Convincing a Skeptic: Mission Impossible

At first, the task of proving that a family member existed seemed extremely simple.  There are tons of pictures of my great-grandmother, the stories that my grandmother and great aunts tell me about her, old clothes and jewelry and of course her cooking recipes that we still use today.  From these pictures, stories, jewelry and recipes, one may believe that my grandmother lived.  But, an extreme skeptic would never believe it.
It is true that I have pictures of my maternal great grandmother, Dorthia Arbor, and even her obituary which lists her successors (including me).  Isn’t this enough proof that my dead grandmother was living and proof that she was my grandmother?  Maybe.  But not for a skeptic.  The question still remains “How do I know that she is actually your grandmother without some genetic test?”  Of course said genetic test is impossible since my grandmother is dead.  For a skeptic, her jewelry means nothing as well.  “How do I know that this is her jewelry?”  These relics of my grandmother’s past are insignificant to a skeptic.
I even thought that proving that my paternal grandfather lived would be easier.  My grandfather was in the army.  Surely there is a record of this.  We even have the same last name.  But, for a skeptic, our shared last name means nothing as well.  “There are plenty of people who share a last name who have no blood relation at all.”  Well, the task of proving to an extreme skeptic that any of my dead relatives were living is mission impossible.  There is no need to go any further in my persuasion.
But, despite the fact that the skeptic won’t believe that my relatives lived, this does not shake my belief at all.  When my great grandmother passed away, I was only 2 years old and I never had a chance to meet my grandfather because he died of HIV right before I was born. Although I do not remember these two, I know that they lived for the same reasons that seem doubtful to the skeptic.  Because we are studying the history of Islamic civilization, I am reminded of religion.  As a Muslim, I am reminded that God makes believers.  So, whether we are talking about the belief that my grandparents lived,  or the belief that Islam is the right religion or even the belief in the Sira of the Prophet Muhammad, I cannot convince the skeptic of anything until it is willed by God.  From this “experiment,” I learned an interesting lesson.  If your faith is strong enough, there is no way that any skeptic can make you change your mind.

Khaldun's Paradoxes of Civilization

Before embarking upon the journey that is “Islamic civilization”, we must first carefully attempt to tackle the very notion of the term “civilization” itself.  There is no easy way out.  Often, individuals have the tendency to use a word like “civilization” and never think twice about its meaning.  The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines civilization as “a relatively high level of cultural and technological development, specifically the stage of cultural development at which writing and the keeping of written records is attained.”  This definition is representative of what English speakers mean when they talk about civilization.  The 14th century Muslim philosopher, Ibn Khaldun, pondered the idea of civilization more than one may imagine possible. Ibn Khaldun viewed world civilization as identical with human social organization.  Meaning that humans have to dwell in common and cooperate in order to make a living.  Provided Khaldun’s discussion of civilization, it becomes necessary to challenge the Merriam-Webster definition.  While the latter does not give you much to question, Ibn Khaldun’s discussion of civilization is filled with paradoxes.  

Today, when people talk about civilization, they often discuss different civilizations-plural.  There is Western civilization, Eastern civilization, and Arabic civilization to name a few.   However, Ibn Khaldun seems to discuss civilization as one single concept and not something that is plural.  Civilizations without the s.  From this one concept he spoke of two branches (types) of civilization-desert civilization and city civilization.  We can picture, first, civilization as the trunk of the tree with one branch being desert civilization and another branch being city civilization.  Khaldun highlights the differences between desert (Bedouin) civilization and city civilization.  He states in his Muqaddimah (Introduction to History) that the Bedouins possess only the bare necessities of life.  Thus, they formed the basis of civilization.  From the desert civilization came city civilization.  Once one has obtained the bare necessities, they will pursue luxuries (city civilization).  Ibn Khaldun goes on to say that the Bedouins are closer to good than the sedentary people, being closer to Prophet Muhammad.  Possessing only the bare necessities, they are not as immersed in worldly desires (which ultimately brings people farther from religion).  Finally, Ibn Khaldun thought that the Bedouins were more courageous than sedentary people.  The sedentary people living in the cities had their walls and militia while the desert people had each other and they fought for themselves.

The differences between desert civilization and city civilization are understandable.  But, isn’t Khaldun really referring to multiple civilizations with an s?  Not really.  If we return to the metaphorical tree whose trunk is civilization, the first branch is desert civilization.  From this same branch, there is another branch that is city civilization.  This makes sense because desert civilization is basis of civilization.  But instead of two different branches, we have to branch off from the desert branch since the Bedouins seem to “fake left” toward city life and urbanization.  So, there isn’t two different civilizations but rather stages of civilization-with no s.  The environment, desert vs. city, is important to human behavior.

Still using the metaphor of the tree, we can further analyze what Ibn Khaldun is implying concerning the cyclical nature of civilization.  He explicitly says that civilizations fail after 5 generations.  As humans move from desert civilization to city civilization they become more and more corrupt and evil in nature until the tree branch snaps-pop!  There goes that round.  Ibn Khaldun seems to imply that civilization is like a cycle.  So, at the end of the five generations, the cycle repeats again.  The branch that is desert civilization grows again and from that city civilization and so on.  Ibn Khaldun seemed to believe that things changed.  Bedouins changed from the life of the desert to city civilization, for example, Ibn Khaldun’s own family died suddenly in a ship catastrophe.  So, he seems to be in agreement that things do not stay the same forever.  However, he does not believe that this cyclical view of civilization changes.  This cycle is inevitable.  There is a new dynasty that goes through the stages of civilization (desert and city), a rise, decline, and the cycle continues.  He seems to have no faith in people.  Especially most of the leaders whom he finds corrupt.

So, there may be paradoxes present in Ibn Khaldun’s work.  Naturally one may ask his or herself “why?”  Although there is no correct answer here, one possibility may be the conditions under which Ibn Khaldun wrote his Introduction to History, or the Muqaddimah.  This book was written by Ibn Khaldun in the desert as he observed the Bedouins in an extremely short amount of time (for writing a whole book).  Because the book was written so fast, ideas seem to pour out of Ibn Khaldun so freely that there may be some paradoxes.  It is also probably generally agreed that Ibn Khaldun had somewhat of a pessimistic view of history.  But who could blame him?  His wife died in a shipwreck and he witnessed the plague.  Two very traumatic events.  Finally, Ibn Khaldun is a talker-he loves to talk which becomes obvious in The Polymath.  As his scribe noted, he liked to dig deep and examine things closely.  He was a philosopher and he was constantly thinking and examining things.  Not only that but he debated with himself a lot.  If we think about Ibn Khaldun’s work as a debate within himself, we can understand why perhaps there were paradoxes.

If one thing is for certain, Ibn Khaldun forces you to think philosophically about civilization.  This will prove to be essential to our introduction to Islamic civilization.  I believe that one must think philosophically to understand essentially the history of Islam.  Despite the paradoxes one may find in Ibn Khaldun’s idea of civilization and history, most of what he says makes a lot of sense.  If we approach the remainder of the material presented by this course in a similar manner as Ibn Khaldun, we will have a positive outcome.  With our understanding of the complexities of “civilization”, let us embark upon the long journey that is the history of Islamic civilization.  As Ibn Khaldun would say, “God gives success and support.”