Ibn Khaldun on Christianity

by

The Muqaddimah

One of my hobbies is reading what classical Islamic scholars said about Christianity.  Recently I’ve been reading Ibn Khaldun’s Muqaddimah which is a famous work that one could probably pick up a local bookstore; if not it can easily be ordered online.  What I read is quite shocking.  A while back, I wrote a few posts on how the Quran gets the Trinity wrong.  Although that error is a big deal, it’s bush league compared to what Khaldun writes about Christianity, Judaism and the Bible.

Ibn Khaldun is one of the greatest Islamic scholars from the classical period of Islam.  He lived from 1332 to 1406 AD and was from modern day Tunisia.  Here are some of his quotes on Christianity:

Matthew wrote his Gospel in Jerusalem in Hebrew. It was translated into Latin by John, the son of Zebedee, one of the Apostles. Luke wrote his Gospel in Latin for a Roman dignitary. John, the son of Zebedee, wrote his Gospel in Rome. Peter wrote his Gospel in Latin and ascribed it to his pupil Mark.

None of the gospel writers wrote in Latin or translated other Gospels into Latin.  The Gospel’s were written in Greek.  There is a source that says that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew so Ibn Khaldun is off the hook on that one but his comments on Gospels being written in Latin is simply incorrect.  Also, Peter never wrote a Gospel, but was the primary source for Mark’s Gospel.

The books of the religious law of Jesus that was received by the Apostles
are the following:
The four recensions of the Gospel.
The Book of Paul which consists of fourteen epistles.
The Katholika (General Epistles) which consist of seven epistles, the eighth
being the Praxeis (Acts), stories of the Apostles.
The Book of Clement which contains the laws.
The Book of the Apocalypse (Revelation) which contains the vision of John,
the son of Zebedee.

This is Ibn Khaldun’s list of NT books.  The book of Clement is nowhere to be found in the NT.  He’s probably referring to the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthian Church written in about 100 AD.  It was never considered canonical by the Church.  It’s also interesting that nowhere in this entire section does Ibn Khaldun single out St. Paul for criticism like modern Muslims do.

The attitude of the Roman emperors toward Christianity varied. At times,
they adopted it and honored its adherents. At other times, they did not recognize it
and persecuted its adherents and killed and exiled them. Finally, Constantine
appeared and adopted Christianity. From then on, all (the Roman emperors) were
Christians.

This statement is mostly true.  The only blunder is that he forgets Julian the Apostate who was a pagan emperor some time after Constantine died.

The Apostle Peter, the chief Apostle and oldest of the disciples, was in Rome
and established the Christian religion there. Nero, the fifth Roman emperor, killed
him.  Successor to Peter at the Roman see was Arius.

Again, a lot of true stuff here but Arius never succeeded Peter at the Roman see.  Arius lived about 300 years after Peter and dwelt in North Africa, primarily in Alexandria.  This is a pretty big error.

There is one more quote from Ibn Khaldun that I want to discuss.  It’s from the same section that I’ve been quoting, only it’s at the beginning.

In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the
universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to
Islam either by persuasion or by force. Therefore, caliphate and royal authority are
united in Islam, so that the person in charge can devote the available strength to
both of them at the same time.  The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty to them, save only for purposes of defense.

I find this quote to be quite disturbing.  There is of course another error as Christianity did have a universal mission.  Now, where would Ibn Khaldun get an opinion like this?  Many would say that it’s simply what Islam teaches.  I believe that there is a more specific answer and that is the philosophy of the Almohad Caliphate.  Although they had lost power before Ibn Khaldun was born, it doesn’t mean that their philosophy died out.  Almohad’s were known for their horrible treatment of Jews and Christians and that is why the Jewish scholar Moses Maimonides had to flee Almohad Spain to settle in Egypt where dhimmi laws were milder.

I believe that this Almohad philosophy is the reason why Latin Christianity died out in North Africa.  The Almohad’s never reached Egypt and that is why there is a noticeable minority of Coptic people in Egypt to this day.  This is actually a huge interest of mine.  How did the Church of St. Augustine become extinct?  I’ll be writing more on that in the future.

Posted on
Categories: Catholicism, Church History, Islam, Uncategorized

Please note: I reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive or off-topic.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

20 thoughts on “Ibn Khaldun on Christianity”

  1. Hi Allan,

    It has been a couple of decades since I last read Ibn Khaldun’s The Muqaddimah. The edition I read was Franz Rosenthal’s translation, edited and abridged by N. J. Dawood, published by Princeton University Press 1967/1969/1989.

    As you pointed out, Khaldun made some grave errors concerning Christianity. However, I find it interesting that he mostly got the see of St. Peter correct. He calls Peter the “chief Apostle”, and that the “see of Rome”, was the “see of the Apostle Peter”.

    For me, I find Ibn Taymiyya’s apologetic book on Christianity—Al-Jawab al-Sahih—to be more valuable, and certainly, much more extensive (400 plus pages). The work was written in the early 8th century A.H./14th century A.D. I have Thomas F. Michel’s English translation (1984), and highly recommend it to you, if you have not read it yet.

    Related to ‘classical” Muslim works on Christianity, are the earlier works by Christian authors on Islam. I have read a number of these important contributions, and provide information on them in the following threads:

    Early Christian-Muslim Dialogue

    Early Sources on Islam

    In the second of the above two links, I provide a link to Robert G. Hoyland’s massive tome:

    Seeing Islam As Others Saw It

    This work is a must read (IMO).

    Grace and peace,

    David

    Reply

    • Hi David,

      I hope that you are well. It’s certainly interesting what he said about Peter and the See of Peter. The Arius blunder was a huge mistake though which in my opinion deeply damages is credibility as a scholar. I have read Ibn Taymiyya’s works on Christianity. They’re certainly better than Khaldun’s. It’s also interesting because in the classical era of Islam, the Muslims would use Islamic critiques. They weren’t good at all and that is why Muslims have abandoned them now. Instead they’ll use far left Biblical “scholarship”, Rabbinic Judaism, mythicism, and anything they can get their hands on to hurl uncritically at the Christian position. I’m actually thinking of writing a post comparing classical Islamic apologetics to modern ones.

      God Bless,

      Allan

      Reply

  2. Reading classical Islamic writers can be quite the fun. Sometimes they make modern Muslims to resort to censorship. The English translation of the aforementioned Ibn Taymyyah’s book “Answering Those Who Altered The Religion Of Jesus Christ” lacks a passage in the Arabic original, in which Ibn Tayymyah (who is not exactly fond of Jews and Christians) says that copies of the “true” Torah and Gospel are still circulating among the People of the Book. As for Ibn Khaldun, there is another very interesting passage in this book of his:
    “Someone might come out against this tradition (with the argument) that it occurs only in the Torah which, as is well known, was altered by the Jews. (The reply to this argument would be that) the statement concerning the alteration (of the Torah by the Jews) is unacceptable to thorough scholars and cannot be understood in its plain meaning, since custom prevents people who have a (revealed) religion from dealing with their divine scriptures in such a manner.” (Ibn Khaldun, “The Muqaddimah: An Introduction to History”, Vol.I, trans. Franz Rosenthal (Princeton University Press, 1967), 20.

    I would recommend you Ibn Qayyim’s book “Guidance To The Uncerstain” (in case you haven’t read it already), there are some real gems in it (like Ibn Qayyim calling Christians “the brothers of swines”, etc.)

    Reply

    • Hi Orangehunter,

      That’s an interesting quote from Khaldun that you give. I also didn’t know about Ibn Taymiyyah and how that passage was removed. Very interesting. I suppose it all has to do with people trying to deal with the fact that the Islamic religion is ahistorical.

      Thanks for the recommendation. I haven’t read that one yet but I will. Classical Islamic apologetics I find quite enjoyable to read so the more I can read the better.

      God Bless,

      Allan

      Reply

      • Here is the passage in question:
        “Then, among these people [Muslims] there are those who allege (za‘ama) that much of what is in Tawrat and Injīl [today] is false (batil), not of God’s Word. Some of them said that what is false is not much. It is [also said]: “No one has changed any text of the scriptures. Rather they [Jews and Christians] have falsified their meanings by [false] interpretations.” Many Muslims have held both of these views. The correct [view] is the third view, which is that in the world there are true ( sahih ) copies [versions], and these remained until the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him), and many copies [versions] which are corrupted. Whoever says that nothing in [these] copies [versions] was corrupted he has denied what cannot be denied. Whoever says that, after the Prophet (peace be upon him), all copies [versions] have been corrupted, he has said what is manifestly false . The Qur’ān commands them to judge with what Allah revealed in Tawrat and Injīl. [Allah] informs that in both there is wisdom (hikmah). There is nothing in the Qur’ān to indicate that they altered all copies [versions] .”
        Ibn Taymyyah’s “Answering Those Who Altered The Religion Of Jesus Christ” and Ibn Qayyim’s “Guidance To The Uncerstain” are very important works, they are among the main sources of inspiration and education of modern Islamic polemicists and dawamongers. One thing I noticed in the said books is how inconsistent and dishonest are many of the arguments against Christianity, contained therein.
        May God help us all.

        Reply

  3. Is there evidence of any Muslim scholar that had read the New Testament then? I don’t see how it would be so problematic since they can translate various Latin and Greek works.

    Julian the Emperor actually read it.

    Reply

    • Hi Latias,

      I think Ibn Taymiyyah had read the NT. Ibn Khaldun has obviously done research on the NT since he knows some stuff about it. His canon was mostly accurate but off a little. His knowledge of Church history was very poor though. Arius for example.

      I’m a bit confused about what you said regarding Greek and Latin works. Do you think Ibn Khaldun had read them?

      God Bless,

      Allan

      Reply

      • I meant to say that Muslims could have translated the Latin or Greek copies. Language was not a significant barrier to them.

        They simply couldn’t cite the verses, because those didn’t exist yet.

        Reply

  4. Hello again Allan,

    After some online research, I found an unabridged, digital edition of Ibn Khaldun’s , The Muqaddimah:

    LINK.

    As for Ibn Taymiyya’s, Al-Jawab Al-Sahih, the edition I own is Thomas S. Michel’s, A Muslim Theologian’s Response to Christianity: Ibn Taymiyya’s Al-Jawab Al-Sahih (ISBN: 0-88206-058-9). It is 465 pages, and includes an introduction, bibliography, glossary, and index. I am pretty sure that the English translation of Al-Jawab Al-Sahih is unabridged.

    I have been comparing Michel’s translation with the abridged edition provided by OrangeHunter, which is some 362 pages; but the font is much larger than Michel’s edition. I would initially estimate that Michel’s edition is at least twice as large. For instance, the section titled, “Distortion of the Torah and the Gospel”, is only 9 pages, with the much larger font, in the abridged edition, whilst in Michel’s edition it is 31 pages.

    The quote that OrangeHunter provided—which he correctly stated is not in the abridged edition—is also not found in Michel’s unabridged edition. I was able to track down the exact quote in an essay by Abdullah Saeed (p. 430 – p. 12 of the PDF):

    The Charge of Distortion of Jewish and Christian Scriptures

    The footnote (#69) of the quote states that it is from, “Ibn Taymiyya, al-Tafsïr al-Kabïr, I, 209.” The al-Tafsïr al-Kabïr is a 7 volume compilation of commentary on the Qur’an as found in Taymiyya’s extant corpus. I do not know who the original editor of the compilation was, but I am pretty sure that it was not Taymiyya himself. Hope that someone else has more information on this.

    Grace and peace,

    David

    Reply

    • Thanks for the inquiry and the correction, David. Apparently I confused the two books of Ibn Taymyyah.

      Reply

    • Hi Sam,

      I noticed your cameos in David Wood’s new series.

      If you have the edition from Princeton University Press, its on pages 183 through 188. The edition from Princeton University Press is shown on the picture that I posted above.

      God Bless,

      Allan

      Reply

    • Ibn Khaldun’s affirmation of the veracity of the Torah is on page 61 from the difital edition of “The Muqaddimah”, link to which was provided in David Waltz’s comment.

      Reply

  6. How did the Church of St. Augustine become extinct?

    Because the Vandal invasions over-ran the church with Arian theology. “A new generation arose that did not know the Lord” as the book of Judges says. (Judges 2:10) After Augustine died, the Vandals eventually converted Latin North Africa to Arianism, and Arianism left them an empty shell for Islam to take over. The Coptic Church survived because they held onto the Deity of Christ and the Trinity.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_Period#/media/File:Invasions_of_the_Roman_Empire_1.png

    Reply

    • Hi Ken,

      I’m not fully convinced of that theory. By the time of Pope Gregory VII, there was still a thriving Latin Trinitarian community in Carthage. The Christians of Carthage were mutinying against their own Archbishop and were going to hand him over to the local Muslim authorities. If the community is on its deathbed that’s an odd thing to do. Pope Gregory VII intervened and told them to deal with the problem themselves and not involve the Muslims. Obviously the community was still alive and well in the 1070’s. This is 400 years after being conquered.

      At the present time, Carthage is a destroyed city. To my knowledge it always was a Christian city. The Muslims lived in Tunis. I don’t think Arianism played much of a huge role. The Donatists didn’t survive because they didn’t have the support network in Europe that the Catholics did in Europe. This is all just my theory. I’m starting to study this area in depth. I’m going to start with the writings of Walter Kaegi.

      Thanks for you input and God Bless.

      Allan

      Reply