Talk:Muqaddimah

Translations and questionable Arab racism

I think that Wikipedia should do an investigation into translations when it comes to racism against "blacks". If any of the editing that I did here on this article was unnecessary please edit and fix it, but at the very least maybe put different translations of the same passage side by side in different articles where this racism shows up that might be questionable. Whats important about this is not just whither or not these scholars were biased the importance is gaining an accurate view of history and this can't be done if there is mistranslations, on the other hand bigotry and prejudiced writing certainly occurred so this is also a sensitive topic that should be taken carefully. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markellion (talk • contribs) 14:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

In the book "Negroland of the Arabs" he says he is quoting form Ibn Khaldun's Prolegmena, which is this book. In Franz Rothenthal's translation he doesn't say anything about the city of Ghana being one of the largest in the world, instead he talks about an "Alid" king that perhaps might have lived there.

"The Muqaddimah" by Abd Ar Rahman bin Muhammed ibn Khaldun Translated by Franz Rosenthal see page P. 102

http://marxistnkrumaistforum.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/the-muqaddimah.pdf

"All the fruits of the Negro territory come from fortified villages in the desert of the Maghrib, such as Touat (Tawat, Tuwat), Tigurarin, 69 and Ouargla (Wargalan). 70 In Ghanah, an 'Alid king and dynasty are said to have existed. (These 'Alids) were known as the Banu Salih. According to the author of the Book of Roger, (Salih) was Salih b. 'Abdallah b. Hasan b. al-Hasan, but no such Salih is known among the sons of 'Abdallah b. Hasan . 71 At this time the dynasty has disappeared, and Ghanah belongs to the Mali ruler."

Contrast that to the description in "Negroland of the Arabs" which is taking extracts from the same book

http://books.google.com/books?id=KD3z9JhqJtsC&pg=PA61&dq==onepage&q&f=false#v=onepage&q&f=false

"The King's court was kept in the city of Ghanah, which, according to the author of the Book of Roger (El Idrisi), and the author of the Book of Roads and Realms (El Bekri), is divided into two parts, standing on both banks of the Nile, and ranks among the largest and most populous cities of the world."

The differences between the two books are striking. I'm trying to figure this out Gravyten577 (talk) 02:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Needs Sources

Well, this page requires some sources, doesn't it? I mean, especially with the last two sentences of the entry. There seems to be absolutely no material supporting the claim--it would be really great if someone could do something about it. :)

Connection to Modern Sociology

Stating that Hegel and Marx were all about feedback loops and not structures whereas Durkheim was all about structures and not feedback loops seems to gloss over important issues. More importantly, it is far from true. If anything. Marx exemplifies a structural discussion. It is interesting that such a claim would appear, considering that reading Durkheim lead me to think of Ibn Khaldun and I came to this article to jog my memory. Having read this impressive tome for my undergraduate work, I hope someone who has read it in the nearer past will revise and add. At any rate, Ibn Khaldun's cyclical vision of society does not resemble Marx's progress driven one. Ibn Khaldun recognized the inevitable corruptability of man. Durkheim saw a similar cycle of societal 'creative destruction', but did not define it into a full theory. At any rate, I'm not changing anything because I don't have the time to write a thorough well-written paragraph, but I would vote to remove the paragraph rather than mislead. Also, this may not be the place for the big Durkheim/Marx debate, but rather those two venerable philosophers's articles. 132.229.189.110 (talk) 17:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Khaldun-Laffer Curve

I appreciate that Ibn Kaldun argued for an initially positive, but eventually negative relationship between tax rates and revenues. But to refer to it as the 'Khaldun-Laffer curve' instead of the 'Laffer curve' will only unnecessarily confuse the issue. There are many other 'laws' that are known by their modern promulgators, the principles of which were discovered in the past. We should refer to concepts by the names they are best known by. lk 10:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Help!

Forgive the technical ignorance but I didn't intent the post I made today to be in bold type but can't undo it. Can some computer literate type please help? I also don't know how to properly add a link so could someone do it for the http I've added. Jjc2002 (talk) 14:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Jjc2002

Jaggedese

Predictably enough, this is full of Jaggedese. Who is going to return it to sanity? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

featured?

It seems the objections above (which should be archived probably) have been dealt with decisively. So much so, that this article should be upgraded from start-class, and considered as a featured article candidate.

If you disagree, then, find another article that does such a clear and specific job relating medieval Muslim thought to Western/modern thought, fairly crediting modern ideas to their Islamic-civilization originators, and is so well sourced.

The titel of the book is orginally Book of Lessons, Record of Beginnings and Events in the history of the Arabs and Foreigners and Berbers and their Powerful Contemporaries

But where is are the Berbers info in this part. This is some misinformation on major scale. One of the subjects of the book isn't even talked about here. BERBERS AS THE WHOLE BOOK WAS ABOUT. Wikipedia is really amateurish. I mean look at the goddamn title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.249.70.153 (talk) 02:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 13 February 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Rough consensus that the current title is the WP:COMMONNAME among English-language sources. (non-admin closure) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:16, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

---

Muqaddimah → Muqaddima – The h is superfluous. Authorities such as Aziz al-Azmeh prefer the more natural Muqaddima to the unnecessary Muqaddimah. إيان (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 09:15, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, per common name. In English, the book is referred to as "Muqaddimah". Overwhelmingly so. Walrasiad (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

  Ngrams shows it's not so "overwhelming"; the gap is closing rapidly. If the vestigial h must be kept in the title for now, what about using the more correct Muqaddima in the body of the article itself? إيان (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

It is the French spelling, and so I'm not surprised it can be found in English books which might cite the titles of works by French authors. But in English text, it is overwhelmingly "Muqaddimah". Strongly oppose change in article title or in text. Walrasiad (talk) 00:06, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

French would be Moukaddima. Muqaddimahhh is Franz Rosenthal's mid-20th century archaism. إيان (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I've only seen "Muqaddima" in French. "Muqaddimah" may be Rosenthal's spelling, but it is the dominant spelling in English. Anyway, this is a very important work, and that's the title by which it is familiar in English, and commonly referred to. It shouldn't be messed with on a whim. Walrasiad (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Both spellings are fine (and should appear in the first line), but the proposal is more consistent with practice across Wikipedia. I doubt the presence of absence of h will confuse any readers. Srnec (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose While the "h" might look superfluous to us (and so does the extra "d" by that standard), we cannot ignore the fact that Muqaddimah is what is used in the overwhelming majority of reliable sources (so much so that Google will get confused if you type it without an "h"). M.Bitton (talk) 14:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  Again, Muqaddima is not some fringe name in English sources. The extra "d" argument is out of place and unfounded; the doubled "d" is the appropriate representation of the shadda on the dāl in مقدّمة. إيان (talk) 15:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  The ngram misleading BS has already been addressed by Walrasiad, so I won't repeat it. the rest is nothing but your POV. The bottom line is that we have a clear WP:COMMONNAME and no reason whatsoever to ignore it. M.Bitton (talk) 15:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

unsupported items in Lede

Muqaddimah is a work of genius that anticipates many modern scholarly disciplines, but nothing should be mentioned in the lede unless it can be backed up. These three should be deleted from the opening paragraph: demography,[citation needed] (citation needed, and topic never again mentioned in the article); social Darwinism and Darwinism (citations provided, but nevertheless raise eyebrows, and these topics are never mentioned again in the article). In some far-fetched sense, perhaps laboriously argued by a single scholar, these academic disciplines can be said to be Embryonic Platonic Forms in Muqaddimah. But should they be mentioned in the lede? 06:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC) Vagabond nanoda (talk) 06:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)