'Mabda', linguistically is a verbal noun (masdar) beginning with
'm' (meem) , and derived from the verb bada'a (started), yabda'n (starts),
bad'nn (starting) and mabda' (starting point, principle). According to the conventional use of all people,
mabd'a means the basic thought (fikr) upon which thoughts are built. So a person might say: mabda'i huwas sidq (my principle is truthfulness), where he means that
the basis upon which I build my actions is the truthfulness (sidq). Another person might say:
mabda'i huwal wafaa' (my principle is faithfulness), where he means that the basis upon which he builds his transactions is the
faithfulness, etc. Thus, people also called mabd'a on partial thoughts that are suitable for other partial thoughts as basic thoughts. So they called
truthfulness (sidq) as mabda', good neighbourhood (husnul juwar) as mabda' and cooperation
(ta'awun) as mabda'. Based on that they spoke of mabdi'rul- Akhlaaq (principles of ethics),
mabadi'ul-iqtisaad (principles of economy), mabadi'ul-qanoon (principles of law) and
mabadi'ul-ijtimaa' (social principles) etc. They meant by that particular thoughts of economy, upon which
(other) thoughts that are derived from them are build; and particular thoughts of law upon with (other) thoughts which are derived from
them are built. So they called such particular thoughts as economic principles and legal principles, and so on. In truth, these are not principles
(mabadi' - pl. of mabda'); they are rather general principles (qawa'id) or thoughts (afkar). This is because mabda' is a basic thought, while these are
not basic thoughts; they are rather partial thoughts (afkar far'iyyah). The fact that (other) thoughts are built on them does not make them at all,
basic thoughts. They rather remain to be parital thoughts (afkar far'iyyah),
even if (other) thoughts were built on them or were derived from them; as long as they themselves were not basic (asassiyyah); rather they are
derived from other thoughts; or all of them are derived from a basic thought
(fikr asaasi).
Truthfulness, faithfulness and cooperation and others are partial
thoughts (afkar far'iyyah) and not basic thoughts (afkar asassiyyah). This is
because they are derived from a basic thought, rather than being themselves the basis (al-asas), for truthfulness (sidq) is a branch of a basis;
it is a hukum shar'i derived from the Qur'an, for Muslims; and it is a characteristic derived from the capitalist thought for
the non-Muslims.
Therefore, a thought is not called
mabada' unless it is a basic thought from which thoughts are derived. The basic thought (al-fikr ul-asasi) is
that which there is not at all, a thought before it. This basic thought is confined to the collective thought (al-fikrah al-kulliyyah) about the universe,
man and life. There is no basic thought other than this. This is because this thought is the basis in worldly life. If man contemplated himself he
finds himself a man that lives in the universe. So unless he has a thought about himself, life and the universe in terms of existence and creation, he
would not be able to provide a thought suitable to be a basis for his life. Therefore, his life remains functioning without a basis, unstable,
whimsical and changeable unless this basic thought existed, in other words, unless the collective thought about himself, about the life and
about the universe existed.( Note: Even atheism is a basic thought albeit
incorrect)
Therefore, the collective thought about the universe, man and life is the
basic thought, and it is the 'aqeedah. However, thoughts can't emanate from this
'aqeedah nor be built on it, unless itself is a thought, i.e., unless it was the result of intellectual study/discussion. If, otherwise, it was
(only) submission and instruction, then it would not be thought, nor called a collective thought, thou it is correct to be called
'aqeedah.
Therefore, man must reach to the collective thought through the mind
('aql), i.e. it should result from rational study. It would be then a rational
creed, and thoughts would then be derived from it and built on it. Such thoughts are the solutions for the worldly life problems. In other words,
these thoughts are the rules (ahkaam) that regulate the life affairs of man.
Once this rational creed existed, and rules (ahkaam) that treat the life's problems emanated from it, then the ideology
(mabda') existed.
Accordingly, the ideology is defined as a rational creed from which a system emanates. Thereupon, Islam is an ideology, because it is a rational
creed from shar'eeah, for they treat the problems of life. Likewise, Communism is an ideology, because it is a rational creed from which a
system emanates. This system is the thoughts that treat the problems of life. Capitalism is also an ideology, because it is a rational creed, upon
which thoughts, that treat life's problems, are built. Hence, it appears also that Nationalism
(qawmi'yyah) is not an ideology, nor Partriotism (watani'yyah), Nazism or Existentialism (wujoodiyyah). This
is because each one of them is not a rational creed, nor there is a system that emanates from it or there are any thoughts, that treat the problems
of life, which are built on it.
As for the religion, if its creed was rational reached to through the
mind and from which a system, that treats life's problems, emanates or thoughts are built on it, then such a religion is an ideology, upon which
the definition of ideology (correct or incorrect) applies. However, if its creed was not rational,
rather it was emotional that has been given through instruction and acceptance of it was requested without
mind's discussion; and there was no system that emanates from it, nor there are thoughts built on it; then
all religions (Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism...etc) of that type are not an ideology. This is because their creed
is not rational, nor there are life's systems that emanate from it.
Changing a society can be of
two types
1) Ideological Struggle - The
basic thought (mabda) upon which all the other thoughts and systems are
built, is replaced by another basic thought. This is done by gathering the
people around a new mabda and reviving the society on the new basis.
2) Political Struggle -
Altering the administrative and political structure of the society by
electing a new ruler, passing new legislations, introducing new institutions
whilst the ideological structure remains intact. As an example when US
citizens vote every 4 years they are cognizant of the fact that whoever gets
elected is going to implement the capitalist ideology.
Differencing political struggle
and Ideological struggle
The frenzied rivalry between
the 'anti' camp and 'pro' camp in Maldives is simply a political struggle,
not an ideological struggle. The problems highlighted by the 'anti' camp as
proofs of the failure of the government are indeed the inherent maladies of
the ideology adopted by the 'anti' camp as well. Housing problems, high cost
of living, unemployment are partial thoughts ; it is not possible to gather
people around these partial thoughts. However the heat generated by the
political struggle between 'pro' and 'anti' is going to strengthen the
confidence of Capitalist ideology amongst the naive populace. Furthermore,
the calibre of parties is determined by the sheer number of members, not by the
correctness of its ideology. For the West,
this constitute a big triumph because their aim is to prevent an ideological
struggle (Islam vs. kufr) in the Muslim world. The Western think tanks have
been able to prevent an ideological clash in Maldives by fomenting a
political struggle between two ideologically similar groups and stoking the
intensity of their rivalry by supporting both the groups. In this process
the West have achieved many objectives in Maldives. Here is a nominal list :
1) The people have become
so obsessed with local issues that they have forgotten about their fellow
Muslim brothers and sisters being murdered in Iraq, Afghanistan and
elsewhere by the Western countries. Incidentally the same Western countries
are at the forefront of promoting the 'reform' agenda in Maldives
2) The peoples' criteria of
action are increasingly becoming estranged from Islam. Examples include the
number of hypocrite scholars who have joined the 'reform' bandwagon. As for
the common man, his criteria are diluted with all sorts such as 'lesser of
the two evils', compromise, pragmatism, 'ends justify the
means'...etc.
Archive
Similar
to Islamic Ideology is not Islam
Thoughts
are the greatest wealth of the nation
Changing
Life Perspective and Way of Thinking
Changing
a Society
|
