İstanbul Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi

Öz

Experts working in
various fields of social sciences define Ibn Khaldun as a sociologist,
economist, and jurist. However, a feature that has been highlighted is that of
historian.

Here are his two
important studies: Muqaddimah and Kitab al Ibar. The fact that Ibn
Khaldun’s Muqaddimah is a
historiographical and historical philosophical work, as well as the fact that Kitab al Ibar has got a historical
feature, emphasize that Ibn Khaldun is a historian. Ibn Khaldun revealed the
basics of history with a very advanced understanding compared to his time in Muqaddimah. He shared his views on
historiography under the titles of separate titles. He criticized some
historians who had lived before him, due to their lack of methods. In fact, Muqaddima is the theoretical and Kitab al Ibar is the application example
of the historiography of Ibn Khaldun. It is very important to observe how much
he practices the principles he has set out in his history book. The purpose of
this work is to see whether Ibn Khaldun who, according to his own time has put
forth the most advanced levels of historiography, applies them in his own written
book.

The author does not
have a separate Sirah book. That is why we have to evaluate Ibn Khaldun’s
narration and writing of Sirah in his historiography. Moreover, when we look at
the issues of Kitab al Ibar that deal
with the Jahiliyyah and the Four Caliphs periods, we can see that these issues
are handled very briefly and that the style in the Sirah section is also used
there. This shows that Ibn Khaldun’s writing of Sirah is part of his
historiography. We will especially make comparisons in the investigation we are
going to carry out. Our method is based on comparing Ibn Khaldunʼs
method in the Sirah section, the use of resources, criticism, interpretation,
and section content and comparing them with the historiography written in Muqaddimah.

Ibn Khaldun preferred a
very brief method of expression. For this reason, in his work he did not
mention many subjects that are important for the Sirah. Events that are
disconnected from each other are flowing in succession. He has not explicitly
stated what sources he used. He used narrations but he did not mention where he
got them. He mentioned sources he used in few narrations. These sources are
names that he uses when he states that he is trusting such people as Ibn Ishaq,
Vaqidi, Bukhari, Tabari. Sometimes he did not tell the story and sent the
reader directly to the source. Although there are not many numbers, various
expressions show that the author criticizes and prefers the news he reads
according to the methods he adopts. However, the number of stories that are
clearly criticized is two. According to Ibn Khaldun, the fact that a report is
included in trustworthy sources is sufficient to verify its correctness. The
author has interpreted various forms in the Sirah section of Kitab al Ibar, but their number is
small. When we look at the issues handled by Ibn Khaldun in the Siyer section,
it is generally observed that the processes of Islam’s notification, political
issues, wars and delegations are predominantly involved. We can see that the
Prophetʼs private life
and the steps taken for the construction of the new society in Medina are not
emphasized.

The point about which
Ibn Khaldun criticized some of the historians in the Muqadaddimah is that they should have handled issues succinctly and
should not have included details. However, it can be seen that the al Iberʼs
sections assigned to Siyer also carry these features, that many traditions are
not included, and that a significant portion is referred to by a few sentences.
He has chosen from among the general Sirah topics the topics discussed in this
section. However, the principles on which this choice is based are unclear. Ibn
Khaldun has often not mentioned the sources he uses. We observe that the author
does not reveal the reasons for preferring the narratives in the news he
conveyed. In Muqaddimah, Ibn Khaldun
lay emphasis on the critique of the news and stated that he saw it as the
essence of history. Ibn Khaldun commented on the Siyer section, but by
considering the basics of the historiography he published in Muqaddimah, we see that his
interpretations are rather limited. Ibn Khaldun commented on the Sirah section,
but when it is considered the essence of the historiography he had put forth in
Mukaddime, we can see that his interpretations are rather limited. These
characteristics of the Sirah indicate that he did not obey the point that
historians criticized in Muqaddimah.