0021-1818_islam_98-1-2-i-259

206 Reviews
not accurately transliterated or used; likewise with the term jihad [sic] (p. 17), a
charged word that needs careful handling. The author uses this politically loaded
term in a hypostasized way. Other words, like asabiyya [sic], are simply not defined
or utilized in nuanced ways. The reader also encounters organizational issues,
as Fromherz jumps back and forth in time when describing Ibn Khaldun’s
life, and chapter subheadings do not provide much help. Those in chapter two
are particularly strangely organized; the large chapter heading “Ibn Khaldun’s
Teachers” includes the subheadings “Al-Alibi,” “Madrasas,” “Ibn Khaldun and
Education,” “Other Early Teachers,” “Between Scholarship and Politics,” “Orphaned
by the Plague,” and “The Plague” (p. 44–56).
But these are minor points. More central issues have to do with Fromherz’s
thesis that Ibn Khaldun should be studied as a son of his age. For instance, he
states in Chapter 1 that “perhaps the best way of approaching Ibn Khaldun’s biography
and his thought is to abandon the tempting adjective ‘modern’ when describing
him” (p. 5). This comment effectively positions Fromherz in relation to
previous scholarship on Ibn Khaldun. Indeed, Fromherz is not the first scholar
to contextualize the man: Heinrich Simon and Walter Fischel have both worked
extensively on Ibn Khaldun’s life (see for instance Heinrich Simon, Ibn Khalduns
Wissenschaft von der menschlichen Kultur [Leipzig, 1959]). In particular, Fromherz
alludes to many studies on Ibn Khaldun that have, in his words, “orphaned”
him and completely dissociated him from the environment that produced him.
Every age has its own modernism, so to speak, namely, avant-garde thinkers who
break away from traditional modes of thought and create their own. Fromherz’s
strong emphasis on Ibn Khaldun’s age threatens to take from Ibn Khaldun his individual
talent vis-à-vis the tradition he grew up in. It is helpful to contextualize
Ibn Khaldun’s thought, but it is important to remember that he nonetheless had
an extraordinary mind that did ultimately differentiate him from his peers. It is
not convincing or productive to hack away at existing scholarship on Ibn Khaldun,
especially when these previous studies have indeed informed and guided
Fromherz’s own study (as his endnotes indicate). On the topic of Fromherz’s
source material, I must mention that it would behoove the author to acknowledge
Arabic-language scholarship and not to rely only on works written in, or translated
into, European languages. Useful studies on ibn Khaldun from a biographical
point of view include Mu1ammad Jabir al-Ansarī’s Liqa# al-tarikh bi-l-^asr,
da^wa li-badhr al-khalduniyya fi wa^y al-sha^b ta#sisan li-thaqafat al-^aql (Beirut:
al-Mu#assasa al-‘Arabiyya li-l-Dirasat wa-l-Nashr, 2006) and Sa^\d al-Ghanīmī’s
al-^Asabiyya wa-l-hikma, qira#a fi falsafat al-tarikh ^inda ibn Khaldun (Beirut: al-
Mu#assasa al-‘Arabiyya li-l-Dirasat wa-al-Nashr, 2006).
Without a doubt, Fromherz’s book is a rich and valuable contribution to
understandings of Ibn Khaldun and his work within the context of his social and