Ibn Khaldun in Contemporary Scholarship

Rethinking a Complex Worldview Across Economics, Sociology, and Philosophy

Abstract

 Recent decades have witnessed a striking resurgence of scholarly interest in the work of Ibn Khaldun, a fourteenth-century North African thinker long celebrated yet insufficiently theorized. Although often described as the founder of sociology or an early political economist, Ibn Khaldun developed a far more comprehensive and internally coherent system for understanding human civilization, one that linked economics, social cohesion, moral psychology, urban development, historical cycles, and statecraft within a single conceptual architecture. Modern scholarship, however, has often treated Ibn Khaldun selectively, isolating one or two concepts—asabiyya, state cycles, taxation—without appreciating the systemic totality of his thought. This article surveys recent works on Ibn Khaldun. Taken together, these works reveal both the richness of Ibn Khaldun’s intellectual legacy and the persistent gaps in contemporary understanding. The complexity of Ibn Khaldun’s system demands deeper theoretical, meta-theoretical, and philological engagement, especially with the original Arabic text. The present review of scholarship about Ibn Khaldun's work concludes that Ibn Khaldun must be approached as a thinker whose contributions challenge the boundaries of modern disciplines and whose insights remain vital for contemporary debates on capitalism, equity, work, value creation, and the dynamics of social change.

Introduction

 Every generation rediscovers Ibn Khaldun. Some rediscover him as the first sociologist, others as a political economist, still others as a philosopher of history or anthropologist of the Maghreb. Yet each rediscovery has tended to shrink him into a disciplinary ancestor rather than confronting the breadth of his intellectual ambition. Ibn Khaldun was, in a sense, none of these things--and all of them simultaneously. His Muqaddima is not simply a contribution to sociology or economics, nor merely an introduction to a universal history. It is an attempt to articulate a unified theory of civilization.

For over a century modern scholarship has struggled to articulate, let alone theorize, the unity of this system. Classical scholars such as M. A. Enan emphasized Ibn Khaldun’s methodological innovation in treating history not as narrative but as a science of human society. Orientalists, while responsible for making Ibn Khaldun accessible to Western audiences, often misread him through the assumptions of their age, questioning the originality and coherence of his ideas. More recent works—such as Souaiaia’s textual study of Ibn Khaldun’s economic philosophy and Tabatabai’s exploration of Khaldunian epistemology—have begun to challenge these early interpretations, revealing a thinker whose complexity exceeds the categories modern scholars frequently impose on him.

 This article surveys the emerging landscape of Ibn Khaldun studies, drawing on the most recent scholarship to show how Ibn Khaldun is being reread across disciplines. At the same time, the survey exposes a persistent problem: while scholars increasingly acknowledge Ibn Khaldun’s importance, few have undertaken the meta-theoretical work necessary to understand his system as a whole. As a result, the field remains fragmented, with numerous “mini-Khalduns” populating different academic conversations but rarely converging into a unified portrait of the man and his thought.

With this objective, the present narrative integrates historical, philosophical, economic, and sociological readings, demonstrating that Ibn Khaldun’s system is most legible when read holistically. Only by doing so can we understand why his work continues to challenge the foundations of modern disciplines and why future scholarship must move beyond selective appropriation toward a deeper engagement with the structural logic of his thought.

Ibn Khaldun in Modern Scholarship

The twentieth century opened with a curious paradox: Ibn Khaldun was widely admired but poorly understood. Early encounters by European scholars tended to approach him through limited categories available to them. Rosenthal’s monumental translation of al-Muqaddima (1958) and his accompanying commentary introduced Ibn Khaldun to a broad readership, but along with this introduction came interpretive assumptions that continue to shape the field. Rosenthal famously suggested that we should assume that practically every detail in al-Muqaddima was derived from earlier writers unless proven otherwise (Rosenthal 1958). For a thinker working in fourteenth-century North Africa, such an assumption effectively stripped him of originality before any analysis of his system was conducted. Spengler’s critique (1964) extended this line of thought, arguing that Ibn Khaldun merely collected “bits and details” from existing traditions, denying him theoretical coherence.

 Recent scholarship has challenged these claims, demonstrating that such conclusions reflected more the limitations of the scholars than the limitations of Ibn Khaldun.  As Enan noted in 1941, Ibn Khaldun regarded history as a science of human society and sought to distinguish truth from falsehood by analyzing the conditions that make certain events possible or impossible. He did not merely record events; he analyzed their causes, structures, and underlying social dynamics. Enan highlighted Ibn Khaldun’s claim to have founded a new science--one concerned with the conditions of human community, the logic of social organization, and the laws governing political change. But even Enan, who came closest among early scholars to appreciating the novelty of Ibn Khaldun’s project, read him primarily through the lens of sociology. What Enan lacked was access to the economic and philosophical dimensions that contemporary scholarship has illuminated.

This insight deepens our understanding of ʿasabiyyah, the concept most frequently associated with Ibn Khaldun. Rather than interpreting ʿasabiyyah merely as a form of group solidarity or tribal cohesion, recent scholars emphasize its role as a dynamic, systemic force emerging from economic, social, and psychological interactions. Contemporary sociologists such as Alatas argue that European scholarship failed to appreciate the systemic nature of ʿasabiyyah, reducing it to a sociological curiosity rather than situating it within Ibn Khaldun’s theory of historical cycles and state formation. Gellner’s (1975) engagement marked a rare attempt to bring Ibn Khaldun into conversation with modern social theory, but even Gellner treated ʿasabiyyah primarily as a sociological mechanism rather than as part of a larger theory of civilization.

Recent scholarship suggests that ʿasabiyyah cannot be understood in isolation. It is intimately connected to the economic conditions of a group’s livelihood, the moral psychology shaped by its professions, the environmental context of its habitat, and the political institutions through which it exercises power. Ibn Khaldun’s model is one in which these factors coalesce into shifting equilibria, producing rises and declines in political authority. A civilization expands when ʿasabiyyah is strong, when economic productivity is high, when moral character is robust, and when political institutions align with social energies. Decline begins when these forces diverge—when luxury erodes moral fiber, when taxation becomes oppressive, when professions cultivate self-interest over collective commitment, when the state ceases to provide public goods, and when urbanization loses its dynamism. These dynamics are best understood not as a cyclical theory in the narrow sense but as a systems theory of historical change.

 

The renewed interest in Ibn Khaldun has also sparked attention to his methodology. Recent scholarship highlights his integration of ethnographic observation, archival research, logical analysis, and Quranic hermeneutics. Ibn Khaldun did not simply collect data; he critically assessed the plausibility of reported events based on known social principles. His method combines inductive reasoning from observed patterns with deductive reasoning grounded in his theoretical framework. This approach allowed him to evaluate historical claims by asking whether they aligned with the structural laws governing human societies. Such methodological reflexivity is rare in medieval scholarship and places Ibn Khaldun in conversation with modern thinkers who grappled with the epistemological foundations of the social sciences.

 Despite these insights, modern scholarship has not produced a unified Khaldunian school. Alatas observes that although Ibn Khaldun was admired by European sociologists in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, he was excluded from the sociological canon as the discipline formalized itself after World War II. This exclusion had significant consequences. Without strong institutionalization in academic curricula, Ibn Khaldun became a figure cited for inspiration rather than a thinker whose theories were systematically developed. Even in the Muslim world, where Ibn Khaldun’s work was known, the absence of a sustained Khaldunian research tradition reflects broader intellectual and institutional dynamics. Alatas describes this as an “aborted tradition,” one that never matured into a coherent school of thought.

 Several reasons account for this. One is the linguistic barrier: few scholars possess the requisite mastery of classical Arabic to engage directly with Ibn Khaldun’s text, leading to dependence on translations that inevitably shape interpretation. Another is disciplinary fragmentation. Modern academia is divided into fields—sociology, economics, political science, anthropology—that did not exist in Ibn Khaldun’s time. His work does not map neatly onto these categories, making it difficult for scholars to locate him within specific disciplinary conversations. A third factor is the persistence of Eurocentric assumptions that view the development of social theory as a primarily European achievement. Ibn Khaldun’s status as a pre-modern Muslim thinker has often relegated him to the margins of canonical narratives.

 Despite these challenges, a new wave of scholarship has emerged that places Ibn Khaldun at the center of debates about capitalism, value, race, and modernity. Scholars analyzing the relationship between labor and value have begun to compare Ibn Khaldun’s insights to those of Marx. The comparison is illuminating not because Ibn Khaldun anticipated Marxist theory, but because both thinkers sought to uncover the underlying dynamics of economic systems. Where Marx critiqued Aristotle for failing to perceive labor’s role in value, recent scholars ask what must be true about capitalism for Ibn Khaldun to have perceived labor’s role in value as early as the fourteenth century. This line of inquiry reveals the historical specificity of economic categories and suggests that Ibn Khaldun’s model offers alternative pathways for understanding value creation.

 Ibn Khaldun’s views on race also challenge conventional readings. Although he lived in a world steeped in racial prejudice, his arguments suggest a constructivist understanding of racial difference. Recent scholars argue that Ibn Khaldun viewed race not as a biological determinant but as a product of environmental, economic, and political conditions. This interpretation counters the often-repeated claim that Ibn Khaldun held “racist views,” showing instead that he located human differences within material and historical contexts. Such a view aligns with contemporary theories of race as socially constructed rather than inherent.

 The implications of these findings extend beyond historical interpretation. Ibn Khaldun’s insights offer valuable contributions to contemporary debates on inequality, state power, capitalism, and the moral dimensions of economic life. His recognition that economic practices shape moral character anticipates modern concerns about the ethical consequences of market systems. His analysis of taxation and state welfare contributes to ongoing debates about the relationship between state intervention and economic growth. His systems-based approach to social dynamics provides tools for understanding complex social phenomena that defy disciplinary boundaries.

Despite the growing body of scholarship, significant gaps remain. Scholars repeatedly note the absence of systematic meta-theoretical work that would articulate the underlying assumptions and conceptual framework of Ibn Khaldun’s system. Without this, applications of his ideas will remain fragmented. Additionally, the field lacks sufficient philological engagement with the Arabic text. Many interpretations rely on Rosenthal’s translation, which, while monumental, is not immune to errors or interpretive choices that shape scholarly understanding. New translations, especially those attentive to technical vocabulary and North African dialectal influences, are urgently needed.

Finally, there is a need for interdisciplinary scholarship capable of integrating the economic, sociological, philosophical, and historical aspects of Ibn Khaldun’s thought. His system was not divided into separate disciplines; it reflected a holistic understanding of human society. To study him through the lens of one discipline is to distort his project. Scholars must therefore move beyond disciplinary silos and adopt methodologies that mirror the integrative nature of Ibn Khaldun’s system.

Looking Forward

The resurgence of interest in Ibn Khaldun marks a pivotal moment in the study of premodern social thought. Contemporary scholarship increasingly recognizes him not as a precursor to modern disciplines but as a systems thinker whose insights challenge the way we conceptualize human societies. By synthesizing insights from recent works—from the sociological interpretations of Enan and Alatas, the philosophical reflections of Tabatabai, and the comparative engagements with modern theory—this article has argued that Ibn Khaldun offers a comprehensive, coherent, and deeply original framework for understanding civilization.

The field remains fragmented. The absence of a sustained Khaldunian school, the overreliance on translations, the disciplinary compartmentalization of his ideas, and the lingering influence of Orientalist assumptions have all contributed to a limited understanding of his framework. To address these gaps, scholars must engage more deeply with the Arabic text, develop meta-theoretical analyses of his conceptual architecture, and embrace interdisciplinary approaches that reflect the integrative nature of his thought.

Ibn Khaldun’s work endures because it confronts questions that remain central to contemporary life: How do human societies cohere and collapse? What role do labor, value, and economic systems play in shaping moral character and political institutions? How do states rise and fall? What forces drive inequality, racism, and systemic injustice? How does knowledge accumulate across generations? And what role does the scholar play in understanding the world?

In answering these questions, Ibn Khaldun continues to challenge, expand, and unsettle the intellectual boundaries of modern scholarship. The task now is not merely to apply his ideas, but to understand the worldview that produced them—a worldview whose complexity demands nothing less than a comprehensive rethinking of the foundations of the social sciences.

 

Bibliography

 Alatas, Syed Farid. “The Historical Sociology of Muslim Societies: Khaldunian Applications.” International Sociology 22, no. 3 (2007): 267–288.

—. Ibn Khaldun. London: I.B. Tauris, 2012.

Bakar, Osman. “Towards a New Science of Civilization.” Synthesis Philosophica 31, no. 2 (2017): 311–333.

 Boulakia, Jean David C. “Ibn Khaldûn: A Fourteenth-CenturyEconomist.” Journal of Political Economy 79, no. 5 (1971): 1105–1118.

 Dale, Stephen Frederic. “Ibn Khaldun: The Last Greek and the First Annaliste Historian.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 38, no. 3 (2006): 431–451.

Enan, Mohammad Abdullah. Ibn Khaldun: His Life and Work. Cairo, 1941.

Gellner, Ernest. “Cohesion and Identity: The Maghreb fromIbn Khaldun to Emile Durkheim.” Government and Opposition 10, no. 2 (1975): 203–218.

Gibb, H. A. R. “The Islamic Background of Ibn Khaldun’s Political Theory.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies 7, no. 1 (1933): 23–31.

Ibn Khaldun. al-Muqaddimah. Various Arabic editions (2001, 2004, 2005, 2007).

—. The Muqaddimah: An Introduction to History. Translated by Franz Rosenthal. 3 vols. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1958.

Isahak, Aldila. Ibn al-Azraq’s Political Thought. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag, 2010.

Issawi, Charles. An Arab Philosophy of History. London: John Murray, 1950.

Lacoste, Yves. Ibn Khaldun: The Birth of History and the Past of the Third World. London: Verso, 1984.

Maunier, René. “Les idées économiques d’un philosophe arabe au XIVe siècle.” Revue d’histoire économique et sociale 6 (1913).

Rosenthal, Franz. Translator’s Introduction to The Muqaddimah. 1958.

Souaiaia, Ahmed E. “Reading and Interpreting Ibn Khaldun’sEconomic Philosophy.” Journal of Philosophical Economics 16 (2023): 100–129.

Souaiaia, Ahmed E. "Ibn Khaldun’s Systems Thinking Approach to Property and Political Legitimacy." Ibn Khaldun Today (2025).

Spengler, Joseph J. “Ibn Khaldun and Economic Thought.” (1964).

Tabatabai, Javad. Ibn Khaldun and the Social Sciences:Discourse on the Condition of Im-possibility. Wiley, 2024.