throughout, using rhetoric, dialectic, and simple “ F a fl I (title), passim, Manâhij 27 (title), Tahâfut 3 (title), passim. (Esp. his

references to Ghazâli’s use of rhetorical, dialectical, and sophistical arguments.) ' Above pp. 93 ff.

demonstrations. The practical purpose of his discussion is clearly indicated by his exposition of the social dangers of the mixed sciences and by his repeated advice to the many to forego their study and obey the Law.*

Starting with the positive sciences, Ibn Khaldûn explains and justifies their multiplicity by the fact that the sources from which, and the methods through which, the commands of God concern­ ing specific acts are derived are numerous. As to the sources, there are in the Islamic community the Koran, the authenticated Traditions of the Prophet (sunna bi-l-nass), the consensus of the community, and the supplementary additions (ilhâq) (by analogy, etc.) to these three sources.® In order to utilize fully these sources for determining precisely what actions are prescribed and commanded, various sciences are needed and have been developed in connection with each of them: To understand the Koran, we have the sciences of koranic exegesis and koranic readings. To ascertain the true Traditions of the Prophet, we have the sciences of Tradition dealing with abrogating and abrogated Traditions, the character of Traditionists and their hnks, the unusual words and expressions occurring in Tradi­ tions, etc. And in order to know the proper rules of consensus and of the supplementary additions, we have the fundamentals of jurisprudence. The true end of all these sciences is the legal­ istic (shar'î) interpretation of the Law or the science of juris­ prudence (fiqh) which consists of knowing the specific commands concerning specific acts. To jurisprudence, in turn, are attached various secondary disciplines dealing with the problems of inheritance {farâ’id, or how to divide the inheritance of a deceased person), the way of discussing matters controversial among the various schools of jurisprudence (khilâfiyyât), the “ To the extent that Ibn Khaldûn was concerned with the rise and develop­ ment of the sciences actually existing in the Islamic commtmity, his accotmt of these sciences can be called ‘ historical ’ and ‘ objective To the extent that he was interested in explaining the social uses and abuses of these sciences, his study can be called ' sociological But to accept such adjectives without qualification in defining Ibn Khaldûn’s study of the sciences, is to miss the philosophic principles according to which these sciences are organized, dis­ cussed, and evaluated. These principles, i.e., the nature of philosophy and the Law, and his theory of prophecy and the social order based upon it as discussed above (pp. 73 ff.), are more important in explaining Ibn Khaldûn’s account of the sciences tiian its ‘ historical ’, ‘ objective ’ , or ‘ sociological ’ character.

« Q II 386; 1-3.

rules of analogy, and the rules of dialectical discussion of legal matters (jadal, or how to defend or disprove a legal opinion).“

Since in addition to prescribing certain acts, the Law pre­ scribes certain behefs concerning the nature of God and His attributes, the resurrection, heaven and hell, and predestination, and since these beliefs have to be explained and defended against innovations, we also have dialectical theology.® For the majority of believers, jurisprudence and dialectical theology are sufficient, since the majority live by the rules of conduct ascertained by jurisprudence and the beliefs explained by dialectical theology. There are some, however, who have the aptitude for, and the interest in, devoting themselves to spiritual exercise and devo­ tional piety with the hope of attaining an intuitive knowledge of things divine. This is the way of the mystics who, starting with the externals of the Law, have devised certain practical exercises through which they attain direct knowledge of what the prophets have taught and what the community as a whole accepts on faith. These practical exercises have been systematized in the science of mysticism {tasazowuf).” Finally, there is the phenomenon of dreams, through which some of the believers gain direct know­ ledge of the things beyond the senses. Dreams are usually remembered in the form of sense representations which are posited in common sense by the imagina^^ion, e.g., the sea representing power and the snake an enemy. There were developed general rules of interpreting such representations. These rules are the object of the science of dream interpretation {ta'bir al-ru'ya).*

All these sciences presuppose some knowledge of the language in which the sources have been revealed or written. Thus the

“ Q II 386, 388 ff., I ll 1-26.

' 0 1 1 3 8 6 :1S -18 , III 27 ff. ' 0 III 60-65.

‘ 0 III 82-83, 84-86. It is important to notice at the outset that Ihn Khaldûn considers dialectical theology, mysticism, and dream interpretation, positive sciences that are the speciality of a certain community, and not universal rational sciences. In the introductory summary schematism in 0 II 385-87, of these three sciences Ihn Khaldûn mentions dialectical theology only ( 0 II 386: 17). Apparently, he did not think that mysticism and dream interpretation were important enough to be mentioned in a summary account of the positive sciences. At the beginning of the two chapters dealing with mysticism and dream interpretation, he says: ‘ This science is a legal science and it is new in the community. . . .’ ( 0 III 59, 80). By saying that they are new {Jfâdith) in the community, he is indicating the fact that Æe early generations of Islam led a perfectly pious life without them. This is true, according to Ibn Khaldûn, of dialectical theology also ( 0 III 36: 15, 5 1 : 14-16).

linguistic sciences If ulûm lisâniyyà) are in a sense necessary tools for all the positive sciences and are grouped with them.*

Although these positive sciences are primarily concerned with transmitting and ascertaining prescribed commands concerning practical matters, they contain some measure of rational thought which is apt to increase with the growth and complexity of social life. This is true, for instance, of jurisprudence and dialectical theology which deal with practical matters and with behefs respectively. The use of personal prudential elaboration and analogy, which are, to a certain extent, rational efforts on the part of the jurisconsult, had been recognized by all the four orthodox schools of Islam long before Ibn Khaldûn’s time. The same was true of some of the sciences closely connected with jurisprudence. Thus, the fundamentals of jurisprudence deal with the problem of how to deduce legal injunctions from the various sources of the Law, including personal prudential elaboration and analogy;® the science of controversial matters is concerned exclusively with rational rules for argumentation among the exponents of the various schools of jurisprudence; and the science of dialectical discussion of legal opinion is, formally at least, a purely rational discipline.® The rational element in dialectical theology, on the other hand, is all too clear, since the function of dialectical theology is to defend religious beliefs by rational arguments.* Ibn Khaldûn’s analysis of the nature and function of the positive sciences, therefore, recognizes the existence, and to some extent the necessity, of a rational element in these sciences.® The crucial problem is, however, to define the nature of that rational element, to limit the extent to which it needs to be used, and to explain the possible danger of its excessive use.

The nature of the rational element used in the positive sciences is defined by the primary end of these sciences. This end, as we “ This is true only of the general schematism presented in Q II 386: i8-ao. In the actual detailed account of the sciences, however, Ibn Khaldûn discusses the linguistic sciences after the rational sciences (Q III 278 ff.).

>0 I I I i7ff. • Q III 26. • Q III 27 ff.

• Cf., e.g., Ibn Khaldûn’ s assertion of the necessity of arithmetic for dividing the inheritance of a deceased man in accordance with the prescriptions of the Law (Ô III 14-15).

have seen, is practical: it is to ascertain and apply the commands of the Law. Consequently, whatever rational knowledge may be needed or used in these sciences must be strictly governed by, and directed to, that end. The jurisconsult may have to elaborate and to use rational rules of personal prudential elaboration, the rules of discussing controversial matters, or the rules of dia­ lectic, for defending or disproving legal opinions. The dia­ lectical theologian may find it necessary or useful to explain rationally and defend the beliefs commanded by the Law, or to disprove contrary beliefs or the innovations of sectarians and deviationists. In so doing, they all must recognize the pragmatic end to which they are utilizing rational argumentations, i.e., that their use of reasoning is a tool for applying the Law and defending the beliefs of the community.“

The extent to which reason is to be utilized in these sciences would, therefore, have to vary with the practical needs at particular times and places. The early generations of Muslims in Medina, for instance, led a pious life in full accord with the Law without the need to use reasoning by analogy, dialectical theo­ logy, or mystical exercises. The rise of new practical problems resulting from the expansion of the Islamic empire, and the rise of sectarians and innovators as a result of contact with other cultures, necessitated the use of reasoning by analogy and dia­ lectical theology.® The spread of worldly pursuits and mundane luxury during the ninth century and after, on the other hand, made a special order of those who consecrated themselves to a life of piety and devotion; and they organized the life of the spirit in accordance with rationally specified rules, practices, and exercises, known as mysticism.® But in aU these positive sciences the rational element should be limited by the immediate practical purpose for which it is used. Thus, the problems dis­ cussed in the fundamentals of jurisprudence, in legal contro­ versies and dialectic, and in mysticism, must be full of practical examples, and limited to the field of legal matters and devotional practices. They need not become rationally elaborate and abstract. The juridical sciences, for instance, need not deal with the whole range of rational analogy or dialectic as such.*

“ Q I I 127, III I ff., 1 6 - 1 7 ,1 2 2 ,1 2 3 - 2 4 . • Q III s9-6o, 62-63. « Cf. Q III 2 ff., 44 ff. * 0 III 22, 26.

Dialectical theology should concentrate on explaining to the com­ munity as a whole the beliefs contained in the Law, and ensure the continued existence of the ‘ state of possession ’ and the unity of beliefs; it must use simple arguments that could be understood by all, and at the same time emphasize the necessity of accepting beliefs without too much rational enquiry, the short­ comings of human reason, its inabihty to know the true meaning of beliefs, and the necessity of actually living by beliefs rather than simply uttering them.“ Mystics should not pervert their practical exercises by attempting to demonstrate their intuitions and visions. They should, rather, practise their way of life and concentrate on the acquisition of the proper qualifications leading to mystical knowledge.® In the only rational argument which Ibn Khaldûn himself uses in this connection, his argu­ ment on the unity of God (tawhid), these ideas are prominently and effectively emphasized in a manner proving that he has mastered to the last detail the technique advocated by Averroes as most fitting for addressing the many.®

Restricting the use of rational argumentation in the positive sciences to the indispensable minimum is necessary because of the practical dangers that will inevitably result from superfluous abstractions in these sciences. The most immediate danger is that the author will lose sight of the practical purpose of these sciences and waste his efforts in elaborating useless argumentative schemes.* In dialectical theology, the practice of reckless rational

“ Q III 30-31.

' 0 III 61, 63-64.

» 0 III 27 ff.; cf. Averroes Mandhij 43 ff.; above pp. 93 ff. Ibn Kbaldûn starts bis argument by saying: ‘ Let us start bere witb a winning argument [literally, a witty saying: latifa\ and a rational proof tbat discloses for us tbe unity of God in the simplest or shortest way.’ ( 0 III 27: 5-6. Notice tbe use of ‘ disclose ’ [kashf) bere and in tbe title of tbis chapter, and tbe use of tbe same word in tbe title of Averroes’ Mandhij.) He tben proceeds to sbow wbat tbe constituent elements of tbis simple or sbort way are. First be uses tbe argument from causation used by Averroes (except tbat Averroes gave tbe argument tbe more popular name of invention [lAAftVd*] [Mandhij 43: 6]). Tbrougbout tbe wbole argument, tbe stress is on the necessity of abstaining from investigating the matter and following the Legislator in beliefs and actions. He even defines the unity of God as ‘ our inability to comprehend causes and the way they operate, and our delegation of that [knowledge] to their Creator ’ ( 0 III 31 : 9-10, cf. also 5 1: 15-16.) He cone udes by saying that the recognition ‘ of the inability to comprehend is comprehension ’ ( 0 III 3 1: 13), and appends a long argument on the necessity of having belief as a ‘ state of possession ’ .

* 0 III 2 1-23, 26. This has been the case, for instance, in the treatises written by dialectical theologians like Juwayni (d. 1085/478 [G A L I 388-90]), Ghazâlî,

argumentation about bebefs has been not only useless, but socially destructive. It has been the source of the various dis­ ruptive sects and dissensions that broke the spell of the Law, confused the community, and jeopardized its solidarity.* Finally, taking rational argumentation too seriously in the positive sciences is dangerous because none of the rational disciplines used in these sciences are true rational sciences. Therefore, their conclusions are never rationally demonstrated. When not checked by the prescriptions of the Law, they are apt to be false.® Considered rationally, the results of such faulty methods are simply opinions and have no intrinsic grounds for certainty. The positive sciences cannot, therefore, use the authority of rational demonstration to defend their conclusions. That is why they should keep away from the use of rational argumen­ tation except when deemed necessary either for the explanation or for the defence of the prescriptions of the Law. In such cases, they must keep close to these prescriptions, for they are the only authority for their conclusions. To do otherwise is injurious to the health of the community, to the many and the few alike. It leads to the confusion between the proper methods of the legal sciences and those of the rational sciences, a confusion which Ibn Khaldûn thought to be the most important single charac­ teristic of the sciences of his time.

The confusion between the positive sciences and the philo­ sophic sciences was not, however, limited to the confusion between their methods but included their subject matter and problems. Indeed, the confusion was so widespread that it had become impossible to distinguish one group from the other.® The problem was particularly serious in the case of dialectical theology and mysticism on the one hand, and philosophy on the and Râzi, on the fundamentals of jurisprudence, and ‘Àmidi (d. 1233/631

[G A L I 393]) and Nasafi (d. 1142/537 [G A L 1427-28]) on legal dialectic. “ Q III 36 ff.

* When investigated from the standpoint of demonstrative science, the syllo^sms employed in legal dialectic are for the most part ‘ fallacious and sophistical ’ ( 0 III 26): the logic employed by the ‘ ancient ’ school of dialec­ tical theologians is naive and not in accordance with the strict rules of reasoning ; and the logic employed by the ‘ modems ’ is only formal and, therefore, not productive of demonstrable conclusions ( 0 III 40-41, cf. 112 -16 , 123-24: cf. Averroes Tahâfut passim).

Other.“ Ibn Khaldûn’s attempt to reintroduce the distinction between dialectical theology and mysticism, and between both and philosophy, was ostensibly aimed at defining the proper object of the positive sciences and redirecting them to their practical end. But behind this practical purpose, his distinctions were directed toward another, more theoretical end, i.e., that of defining the proper sphere and object of philosophy.

In order to understand the predicament in which Ibn Khaldûn found dialectical theology, mysticism, and philosophy, we must consider his analysis of the post-Ghazâlian development of these sciences. In the case of the ‘ ancient ’ or Ash'arite school of dialectical theology, the relation between dialectical theology and philosophy was relatively simple and clear-cut. The ancients rejected the posterioristic logic of the philosophers and, conse­ quently, denied the objective existence of universais to which the universais in the mind were to correspond. They refuted the very principles of essence, of nature, and of natural and rational causes. Instead, they started with principles of their own, especially designed for the defence of religious dogmas, like asserting the existence of the atoms and the vacuum, and the dissolution of time into time-atoms, and like holding that acci­ dents do not endure through two time-atoms and that no accident can subsist in another accident.® In short, they rejected philo­ sophy and its method; and having rejected nature and causes, they almost rejected reason itself.® From the standpoint of demonstrative science, their method was n^'ve and their prin­ ciples were false. But this did not matter, since they clearly “ This problem concerned Ibn Khaldûn to such an extent that he felt it necessary during his stay in Egypt to add a new chapter dealing with ‘ the equivocJ expressions of the Koran and Tradition ’ ( 0 III 44-59). This chapter is not in B q which means that it was written after 1393/796-1396/799, the period during which the Marinid king ‘Abd al-‘Aziz, to whom this version was dedi­ cated, ruled. Cf. T pp. 10-2. In attempting to interpret these expressions, the Islamic community was led to great confusion. It is significant that he inserted this chapter between his discussions of dialectical theology and mysticism, as if to suggest that these two disciplines had been responsible for that confusion. The chapter contains nothing new, except for the analysis of the states of the intellect habitus discussed above. V ^ a t Ibn Khaldûn had in mind, then, was to explain in clearer terms what he had already stated repeatedly in his dis­ cussions of the various positive sciences, i.q., that their ultimate source is the saintly intellect of the prophet, and that tiiey should not, therefore, be confused with theoretical knowledge properly so-called, which is the object of philosophy.

' 0 III 40, 1 1 4 - 1 5 ; cf. Maimonides Dalâla i. 63. » Cf. Averroes Tahdfut 522: 7-8, passim.

differentiated themselves from the philosophers, did not place much faith in reason, and deliberately used it as a tool to defend