By Nathaniel Schmidt Ibn Khaldun would not have understood the statement that he was the founder of sociology rather than of scientific history. He regarded himself as the discoverer of the science of history precisely because he conceived of history as the science dealing with all the social phenomena of man's life. He would have strenuously objected to any such separation. What he had so laboriously put together, let no man put asunder. What would have been the use of his persistent efforts to show that his new science had for its object all aspects of human society, not only the rise and fall of states, defeats and victories in war, the exploits of generals and armies, diplomacy and peace treaties, and the various forms of political government, but all the occupations of men, trades and commerce, arts and sciences, philosophy and religion, and all the factors producing this varied social life, if the vast additions he had made to the province of history were to be taken away and...
...in his own words and in the words of others who read his works
