Talk:Ibn Khaldun/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Old talk

ibn khaldun komed from jemen, averroes was a arab. the arab brought the civilation to north-afrika. the berber are old arabs. berberlanguage is a old arabic....

(enough of counterfeiting)

if his origin was certain: why claim this arab-speaking ibn khaldun was a berber. (ibn khaldun and sjietes why claim taha hsien ibn khaldun was a berber. why claim mohamed chafik he was a berber...

for meer information see: http://www.tawalt.com/monthly/33_shafeeq_b.pdf for :mohamed chafik .Aziri 14:36, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If he's a Berber, why would he call himself "al-Hadrami"? Look at his first page: [1]. - Mustafaa 19:03, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

OK, I think pp. 559-560 of his Tarikh settle the argument once and for all:

قال ابن حزم: ويقال إن حضرموت هو ابن يقطن أخي قحطان والله أعلم. وكان فيهم رياسة إلى الإسلام. منهم وائل بن حجر له صحبة، وهو وائل بن حجر بن سعيد بن مسروق بن وائل بن النعمان بن ربيعة بن الحارث بن عوف بن سعد بن عوف بن عدي بن شرحبيل بن الحرث بن مالك بن مرة بن حمير بن زيد بن لابي بن مالك بن قدامة بن أعجب بن مالك ابن لابي بن قحطان. وابنه علقمة بن وائل. وسقط عنده بين حجر أبي وائل وسعيد بن مسروق أب اسمه سعد وهو ابن سعيد. [2]

ثم قال ابن حزم: ويذكر بنو خلدون الأشبيليون فيقال: إنهم من ولد الجبار بن علقمة بن وائل، منهم علي المنذر بن محمد، وابنه بقرمونة وأشبيلية اللذين قتلهما إبراهيم بن حجاج اللخمي غيلةً، وهما ابنا عثمان أبي بكر بن خالد بن عثمان أبي بكر بن مخلوف المعروف بخلدون الداخل المشرق. وقال غيره في خلدون الأول: إنه ابن عمرو بن خلدون. وقال ابن حزم في خلدون أنه ابن عثمان بن هانيء بن الخطاب بن كريب بن معد يكرب بن الحرث بن وائل بن حجر. وقال غيره خلدون بن مسلم بن عمر بن الخطاب بن هانيء بن كريب بن معد يكرب بن الحرث بن وائل. قال ابن حزم: والصدف من بني حضرموت وهو الصدف بن أسلم بن زيد بن مالك بن زيد بن حضرموت الأكبر. قال ومن حضرموت العلاء بن الحضرمي الذي ولاه رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم البحرين، وأبو بكر وعمر من بعده إلى أن توفي سنة إحدى وعشرين، وهو العلاء بن عبد الله بن عبدة بن حماد بن مالك حليف بني أمية بن عبد شمس، وأخوه ميمون بن الحضرمي بن الصدف. فيقال عبد الله بن حماد بن أكبر بن ربيعة بن مالك بن أكبر بن غريب بن مالك بن الخزرج بن الصدف. قال وأخت العلاء الصعبة بنت الحضرمي أم طلحة بن عبد الله.

وأما جرهم فقال ابن سعيد: إنهم أمتان أمة على عهد عاد، وأمة من ولد جرهم بن قحطان. ولما ملك يعرب بن قحطان اليمن ملك أخوه جرهم الحجاز، ثم ملك من بعده ابنه عبد ياليل بن جرهم، ثم ابنه جرشم بن عبد ياليل، ثم ملك من بعده ابنه عبد المدان بن جرشم، ثم ابنه نفيلة بن عبد المدان. ثم ابنه عبد المسيح بن نفيلة ثم ابنه مضاض بن عبد المسيح، ثم ابنه عمرو بن مضاض، ثم أخوه الحرث بن مضاض، ثم ابنه عمرو بن الحرث، ثم أخوه بشر بن الحرث ثم مضاض بن عمرو بن مضاض. قال وهذه الأمة الثانية هم الذين بعث إليهم إسماعيل وتزوج فيهم. [3]

Read this and tell me if he was Berber or not. - Mustafaa 19:20, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

i did read it. and i tell you that he was a berber. do yoy know that there an another hadramoet in tunise , now his name is ssoussa ? yes, you know that , but you think that we don't knouw that.Aziri 10:28, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No. There is linguistically no way that the Latin "Hadrumetum" could have become Hadhramaut in Arabic - H disappeared from Latin long before the Arabs reached North Africa. If they had taken over the name, which as far as I know thye did not, it would have become أدروميت. If you claim that "Hadhramawt" has ever been used in Arabic to mean "Sousse", then prove it; show me one medieval source in Arabic calling Sousse Hadhramawt. Besides, didn't you notice the text is talking about Qahtan, the mythical ancestor of the Arabs? And Murra, which is still a big Yemeni tribe? - Mustafaa 23:12, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Oh - and Muhammad Chafik says he's "maghrebin", not that he's Berber: [www.mondeberbere.com/culture/ chafik/maghreb/substratberbere.PDF]. That would be because he wasn't Berber... - Mustafaa 23:27, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Do a little search in Ibn Khaldun for حضرموت at [4]. You'll get 27 pages, with plenty of things like: فكانت مواطنهم الأولى بأحقاف الرمل بين اليمن وعمان إلى حضرموت والشحر

عمان- وهي من ممالك جزيرة العرب المشتملة على اليمن والحجاز والشحر وحضرموت وعمان

If you're confused about what Ibn Khaldun means when he says Hadhramaut, read those 27 pages. - Mustafaa 05:00, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

oeh , yes he was amaghribin he wasn't a berber. maghrib arab, same us i'm also arab. same us you are the only one who can understand mohamed chafik, same us are more learned then taha husayn. ibn khaldun was born in tunisie and he was not an arab. hij saied even that the most learned were not arabs. who can ibn khaldun the learned be an arab. see this :

Most of the scientists were no Arabs :

Strange is that the scientists generally no Arabs were and this applies both to the scientists in Islam and in science. And if there is an Arab under them, then he is gearabiseerd. Nevertheless the owner of CHARIA (Islamic legislation) came from their middle. And this comes because the Arabs are ignorant and have had never knowledge. Even those whom Arab grammar products has made expatriate. First Sibawayh were from the Persian realm and then Al-Zajaaj, these two were AJAM (everyone who is no Arab). The expatriate have made grammar for the Arabs and learned them the Arab language, art, laws and opvoedkunde. The meesten which Al-Hadith after to products have told of origin no Arabs. Then the Islamic scientists were not almost all Arabs. The Arabs could not write, note and not to express. And all those scientists who and have explained products have noted Islamic leathers and Arab grammar and have kept no Arabs of origin. Science was conducted by the Persian scientists, whereas the Arabs for competing with were concerning the power. The Arabs have ternauwernood interfered with science. The industry was carried out by the Gearabiseerden. When the Arabs devastate Egypt and the power there got, the Egyptenaren have kept themselves busy with science and Egypt was the country of science and industry. To these gearabiseerden which kept themselves busy with science were: SAAD ADDIEN ATAFTAZI, IBN ALKHTIEB, NASR ADDIEN ATTUSIE. The work of other gearabiseerden has been destroyed. ...

see what the ather arabs saied about ibn khaldun : the did read a few of waht ibn khaldun deed write:

عجبت كيف تسألني عن هذه الخرافة؟ ونسيت ما قلته أنت ونقلته عنّا في صفحة من صفحات كتابك انّه (أي محمّد الحسين) لا يرضى عن الرجوع في تأريخ الشيعة إلى ما كتبه إبن خلدون (البربري) الذي يكتب وهو في افريقيا وأقصى المغرب عن الشيعة في العراق وأقصى المشرق، إنتهى.فهل نقلت الأسطورة الخرافية إلاّ عن إبن خلدون أو أمثاله؟ وهل وجدتها في شيء من كتب الشيعة؟ إذاً فارشدنا إليه أرشدك اللّه، هذا وقد قرأت في كتابنا (أصل الشيعة وأصولها) الذي نوهت أنت عنه في هذه الصفحة.

but that is not allthing the arabs claim also :

-the berber komed from yemen. -berberlanguage is a yemenitic dialect. -ibn khaldun is a yemenitic. -averroes is a arab. -the arabs broucht the civilation to north afrika . (you may ask ibn khaldun bout it).

here you can find that the berber are victims of counterfeiting of their history because the Europeans have said that they are berber, whereas they are old Arabs.

• http://www.akbarlibya.com/AF/AF4.htm

Aziri 10:31, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've shown you that he himself says that he's an Arab; there is nothing more to say on this topic. Go back to arguing over Ibn Rushd; there, at least you can claim that we don't know for certain what his ethnicity was, but Ibn Khaldun tells us his ethnicity himself. If you want to prove that he was Berber, go read the whole book, and tell me if you find even the smallest shred of evidence. Until then, I will revert any change you make to this article. - Mustafaa 07:24, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

oei, where ? and why did taha husayn and mohemd chafiq and all the berber and chiets saied thatb he is a berber ? if you don't believ that hadramut was the name of sousse , see: We visit one of the most attractive resorts in Tunisia today. Sousse, the ancient "Hadrumete", source : http://www.bestway.com/itineraries/t56.html Aziri 10:57, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No. There is linguistically no way that the Latin "Hadrumetum" could have become Hadhramaut in Arabic - H disappeared from Latin long before the Arabs reached North Africa. If they had taken over the name, which as far as I know thye did not, it would have become أدروميت. If you claim that "Hadhramawt" has ever been used in Arabic to mean "Sousse", then prove it; show me one medieval source in Arabic calling Sousse Hadhramawt. Besides, didn't you notice the text is talking about Qahtan, the mythical ancestor of the Arabs? And Murra, which is still a big Yemeni tribe? - Mustafaa 23:12, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

OK, even you can't pretend he wasn't Arab now:[5]

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم التعريف بابن خلدون ورحلته شرقا وغربا التعريف بابن خلدون مؤلف الكتاب ورحلته غرباً وشرقاً وأصل هذا البيت من إشبيلية، انتقل سلفنا -عند الجلاء وغلب ملك الجلالقة ابن أدنونش عليها- إلى تونس في أواسط المائة السابعة نسبه عبد الرحمن بن محمد بن محمد بن محمد بن الحسن بن محمد بن جابر بن محمد بن إبراهيم بن عبد الرحمن بن خلدون. لا أذكر من نسبي إلى خلدون غير هؤلاء العشرة، ويغلب على الظن أنهم أكثر، وأنه سقط مثلهم عدداً، لأن خلدون هذا هو الداخل إلى الأندلس، فإن كان أول الفتح فالمدة لهذا العهد سبعمائة سنة، فيكونون زهاء العشرين، ثلاثة لكل مائة، كما تقدم في أول الكتاب الأول.

ونسبنا حضرموت، من عرب اليمن، إلى وائل بن حجر، من أقيال العرب، معروف وله صحبة. قال أبو محمد بن حزم في كتاب الجمهرة: وهو وائل بن حجر بن سعيد بن مسروق بن وائل بن النعمان بن ربيعة بن الحارث بن عوف بن سعد بن عوف بن عدي بن مالك بن شرحبيل بن الحارث بن مالك بن مرة بن حميري بن زيد بن الحضرمي بن عمرو بن عبد الله بن هانئ بن جرشم بن عبد شمس بن زيد بن لأي بن شبت بن قدامة بن أعجب بن مالك بن لأي بن قحطان. وابنه علقمة بن وائل وعبد الجبار بن وائل. وذكره أبو عمر بن عبد البر في حرف الواو من الاستيعاب، وأنه وفد على النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم، فبسط له رداءه، وأجلسه عليه، وقال: اللهم بارك في وائل بن حجر وولده وولد ولده إلى يوم القيامة. وبعث معه جارية بن أبي سفيان إلى قومه يعلمهم القرآن والإسلام، فكانت له بذلك صحابة مع معاوية. ووفد عليه لأول خلافته وأجازه، فرد عليه جائزته ولم يقبلها. ولما كانت واقعة حجر بن عدي الكندي بالكوفة، اجتمع رؤوس أهل اليمن، وفيهم هذا، فكانوا مع زياد بن أبي سفيان عليه، حتى أوثقوه وجاؤوا به إلى معاوية، فقتله كما هو معروف. قال ابن حزم: ويذكر بنو خلدون الإشبيليون من ولده، وجدهم الداخل من الشرق خالد المعروف بخلدون بن عثمان بن هانئ بن الخطاب بن كريب بن معد يكرب بن الحارث بن وائل بن حجر. قال: وكان من عقبه كريب بن عثمان بن خلدون وأخوه خالد، وكانا من أعظم ثوار الأندلس. قال ابن حزم: وأخوه محمد كان من عقبه أبو العاصي عمرو بن محمد بن خالد بن محمد بن خلدون. وبنو أبي العاصي: محمد، وأحمد، وعبد الله. قال: -وأخوهم عثمان، وله عقب. ومنهم الحكيم المشهور بالأندلس من تلاميذ مسلمة المجريطي، وهو أبو مسلم عمر بن محمد بن بقي بن عبد الله بن بكر بن خالد بن عثمان بن خالد بن عثمان بن خلدون الداخل. وابن عمه أحمد بن محمد بن أحمد بن محمد بن عبد الله. قال: ولم يبق من ولد كريب الرئيس المذكور إلا أبو الفضل بن محمد بن خلف بن أحمد بن عبد الله بن كريب- انتهى كلام ابن حزم.

For the benefit of non-Arabic speakers: the chapter is about his own origins, and the key line is: "And our ancestry is from Hadhramaut, from the Arabs of Yemen, via Wa'il ibn Hajar, from the best of the Arabs, well-known and respected. ونسبنا حضرموت، من عرب اليمن، إلى وائل بن حجر، من أقيال العرب، معروف وله صحبة.. - Mustafaa 20:00, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

i don't understand why are you writing all this. i know that the arabs claim that he was a arab. (but that is juist a smalle counterfeinting ,if you want to see more ,i will kopie that for you) . and what i say now, is not saying that he was a berber (according to my was he a berber), but i'm not here to say what he is. i write what the learends saied. it is nonsens tot say that was from yemen who where is andalusie , and he he is born is tunisie. if the arabs have decency feeling , then they saied not that he was an arab. ibn khaldun saied that the most arabs are barbarian. and they are seldom learend, and he saied that north afrika was nice, but the arabs did it distroyed. ibn khaldun saied that even the schientist of the relegion where not arabs. such as albokhari and moslim , and the are the most scientist and they are the most important scholars of islam. read this : http://www.al-eman.com/islamlib/viewchp.asp?BID=163&CID=1

i realy don't knouw if you serieusly think that he was an arab. if you are such as the arabs who saied that Plato and athena and romein arabic words. if such as the arabs who saied that the berber komed from yemen, of such us the arabs who saied that aksiel and dihya and salih ibn tarif were jews...

if yoy want the truth there is not proofs that ibn khaldun were arab of berber. i want not to say what is his origine. that for the scientist. but you don't think that i will say that he was an arab, because the arabs saied that. even same are arabs saied that he was a berber such as taha husayn and the arab of the ex-link. we know that his origin is unknown and same arabs (not all of them) that he was an arab , and same berber (not all of them) claim that he was a berber. you know that Taha Hussein was not stupid to say that he was a berber if he was realy an arab. and you know that Mohamed Chafik : not so stupied to say that he was probably a berber same us he may be an arab.

Taha Hussein may not be stupid, but (like 99.999% of the world) I doubt he ever read the entire Kitab al-Ibar. If he had, he would know - just as you should now know - that Ibn Khaldun says clearly and directly that he was an Arab and his ancestors came from Yemen. If you think Ibn Khaldun was such a big liar, why do you want him to be Berber anyway? - Mustafaa 19:18, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Conclusion

if you are so searly that he was an arab. you can bleave to think so. and is also for my if i think that he was a berber. BUT because his oringine , such as i saied, is unknouwn we can just write what there is saied. and that is so :" the origine of ibn khaldun is uncertain, that arab claim that he was an arab from yemen , his familly was in sapain, and he is born in tunisie. but other berber claim that he was a berber, because according to them (the berber) there is no proofs that ibn khaldun realy was from yemen. such as taha hussein and mohamed chafik and others. and the other important reason is that he did writed very negatieve about the arabs. Aziri 11:00, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Explain this one thing to me: Why are you claiming that Ibn Khaldun lied about his ancestry? Or if you understand Arabic better: لماذا تقول أن ابن خلدون كذب لما قال أنه عرب في كتابه؟ It's not "the Arabs" that claim he was Arab; it's IBN KHALDUN that claims he was Arab! Can you read? - Mustafaa 19:10, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

كتب ابن خلدون عن نفسه في كتاب العبر: "ونسبنا حضرموت، من عرب اليمن، إلى وائل بن حجر، من أقيال العرب، معروف وله صحبة" (ص. 2429، alwaraq.com). هذا ليس قول حزب البعث ولا قول جمال عبد الناصر ولا قول هواري بومدين، بل هذا قوله عن أجداده. لماذا تريد أن تزعم أنه أمازيغي إذا تعتبره كذاب؟ - Mustafaa 19:25, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

1+ ibn khaldun is not a liar, but the arabs . 2+this one is not a berber:http://www.salaam.co.uk/knowledge/biography/viewentry.php?id=808

the mother of ibn khaldun may be an arab women.Aziri 11:01, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

According to Ibn Khaldun, it was his father: عبد الرحمن بن محمد بن محمد بن محمد بن الحسن بن محمد بن جابر بن محمد بن إبراهيم بن عبد الرحمن بن خلدون. لا أذكر من نسبي إلى خلدون غير هؤلاء العشرة، ويغلب على الظن أنهم أكثر، وأنه سقط مثلهم عدداً،. So basically, you prefer to take the word of one website which doesn't say where it got its information from over the word of Ibn Khaldun himself. You ever heard the story that ends معزة ولو طارت!? - Mustafaa 19:00, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

the mother of ibn khaldun may be an arab women . that is funny .Aziri 12:16, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

The page includes a detailed discussion of Ibn Khaldun's own claim to be Arab and of the fact that a few biographers have suggested he may be falsely claiming to be Arab. I don't see what more any reasonable observer could want. Given that we have this paragraph, I suppose we could remove "Arab" from the first paragraph and defer all ethnic discussion to the second one, but that is about it. Do you have any perspective on this, Lectiodifficilior? - Mustafaa 18:26, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

to be a judge about yourself is not perfect. but i'm very happy to write some quotes of ibn khaldun to the world. let it so. Aziri 13:48, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm happy to keep the quote; in fact, I've even gone to the trouble of fixing it. - Mustafaa 20:49, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

good, because some arabs claim that they brought the civilation to north africa . like as this :"...أصبحت مدينة قريبة منها تسمى تونس أهم منها...[6]" english : and later became an other city near it and its name became Tunis ,more impotant then it .(the tunis of the arabs is became more important then the carthago of the romeins) . but what is the meanning of ibn khaldun (the tunisian) ? see : A nation which is submitted by the Arabs, will succumb the original article :[7]Aziri 11:21, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You need to reread that article. 1. Tunis was built by the Phoenicians too. 2. In the 6th century AD, Tunis was more important than Carthage (and has been ever since.) Mustafaa 22:08, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"وبعد فتح قرطاج في 698 م أصبحت مدينة قريبة منها تسمى تونس أهم منها، وأخيرا رجع قرطاج آثار غير مسكون، يبنون بها سكان تونس بيوتهم." na the Feth (the arabic name for the invasion on the name of the islam) comed an other city near of it its name was tunisia more important than it (carthago of the romeins) ...Aziri 10:47, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

hey 'Zero' , if you want to protect the page ,you have to protect it with the works of ibn khaldun.Aziri 12:23, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

At least on this article you have the excuse that the quote is vaguely relevant. Now maybe you could try and correct the translation yourself. - Mustafaa 18:10, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Translation

Moved from Wikipedia:Translation into English:

• Article: de:Ibn Khaldun
• Corresponding English-language article: Ibn Khaldun
• Worth doing because: The German article—which is featured-quality—has a much better biography and summary of his works.
• Originally Requested by: —No-One Jones 02:06, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Status: done. But could be checked for typos etc and English/Wiki-spelling of names, and also there seems to be (looking at some of the external links listed) some confusion/contradiction over parts of his middle life (all the intrigue, who and where) which somebody could check. Rd232 10:22, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Other notes:

---

The contadiction !

Moustapha, you wrote this:

"One website - Salaam.co.uk (http://www.salaam.co.uk/knowledge/biography/viewentry.php?id=808) - claims, without giving any sources, that this ancestry was through his mother and that his father was "a native of Berber" (sic), although this contradicts Ibn Khaldun's own words, since he traces his genealogy back to Khaldun through his father's side:

"Abd ar-Rahman ibn Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn al-Hasan ibn Muhammad ibn Jabir ibn Muhammad ibn Ibrahim ibn Abd ar-Rahman ibn Khaldun. Of my genealogy back to Khaldun I recall only these ten, although there must have been more..." - (p. 2428, Al-Waraq (http://www.alwaraq.com/)'s edition)"

I don't know what are his sources, but i don't know how the own words of ibn Khaldun contradicts the claim of "Salaam.co.uk". Can you explain that, please ?Akzennay 13:30, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Moustapha, you wrote this:

In his autobiography Ibn Khaldun traces his descent back to the time of the Prophet Muhammad through an Arabic-Yemeni tribe from Hadhramaut, which came to Spain in the eighth century at the beginning of the Islamic conquest. In his own words: "And our ancestry is from Hadhramaut, from the Arabs of Yemen, via Wa'il ibn Hajar, from the best of the Arabs, well-known and respected." (p. 2429, Al-Waraq (http://www.alwaraq.com/)'s edition).

Can you give the souce, please ? Because if he has really said that, then it would be nonsens to say he was Berber. ;) Akzennay 13:43, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How much more sourcing do you want than the page number and the website? You speak Arabic. Al-Waraq has the entire works of Ibn Khaldun online. Register on that site, find Tarikh Ibn Khaldun, and go to page number 2429. Do I need to spell it out any further, or do I have to ask someone to translate this into Dutch before you manage to understand it? - Mustafaa 02:47, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just to make things easier, let me point out that I already quoted this in Arabic above: ونسبنا حضرموت، من عرب اليمن، إلى وائل بن حجر، من أقيال العرب، معروف وله صحبة - Mustafaa 03:02, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Now, I don't think this is the best manner to give any source, I asked for a source, not for a question, so I have never heard that Ibn Khaldun did considerd himself as Arab, if you can give any reliable source, then I will believe he was an Arab. Give me a source for that last quote, and then it's up. You also didn't give the explanation for wiche you called " the contradiction ", That auteur could be interested to know the reason with logical explanation. At last, I find it a wonder that you delited the quote about the Berbers. Is it not so nice ?Akzennay 11:02, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I gave you a source: p. 2429 of تاريخ ابن خلدون as found on alwaraq.com . It's Ibn Khaldun that I'm quoting, in case you didn't gather that. - Mustafaa 04:41, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And if you want to post quotes, this is the wrong place. Try Wikiquotes. - Mustafaa 04:43, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But, since your command of English is apparently inadequate to understand the instructions I gave you above, I suggest you examine the following mirror of the site I cited: [8] (http://www.al-eman.com/islamlib/viewchp.asp?BID=163&CID=252). - Mustafaa 05:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My thanks for the source, I didn't can find it. thus he was Arab. But I don't know why Taha hussien said he was berber "contrary to Taha Hussein's remark that Ibn Khaldun was a Berber,"[9], and I also don't understand why Dr. Chafik said that he was a Berber with the refference to the claim of Taha Hussein ([10]P 123), And Enan [11]. ( these questions aren't not to you)

They mean most probably that he considerd himself as arab for ideological reasons (The caliph have to be Arab..., (according to the prophet of the muslims (or Arabs) "Mohamed" as example.(see: Ibn khaldun [12])), and the other comment is that he attacked the Arabs.(according to me) It's nonsens to say that he used the term "Arab" to refer to the bedouins. He even said that the Berbers and the arabs are bedouins, but he said in the same page that the cities who would be visited by the Arabs wouldn't still exist more[13]. But he said about the Berbers in another page that they are noble [14]. even Ibn khaldun didn't attacke the bedouins, he said about them that they are most original, honest..[15]. But about the Arabs you can read this:[16]. Thanks again.Akzennay 10:16, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ibn Khaldun al-Hadrami

Ibn Khaldun has called himself an Arab and traced himself to an Arab-Yemeni Tribe. And that can be read in his books, which can be fond in todays Library's. His books were translated into many languages, so that should not be a problem for non-arabic readers. This is an undeniable Fact! even if he was really a berber.

If it helps to soften this racist war, there was a genetic study, which can be read in Scientific Journals, which says that Berbers and Yemenites are related. And this overlaps the berber oral traditions of originating from an ancient Yemeni people.

Move

What about moving this article to 'ibn Khaldun al-Hadrami'? I talked to some of my friends and some recongized the 'al-Hadrami' name, but not the 'Ibn Khaldun'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

In English, Ibn Khaldun is by far the most common "short form", but I'm not necessarily opposed to such a move AnonMoos 04:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikuquote

I think quotes would be better of moved to the dedicated site. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

They're quoted here to make a particular point, not just be general quotations (I would assume). AnonMoos 04:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Arabic transliterations

Many of the Arabic transliterations used in this article are funky ASCII-based non-standard transliterations, which need to be replaced by more appropriate transcriptions (using diacritic letters if thought necessary, but NOT using the ASCII "^" character, or using capital "A" as the transcription of a long vowel) -- accompanied by the original Arabic-alphabet text in a few cases. AnonMoos 04:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Removed quotations

I've removed the "quotations" section because it was quite obvious chosen for racist reasons. Obviously these quotes were put by Arab-haters, and probably Persian "nationalists".

The Persian quote in particular is amusing, since it is not one quote, but sections of different paragraphs put together to bolster Persian pride.

Is this the game to be played now? Scoure Ibn Khaldun's works for any bits of praise or denigration of certain groups?

When will a Greek come over and start putting in quotes of Ibn Khaldun praising the Greeks?

And what of quotes denigrating blacks and northern Europeans?

Once again racial "nationalists" ruin Wikipedia.

MYLO 20:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Your deletions has been reverted. We do not go around wikipedia and delete everything that someone might consider racists .--CltFn 04:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

- - - -

For what reason are those quotes put int then?

Where are the quotes on food? On music? On Greeks? On Byzantium?

The only two quotes on people are those denigrating Arabs, and praising Persians?

if so, then where are the quotes about how blacks?

What are you trying to prove?

There is no reason for them to be there. Ibn Khaldun isn't admired and read because of his views on race.

They go.

MYLO 23:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Name

Why does the arabic script not include Abū Zayd? I only see ʕAbdu l-Rahman ibn Muħammad ibn Khaldūn al-Haḍramī. Yom 05:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I corrected that.Jidan 15:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Tunisian, now, huh?

a word to those who decided to give him a Tunisian nationality...you guys do realize Tunisian as a nationality by itself only developed very recently, just a few decades ago. Please don't falsify facts, he was an Arab, Tunis only became a nation-state centuries after he was born, no one can give that as his nationality. MB 14:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Tunisian from the city of Tunis.--CltFn 03:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

At the time there was no Tunisian nationality, why are you trying to give him a nationality which didn't exist at his time? MB 10:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

He was from the city of Tunis = Tunisian.--CltFn 12:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Tunis is a a name of a city not a nationality.
• A person from london is called english. Ibn khaldun from tunis is called Arab.
• Ibn khaldun is arab and traced his ancestory back to Adam!
• All encyclopedia's call him Arab, e.g. brittanica, Columbia Encyclopedia

Do you understand now why he is Arab?. Jidan 12:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense he was not Arab , you do not seem to know anything about him, read his book , he was not arab by a long shot.--CltFn 13:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I wish you were right. This guy has humilated the arabs like no one else. But when someone writes that he is an arab and even bothers to trace his arab ancestory back to adam. Then you simply have to believe him. Ibn khaldun himself said that History is not about what is right and wrong. Its about what is most probable and less probable. So please stop vandalizing his page. Jidan 13:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually in his autobiography, he himself said he's an Arab, do you see? Are you trying to say he lied? If you do it's suspicious speculation, you simply can't prove it, please stop vandalizing the page. MB 13:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

About the "On Persians" section

It's in bits and pieces, every three words we have ellipses, I wonder what's said in place of the elusive ellipses? Anyway, unless the Iranian editors decide to put on the whole quote, let's keep Ibn Khaldun's article out of propagandist rhetoric, shall we? If anybody wants to publish the alleged quotes, let them put it in their own website. Then the burden of proof and the responsibilty of explaining the thousand and one ellipses will be on them, not people who're trying to write a neutral, informative encyclopedia. MB 14:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a cited material with reference relative to Ibn Khaldun's ideas and philosophy. It has also been re-published in Richard Frye's book "The Golden Age of Persia". Do not remove cited material, this would be vandalism! --ManiF 21:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I have searched in The Muqaddimah and found nothing: http://www.al-eman.com/islamlib/viewchp.asp?BID=163&CID=2#s2. Jidan 22:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Pick up a copy of Professor Richard Frye's book "The Golden Age of Persia", the quote is there. --ManiF 23:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• This article is NOT about Richard Frye and his book "The Golden Age of Persia"
• The "on Persians" doesn't exist in the The Muqaddimah.

Jidan 23:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It comes from section 42 of the The Muqaddimah titled Most of the scholars in Islam have been nonArabs (Persians).--CltFn 02:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The quote about Persians from Ibn Khaldun is republished by Professor Richard Frye in his book "The Golden Age of Persia". That's an authoritative source. --ManiF 00:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

How could he republish something that doesn't exist? MB 09:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

As stated alerady, it's from section 42 of the The Muqaddimah. Please be advised that removing cited material could be considered vandalism. --ManiF 10:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I have searched in The Muqaddimah and found nothing.Here is the link for the online book: http://www.al-eman.com/islamlib/viewchp.asp?BID=163&CID=2#s2.

If you find anything then please paste it here.You will have problems with that, do you know why?? BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST. -- Jidan--

I can confirm the existance of this chapter. --Kash 11:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Dito , and did you get that it is called "Most of the scholars in Islam have been nonArabs (Persians)" , it is not called "on the persians" as I am guessing you believe.--CltFn 12:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, please don`t keep reverting this section, since it presents an NPOV, and comes with an authoritative source, like that of a Harvard University historian, Prof. Emeritus R. N. Fye. Wiki should not be a battleground for pushing any sort of POV. Please know not accepting references and erasing an entire section is not acceptable.Zmmz 04:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, yes please follow your own advice, first Zmmz. Now that it's out of the way, I need a reference from the original text not a harvard translated edition. MB 21:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

What about this?

According to Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406) 'It is a remarkable fact that, with few exceptions, most Muslim scholars both in the religious and in the intellectual sciences have been non-Arabs. [When a scholar is of Arab origin, he is non-Arab in language and upbringing and has non-Arab teachers.]'

That's without the ellipses, btw. To claim that this is not in or an accurate translation of what is in the Muqaddimah is to claim that there is a huge misunderstanding or conspiracy about what that book says, and if you want that view expressed on Wikipedia then you'll need to find verifiable references for it. –T_if_eg_o^(t) _{00:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)}

Ibn khaldun said non-Arabs and NOT Persians. And the title of that chapter was: Most of the scholars in Islam have been non-Arabs. Non-Arabs could be egyptians, syrians, turks, berbers, greeks, indians including persians and NOT just Persians!!. Therefore Ibn Khaldun's Qoute as it is now, is FALSE and should be and will be deleted from the Article. Jidan 22:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The quote on the article already said "non-Arabs", didn't it? And I don't see what the title of the chapter has to do with it. Maybe it would be better to leave the quote and add some note about how the accuracy of the translation to the word "Persians" is contested. (By the way, double-exclamation points and capitalized words usually aren't necessary, so you might want to word your replies to sound calmer.) –T_if_eg_o^(t) _{00:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)}

Until such a clarification is made, I added a tag saying its factual accuracy (because of Persians instead of non-Arabs) and neutrality (because of possibly selective use of ellipses) are disputed, above the quote. Is that OK? –T_if_eg_o^(t) _{00:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)}

Thanks Tifego. I am a native arabic speaker. I have read Ibn Khaldun's original chapter in arabic "الفصل الثالث والأربعون في أن حملة العلم في الإسلام أكثرهم العجم - Chapter 43, Most of the scholars in Islam have been non-Arabs ", which can be found online here: http://www.al-eman.com/islamlib/viewchp.asp?BID=163&CID=41#s1. The chapter describes how most scholars in Islam were non-Arabs and If Arabs than becasue they lived in a non-arab environment. By non-arab environment, Ibn khadlun could have meant any of Al-andalus, Persia, Egypt, Syria, etc. The publisher of this false passage "smartly" picked sentence's and left some and swapped "non-Arab" with "persian", just to make the false illusion that Ibn khaldun, by non-arabs, meant only the persians.

(BTW: I was always calm. I think it depends from which country you come from. double-exclamation points and capitalized words in my text above symblozies importance and not Anger). Jidan 00:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Ibn Khaldun is using the term "العجم" (alien), a word used in Arabic language for Persians and to exclusively refer to Persians, which is always translated as "Persian" into English language. Furthermore, the scientists he's citing as examples, are all Persians. There should be no doubt that he's talking about Persians. --ManiF 06:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong ManiF. The word 'Ajam (عجم) means "non-Arabs" (خَِلافُ العَرَبِ) according to traditional Arabic dictionaries such as al-Qamus al-Muhit. So your clam "a word used in Arabic language for Persians and to exclusively refer to Persians, which is always translated as "Persian" into English language" is clearly not true. The word is also used in the Quran and has never been translated as Persian because it does not mean that. Also he is talking (in the same chapter) about Mawara Annahr, which is a Turkic country. So he is not talking about Persians only. In the next chapter he made it even more obvious by saying: "وهذا عام في جميح أصناف أهل اللسان الأعجمي من الفرس والروم والترك والبربر والفرنج وسائر من ليس من أهل اللسان العربي‏" which means "This is general in all types of Ajami tongs such as Persians (Furs), Romans, Turk, Berber, Europeans, and all types of whom does not belong to the Arabic tong.

"العجم" means non-arabs. "فرس" means persian. Ibn Khaldun used both words in his Book. So, you are wrong!. Jidan 08:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You didn't address his other point, "the scientists he's citing as examples, are all Persians". –T_if_eg_o^(t) _{00:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)}

If you look up the definition of "العجم", this is what you get: The term Ajam (Pron: عجم) is used to refer to Persians. Furthermore, works like "Zabúr-i-Ajam" have been translated into English by scholars as "Persian Psalms". --ManiF 09:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It was a mistranslation then, non-Arabs doesn't exclusively state Persians. 195.229.241.180 12:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I have found a Google Print ref for the citation: [17]. Hope it helps. Btw, you may want to move to a more modern referencing sytem (see Wikipedia:Inline citations).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

This is not what's being disputed, do you have the original text reference? Persian editors so far have failed in giving any sources from the original text to verify their claims. MB 18:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The original text reference in Arabic is on this very section. Also, the Google Print ref for the citation, from a published scholarly work, is considered verifiable evidence. --ManiF 18:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

See my reply a few lines below this, since you bring up the same point there. –T_if_eg_o^(t)_{06:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)}

The Golden Age of Persia

File:The Golden Age of Persia.JPG

From the book: "The Golden Age of Persia", by Richard Nelson Frye (Page 150)

I think this scan can be helpful to settle down this dispute. Amir85 20:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Im sorry, but what will settle the issue is if you take enough arabic lessons to know the difference between Ajam ( عجم, non-arab) and fars(فرس, persian). Why should ibn khaldoun use both words in the same sentence when they both mean the same thing????? Jidan 01:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Check the image again. The quote is verifiable, and that's all there is to it. --ManiF 01:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

That is not exactly the issue here. I believe MB and Jidan are both saying that this passage is a mistranslation. I have seen on one website discussing this passage mention that the author probably did not literally mean Persians and instead meant to include other non-Arabs. Sorry, I can't remember which site, but if that turns out to be verifiable then it could also warrant an aside in the article about it. Nobody is arguing that the passage isn't verifiable (I think), but it's possible that other verifiable information about the passage's accuracy is being neglected. –T_if_eg_o^(t)_{06:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)}

No, that doesn’t seem to be the issue at all, user MB, user Jidan etc., are just giving frivolous disputes with no valid substance behind it, mostly as I get it, they just don’t like the quote, because they believe it belittles Arabs, which I disagree with. One could look at their messages in the edit boxes, when they reverted it in the beginning. If, the reason is verifiability, then the translation had gone through a highly rigorous scrutiny by Western scholars, such as Prof. Emritus R. N. Frye of Harvard, and others. We are behooved to such scholars for their work, and if we are to question such works, even as simple as a mere translation, then that is going down a very slippery slope.Zmmz 06:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Until they can bring up an equally verifiable objection to the quote, they don't have much ground to dispute it, but please don't assume bad faith of them all. I think it's not entirely impossible that the word "Persian" is being taken too literally here, although I don't know anything about it myself. I did see some reference to this outside of Wikipedia. But again, you essentially win (whatever this argument is about) by default unless that other view can be verified and is notable. No need to bring up their motives or your respect for scholars. –T_if_eg_o^(t)_{07:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)}

Oh no, it is not assuming bad faith at all, not at this point, rather it is my interpretation from their own comments, stating things like, the section is anti-Arab, I believe. Now, that is not a good reason to erase entire sections. In fact, another user just erased the same translation on the Richard Nelson Frye article, stating in the edit box, the quotes are anti-Arab. Our job as historians is to report the facts in the encyclopedia, regardless of if we agree with it or not. Moreover, I do whole-heartedly believe that scholars know the difference between the word Persian and other in Arabic, such that in Arabic Persian is Al-Farisi. We have to give scholarly work a higher plateau, higher than our own personal opinions. ThanksZmmz 07:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I have moved my response, and your response to it, into that other article, because it is off-topic here. –T_if_eg_o^(t)_{23:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)}

To reiterate on this topic, there is no argument left here that I can see, until more information is presented. So there is no need to argue. It's my opinion that whoever is continually removing that quote from this page should stop for a while, and take the time to find a good, convincing reason why it should not be there. –T_if_eg_o^(t)_{00:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)}

Not clear

Who exactly are you quoting? F. Rosenthal or R. Nelson??? Aucaman^Talk 01:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe it's a quote of a quote of a translation. (Specifically, a quote of R. Frye's quote of F. Rosenthal's translation of Ibn Khaldūn's The Prologomena) –T_if_eg_o^(t)_{07:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)}

Well that should be made clear in article, right? The way it stands it appears as if the whole thing is a quote by Ibn Khaldun. Aucaman^Talk 16:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it is pretty clear already that it's just a translation of what he said, because it says "Translated by F. Rosenthal" after it. –T_if_eg_o^(t)_{00:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)}

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9041923?query=Ibn%20Khaldun&ct=

in full Wali al-Din 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr Muhammad ibn al-Hasan Ibn Khaldun the greatest Arab historian, who developed one of the earliest nonreligious philosophies of history, contained in his masterpiece, the Muqaddimah (“Introduction”).

http://www.bartleby.com/65/ib/IbnKhald.html

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/ibn%20Khaldun

—Preceding unsigned comment added by KhalidMarwan (talk • contribs)

What? I don't understand what those links are for. They appear unrelated to what was being discussed above. –T_if_eg_o^(t)_{19:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)}

Persians in Muqaddimah

In the translation by Frank Rosenthal, (published by the Priceton University Press, 1967), there are several citations for Persians. Here is the list of those citations from the Index of the book, sorted in the same order given in the Index.

1. Their dead (of Copts and Egyptions) were buried with their possessions of gold, silver, precious stones, and pearls. When the dynasty of the Copts ended and the Persians ruled Egypt, they searched the graves for such objects and discovered them. They took an indescribably large amount of such objects from ordinary graves, and from pyramides, which were the royal graves. Muqaddimah, p.303, last paragraph, 1967 edition.
2. Al-Mas'udi and many other historians report that Moses counted the army of the Israelites in the desert. He had all those able to carry arms, especially those twenty years and older, pass muster. There turned out to be 600,000 or more... The Persian provinces of the two Iraqs (footnote: Mesopotamia and north-western Persia adjacent to it), Khurasan, Transoxania, and the region of Derbend on the Caspian Sea were much larger than the realm of Israelites. yet, the Persian army did not attain such a number or even approach it. The greatest concentration of all Persian troops, at al-Qadisiyah, amounted to 120,000 men, all of whom had their retainers. Muqaddimah, p.11-12, 1967 edition.
3. Where are the sciences of the Persians that Umar ordered to be wiped out at the time of the conquest?.Muqaddimah, p.39, third paragraph, 1967 edition.
4. But in the provinces of the non-Arab Iraq and beyond to the East, no trace or source of (Arabic language) has remained. Even scientific books have come to be written in the Presian language, which is also used for teaching Arabic in class.Muqaddimah, p.295, last paragraph, 1967 edition.
5. As far as our historical information goes, these sciences (arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, music, physics, metaphysics, and astrology) were most extensively cultivated by the two great pre-Islamic nations, the Persians and the Greeks (Rûm)...The Chaldeans and, before them, the Syrians, as well as their contemporaries, the Copts, were much concerned with sorcery and astrology and related subjects of powerful (charms) and talismans. The Persian and Greek nations learned these things from them. Muqaddimah, p.372, paragraphs 6 and last, 1967 edition.
6. Among the Persians, the intellectual sciences played a large and important role, since the Persian dynasties were powerful and ruled without interruption. The intellectual sciences are said to have come to the Greeks from the Persians, when Alexander killed Darius and gained control of the Achaemenid empire. At that time, he appropriated the books and sciences of the Persians. However, when the Muslims conquered Persia and came upon an indescribably large number of books and scientific papers, Sa'd bin Abi Waqqas wrote to 'Umar bin al-Khattab, asking him for permission to take them and distribute them as booty among the Muslims. On that occasion, 'Umar wrote him: Throw them into the water. If what they contain is right guidance, God has given us better guidance. If it is error, God has protected us against it. Thus, the Muslims threw them into the water or into the fire, and the sciences of the Persians were lost and did not reach us.Muqaddimah, p.373, 2nd paragraph, 1967 edition.
7. Thus, the founders of grammar were Sibawayh and, after him, al-Farisi and az-Zajjaj. All of them were of non-Arab (Persian) descent. They were brought up in the Arabic language and acquired the knowledge of it through their upbringing and through contact with Arabs. They invented the rules of (grammar) and made it into a discipline (in its own right) for later (generations to use). Most of the hadith scholars who preserved traditions for the Muslims also were Persians, or Persian in language and upbringing, because the discipline was widely cultivated in the Iraq and the regions beyond. Furthermore, all the scholars who worked in the science of the principles of jurisprudence were Persians. The same applies to speculative theologians and to most Quran commentators. Only the Persians engaged in the task of preserving knowledge and writing systematic scholarly works. Thus, the truth of the following statement by the Prophet becomes apparent: If scholarship hung suspended in the highest parts of heaven, the Persians would attain it. Muqaddimah, p.429-430, 1967 edition.
8. The group that has lost control of its own affairs thus continues to weaken and to disintegrate until it perishes. God alone endures. This may be illustrated by the Persian nation. In the past, the Persians filled the world with their great numbers. When their military force was annihilated by the Arabs, they were still very numerous. It is said that Sa'd bin Abi Waqqas counted (the population) beyond Ctesiphon. It numbered 137,000, including 37,000 heads of families. But when the Persians came under the rule of the Arabs and were subjugated, they lasted only a short while and were wiped out as if they had never been.One should not think that this was the result of some persecution or aggression perpetrated against them. The rule of Islam is known for its justice. Such (disintegration) is in human nature. It happens when people lose control of their own affairs and become the instrument of someone else. Muqaddimah, p.117, last paragraph, 1967 edition.
9. When the dynasty becomes senile and weak, it begins to crumble at its extremities. The centre remains intact until God permits the destruction of the whole dynasty. Then, the centre is destroyed. But when a dynasty is overrun from the centre, it is of no avail to it that the outlying areas remain intact. It dissolves all at once. The centre is like the heart from which the (vital) spirit spreads. Were the heart to be overrun and captured, all the extremities would be routed. This may be observed in the Persian dynasty. Its centre was al-Mada'in (Ctesiphon). When the Muslims took over al-Mada'in, the whole Persian empire dissolved. Posession of the outlying provinces of the realm was of no avail to Yazdjard (Yazdegerd III).Muqaddimah, p.129, 2nd Paragraph, 1967 edition.
10. Therefore, it is necessary to have reference to ordained political norms, which are accepted by the mass and to whose laws it submits. The Persians and other nations had such norms. The dynasty that does not have a policy based on such (norms) cannot fully succeed in establishing the supremacy of its rule.Muqaddimah, p.154, 3rd Paragraph, 1967 edition.
11. The first type of rational politics may concern itself with the general interest, and with the ruler's interest in connection with the administration of his realm, in particular. This was the politics of the Persians. Muqaddimah, p.257, 4th Paragraph, 1967 edition.
12. The Persians who fought in close formation used to employ elephants in their wars. ... In this connection, one may compare what happened at al-Qadisiyah. On the third day, the Persians pressed the Muslims hard with the elephants. Eventually, some outstanding Arabs counter attacked, infiltrated among the elephants, and struck them on the trunk with their swords. The elephants fled and turned back to their stables in al-Mada'in. This paralysed the Persian camp, and they fled on the fourth day....Rustum sat upon a throne that had been set up for him there. Finally , the Persian lines became disordered, and the Arabs penetrated to his throne. He abandoned it and went to the Euphrates, where he was killed. Muqaddimah, p.226, 1967 edition.
13. The Persians made no one king except members of the royal house. Further, they chose him from among those who possessed virtue, religion, education, liberality, bravery, and nobility. Then, they stipulated in addition that he should be just. Muqaddimah, p.234, 1967 edition.
14. One compare here the story that al-Mas'udi tells in the connection with the history of the Persians. In the days of King Bahram bin Bahram, the Mobedhan, the chief religious dignitary among the Persians, expressed to the King his disapproval of the latter's injustice and indifference to the consequences that his injustice must bring upon the dynasty...(Mobedhan tells a story about a pair of male and female owls, where female owl asked as a pre-condition for marriage the gift of twenty villages ruined in the days of Bahram). The King was stirred out of his negligence by that story....After consultation with the Mobedhan, the King ordered the farms to be taken away from the intimates of the ruler and be restored to their owners...As a result, his days were prosperous, and his realm was well organized.Muqaddimah, p.238-239, 1967 edition.
15. Poetry is not restricted exclusively to the Arabic language. It exists in every language. There were poets among the Persians and among the Greeks.Muqaddimah, p.456, Last Paragraph, 1967 edition.

Heja Helweda 02:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting some of those should go in the article, or are you giving them as evidence of something? (If evidence, of course it can't hurt, but the ball wasn't on your side.) –T_if_eg_o^(t)_{02:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)}

No. I just quoted the whole citations so that people can make sure whether the quotes in the article really exist in Muqaddimah or not. In any case, I suggest to remove all ethnic references from the Ibn Khaldun article, since there are other numerous quotes and paragraphs about Arabs, Greeks, Chaldeans, Israelites, etc in that book.Heja Helweda 03:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

OK. I don't know enough to make or argue for this proposed change myself, so you or someone else would have to do it. Alternatively, someone could add quotes for all of those others you mentioned (of the ones that are significant) to make it more balanced, unless all of them are unimportant. –T_if_eg_o^(t)_{03:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)}

Ibn Khaldun on Persians

The quote is sourced and verifiable. (see this) Please don't add any misleading personal commentaries to the quote in order to discredit a verifiable source. I say misleading because, "Ajam" has been used to refer to Persians almost exclusively [18] and Transoxiana (Mawara'-anNahr) was not a "Turkic country", it was predominately Persian until the 14th century. And as I said before, the scientists Ibn Khaldun is citing as examples, are all Persians. There should be no doubt that he's talking about Persians. --ManiF 18:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The translation is incorrect. The word 'Ajam (عجم) means "non-Arabs" (خَِلافُ العَرَبِ) according to traditional Arabic dictionaries such as al-Qamus al-Muhit. Even your reference admits that fact and criticizes Saddam for using that word mostly with Persians during his war with Iran. The word is also used in the Quran and has never been translated as Persian because it does not mean that. Also he is talking (in the same chapter) about Transoxiana, which is a Turkic country, especially at that time under the rule of Tamerlane. So he is not talking about Persians only. In the next chapter he made it even more obvious by saying: "وهذا عام في جميح أصناف أهل اللسان الأعجمي من الفرس والروم والترك والبربر والفرنج وسائر من ليس من أهل اللسان العربي‏" which means "This is general in all types of Ajami tongs such as Persians (Furs), Romans, Turk, Berber, Europeans, and all types of whom does not belong to the Arabic tong.

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Ibn Khaldun/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I have just finished reading the "Ibn Khaldun" page and found it to be relatively good until I reached the section entitled "Legacy". Here, I was startled to find that the entire legacy commented upon is that as it pertains to European society. There is no mention of his legacy in African or Middle Eastern societies. Considering the enormous importance of Ibn Khaldun's ideas, I find it very hard to believe that he left no legacy in Africa or the Middle East, and if in fact that were the case, it seems it would be prudent to include mention of that fact at some point in the section. Anotherethan (talk) 03:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 03:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 15:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)