Islamology

The Basic Design for

a School of Thought and Action
by: Dr. Ali Shariati

Introduction

I present a geometrical figure of a school of thought and an ide-

ology which every Islamologist and aware Muslim should have of

Islam, not only as explanation of their religious belief but as a logo

of a school of thought and ideology.

Gaston Bachelard, one of the greatest thinkers of ourage, com-

parable to Descartes and Plato, who, unfortunately died a few

years ago being quite unknown, believed that when an idea can be

conceptualized in a geometric form, it has found its proper lan-

guage in which to express and explain itself. That is, when an idea

finds geometrical expression, this idea has found thebest language

of its expression.

Any idea which can be conceptualized and then expressed

through a geometric form, is itself proof of its being both valid and

sound. The most exact scientific concepts in the world are mathe-

matical ones. If we are able to express our philosophical or ideologi-

cal ideas in mathematical or geometrical language, we have both

found the best language to express our concepts as well as the best

proof of the fact that intellectual ideas are logical as opposed to

philosophies and religions which have to engage in discussion,

argumentation, sophistry, debates and comparisons to prove their

logic.There, one will have chosen the weakest language of expres-

sion from the view of reasoning and logic.

If, instead, one could make use of mathematics as the language

of expression for an intellectual, philosophical or religious school

or even literary or artistic school, it is then that a school of thought

will have succeeded in finding expression through logical reason-

ing, proving itself to be both logical and scientific.

I wanted to add just one point. A school shows whether or not

it is a natural form, whether or not its curve is normal or abnormal,

whether or not its form is heterogeneous or homogeneous through

the geometric form in which it is expressed. That is, one can

understand the natural qualities of a school from its geometric

expression....

Scholars and Scholars

There is a great difference between knowledge which has been

understood and knowledge which has just been learned. You may

know people who are very knowledgeable about a famous person,

book or school but not understand the person, book or school. What

is the difference between these two? If I succeed in expressing the

difference between these two, I will, then, have succeeded in

explaining the difference between a real Islamic scholar and a

person who has simply learned about Islam but does not under-

stand it.

There are some Islamic scholars who understand Islam and

there are some Islamic scholars - many, as a matter of fact - who

have only learned about Islam. On the other hand, there are some

who understand Islam well but are not considered to be Islamic

scholars.

The same difference exists in literature, in the case of some pro-

fessors who know, for instance, how many manuscripts of the

poems of Hafiz exist in the world, where each one is, what the

weight or dimension of the volumes are, how many poems or

which different ones are included in each edition and who know

the names and attributes of all those who were praised by Hafiz,

what effect they had upon him, what their position was in relation

to him, etc. They know how many Persian or Arabic words exist in

Hafiz's poems or they know all of the allusions and historical

references made by Hafiz, but they in no way understand Hafiz.

Understanding Hafiz is something else. These 'Hafiz-ologists' have

no spiritual or intellectual sympathy with Hafiz. Thus, under-

standing Hafiz differs from having learned some things about him.

The same is true in regard to a person. Look at any thinker or

artist. Someone may come along and take down all the physical

characteristics of a person and define each cell in his body, know his

complete physiology, his age, etc. and have very accurate informa-

tion about him but not understand this person as a great thinker or

artist. Another person may come along and in just one meeting, one

encounter, with a simple exchange of ideas, come to understand

this person better and more deeply than the other with all of his

scientific information.

It is the same with knowing a school of thought. Understanding

of a school of thought is not the same as having technical and

detailed information about it. It is to have a feeling about the

orientation of this school - to understand it as a whole and not just

knowing parts or sections of it. It is to feel deeply towards a religion

or an ideology, to find the spirit and meaning which is hidden in an

idea.

This is what I mean by understanding Islam or Islamology - not

as a culture. Of course, the valuable aspects of Islamic culture and

Islamic sciences which are important sources of Islamic civiliza-

tion, should be studied. By Islamology I mean the understanding

of the ideology of Islam, not just Islamic sciences which are rou-

tinely taught in the schools and universities. It is as the poets,

writers and artists of the people understand a poem, literature and

art, not as those who are taught by professors of the Faculty of

Letters.

All of the French literary schools of the 19th and 20th centuries

were formed in cafes, not in the classrooms of the Sorbonne Univer-

sity. They began at first with the masses and those who had genius,

feeling, sense of movement, enthusiasm and the courag to create

a new school in music, painting, literature or poetry . Then it is

spread to groups and gatherings in the cafes as well as through the

intellectual and spiritual relationships of people here and there and

on the streets.

It was then that the educated people of the universities began

to oppose the new wave or school of thought referring to it as a

deviation. They used the argument that the intention was to spoil

art and literature and that the new ideas would impair the inde-

pendence of their culture and literature.

The struggle and conflict began but the determinism of time

and logic strengthened the new wave of thought and armed it with

a new logic which weakened, defeated and destroyed the old logic.

And, then, after a few years, the new 'condemned' school found

official acceptance. It imposed itself upon the university. The

professors of the universities were then proud that they taught the

'new poetry' and 'new art'.

Thus there are two kinds of understanding or knowing. One

kind is seen in those who claim to be scholars of a school or a culture,

who have specialized in the sciences and cultural ideas of that

school. They have studied it and are university graduates.

The other kind is seen in those who may or may not be special-

ists of that school of thought but they sense it. They feel it and thus

know and understand it better than the first group because the

second group have come to know the 'spirit' and 'orientation' of

that school or movement and not to simply know it scientifically.

Islam as Culture vs Islarn as Ideology

Throughout the history of Islamic civilization, Islam, in the

serise of Islamic culture and Islam, in the sense of Islamic sciences,

has become a complex of theological, interpretative, historic thoughts

and words combined together to form what is known as Islamic

sciences and each has its own specialized field of study. What one
does is to study, gain technical knowledge and become an expert in

one field.

But one comes to understand Islam in the sense of an ideology

in another way. Islam, as an ideology, is not a scientific specializa-

tion but is the feeling one has in regard to a school of thought as a

belief system and not as a culture. It is the perceiving of Islam as an

idea and not as a collection of sciences. It is the understanding of

Islam as a human, historical and intellectual movement, not as a

storehouse of scientific and technical information. And, finally, it is

the view of Islam as an ideology in the minds of an intellectual and

not as ancient religious sciences in the mind of a religious scholar.

Islamology, then, should be taught in this way.

To further this end, I will first give a general picture of a school

of thought and will explain what a school of thought means. I will

also explain what I mean when I say Islam should be viewed as an

ideological school, not as a culture or complex of sciences. Two

questions, then, should be answered: First, what is a school of

thought or doctrine? Second, what is Islam itself as an ideologic

school? I will try to give an accurate description of ideological

concepts.

The Idea of a School of Thought

 I will first explain a school of thought as an idea and then offer

it in the form of a geometric design. When I say 'maktab', school of

thought, I mean a harmonious collection of philosophical concepts,

religiousbeliefs,ethical valuesand practical methodswhich, through

a rational relationship, create a moving, meaningful, directed and

united body which is alive, all parts of it being nourished by one

spirit.

An expert may or may not have a school of thought but if he has

one, even if, for instance, he be a physicist, you can guess what his

views are in regard to economic or class issues before he says

anything about what he thinks. If he be an economist, and have a

school of thought, you can foresee what his philosophical views are

in regard to nature.

Why? Because all of the views on economics, sociology, reli-

gion, philosophy and even on art and literature of a person who

believes in a particular school of thought, have a cause and effect

relationship to each other.

Thus, by knowing one dimension of his views, you can guess

the other dimensions of his intellectual concepts or his intuitions.

If one believes in a school of thought, one's beliefs, emotions, way

of life, politics, social views, intellectual, religious and ethical

concepts are not separate but interrelated. They are alive with one

spirit, existing harmoniously in one form.

A fascist, existentialist or Marxist has a school of thought. You

may know a physicist who is, say, a fascist. In that case, you can say

that from the psychological point of view, he believes in the

psychology of racism and racial discrimination. From the political

point of view, he believes in nationalism and realism and from the

social point of view, he believes in the authenticity of the family.

Ashehas a school of thought, his political, economic oreven lit-

erary beliefs are in harmony, coordinated and united. These de-

velop a general form and this form is called 'ideological school'.

On the other hand, take a physicist who has no school of

thought. What is his orientation? From the economic point of view,

he has none. He has no opinion, or, if he has, what is it? Does he

move on the left, right or center? You do not know. You have to ask

him. Such a person discusses issues from all sides. You have to first

listen to his discussions to see what his opinion is and then condude

that his view is this or that because it is possible that in every area,

he take a different approach, a particular belief because he does not

believe in a school of thought.

A person who has a 'maktab' thinks about all issues of life - ideo-
logical, literary, artistic, historic, whatever. His conclusion about is-

sues is coordinated and in harmony with his ideology and beliefs.

For example, you may see a man who believes in a committed

social school. Although he has not said a single word about litera-

ture or art, because he belongs to a committed social school of

thought, you know that he does not believe in literature for litera-

ture's sake, art for art's sake or poetry for poetry's sake or in

1iterature as a language for personal feelings', but he most certainly

believes that art and literature must be at the service of social

struggle because he believes in a school of social commitment.

Thus, a school of thought and action is like a galaxy in which ev-

ery individual sensation, social behavior, ethical character and, in

particular, philosophical, religious and social idea of a person, are

each like a planet which revolves around one sun in a coordinated,

meaningful galaxy, a galaxy moving in one direction and coordi-

nated in movement. This is the mental image of a person who

believes in a school of thought. This is the school of thought which

creates movement, builds and brings about social power. It is this

which gives a mission, commitment and responsibility to a person.

Expertise and science do not have the same effect.

From the time when Islam turned from an 'ideological school'

to 'cultural knowledge' and a 'collection of religious sciences', it

lost its ability and power for creating 'movement', 'commitment',

'responsibility' and 'social awareness' and it was held back from

having any effect or influence upon the fate of human society.

When we say that 'a school of thought is a complete intellectu-

al form of a person who believes in an idea', what is that form?

I have not taken this very simple figure from anywhere. I have

made it from my studies on different ideologies and research on

ideas and beliefs and ideological, religious and social schools, I

have designed a form which is not only useful from the point of

view of expressing an idea, but it is also helpful as a means for

teaching and explaining what is called 'an ideological school of

thought', not only as a form, which is simple, but as a means of

expression from the view of its contents which itself is of special

concern in a 'maktab'. It is based on the theory that a perfect

ideological school - which includes all of the intellectual forms of a

school of thought - has such a complete form.

Part Two

The Infrastructure and Suprastructure of a Belief System

 When I refer to infrastructure, I am referring to the foundation

of a belief system or the attitudes developed from principles of that

belief system which have a causal relationship with the suprastruc-

ture. By suprastructure, I mean the ideas or effects developed

through three pillars which form the 'ideology' and are based in the

infrastructure of a belief system.

Each ideological school should have an infrastructure or a basic

support system from which all its ideas develop. This consists of a

'world view' which each and every school of thought, without

exception, has whether it be divinely oriented, materialistic, natu-

ralistic, idealistic, fascist, Marxist, etc....

A person who does not have a world view is like a person who

has an abundance of furniture and is continuously moving it from

house to house. Nothing is ever fully unpacked or put in its right

place so proper use can be made of it....

Having a great deal of compartmentalized knowledge without

having a definite world view is like having all the materials needed

to build a buildingbut lacking a design as to what should be built

It would be better for a person to lack the materials than the design.

Here lies the real difference between Abu Dharr and Avicenna,

between a faithful struggler upon the way of God (mujahid) and an

expert scholar, between a committed intellectual and an explorer

scientist, between an aware, responsible and oriented person and

an unfaithful, undirected expert, between an idea and a science,

and, finally, between an ideology and a culture.

Science, art, literature, philosophy, industry, human beings,

life, ethics and even existence itself will find meaning, spirit and

orientation when fixed to a faith and the ideological system of a

school of thought. This is only possible when all of these are based

in a world view and when interpreted by its standards.

World View

Every thinker who has a school of thought must design such a

form and then answer the question: "What is your world view?" A

person who has a world view can reply that his world view is

materialistic, realistic, skeptic, taoistic, multitheistic, dualistic,

monotheistic, pantheistic, aesthetic, existentialistic, etc.

A world view is the comprehension that a person has about

'being or 'existence'. The difference between Hafiz and Umar

Khayyam is their world views. Khayyam says: "As no one has ever

returned from the other world to bring news of that world (his

world view), we must enjoy the present (his ideology)." Hafiz says:

"As our fate has been determined in our absence (his world view),
if it is not according to our liking, do not complain (his ideology)."

Thus, an ideology develops out of the total context of a world view

and these two have a relationship of cause and effect.

A person who believes that the world has a Creator Who is

Conscious and has Will-power and that from the accurate accounts

and reckonings which are kept, he will have the rewards of his acts

or he will be punished for them is a person who has a religious

world view. It is based upon this very world view whereby one

says: "My way of life should be such and such. This or that must be

done." It explains the meaning of life, society, ethics, beauty and

ugliness, truth and falsity. This is to have a religious ideology.

Thus, the idealism of Hegel, the dialectic materialism of Marx,

the existentialism of Heiddeger, Jaspers and Sartre, the absurdity of

the futilism of Albert Camus and Beckett, the religion of Catholi-

cismand/orIslam, the Taoismof LaoTsu, the 'karma' of Hinduism,

the pain and 'niruana' of Buddha, the unity of being of Hallaj, the

pessimistic determinism of Khayyam, Schopenhauer and Metter-

nich, are all world views.

Philosophical Anthropology

This consists of the kind of attitude which any school of thought

has about a human being which forms its world view, such as:
"What is a human being"?", "What must a human being be?"

What I mean here is the kind of knowledge that exists in a

school of thoughtabouta humanbeing, not the particular scientific

terminology of anthropology nor the general meaning of human-

ism. What I am referring to is the real value, mission and meaning

which a school of thought has in regard to a human being, not in

the opposite sense of it. Human authenticity is a phrase used by the

ancient Greeks, the Renaissance or the Schools of Radicalism at the

end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th century or the meaning

existentialism gave it in the 20th century.

It is clear that a person is known according to his world view

and every school of thought designates or defines 'human being'

in a different way. One school calls the human being, 'a materialis-

tic animal'. Another calls him/her 'divine animal'. Every school

defines or describes the human being with another adjective such

as: creator of the ideal, rational, economic, a producer of tools, free,

decision-maker, lacking in substance, hesitating, prejudiced, simi-

lar to God, natural, social, creator of culture, civilized, conscious,

etc.

It should be mentioned here that when a school of thought

speaks about a human being, it is referring to the meaning and truth

of a human being from the philosophical and ideological point of

view, not the real creature described or discussed in the sciences of

physiology, psychology, biology, theology, anthropology, sociol-

ogy, morphology, etc. What I mean is the truth of human kind in

his/her ideology, his/her school of thought and ideological atti-

tudes and not in a strictly scientific way.

It is the truth of the human being which is described, not his/

her reality. It is as philosophy, religion and art speak about the

human being, the way Buddha, Confucius, Socrates, Plato, Rousseau,

Hegel, Marx, Tolstoy, Sartre or Abraham, Jesus Christ, the Prophet

of Islam, Ali or Homer, Goethe, Hafiz, Rumi, Tagore, George Sands

and Van Gogh describe, explain and paint the human being not as

Claude Bernard, Darwin and Freud speak about the human being.

The same is true of history. By philosophy of history, I mean the

concept, truth, movement and aim that philosophers or Prophets

have about history. It is the view of history as a single reality which

has its own special meaning and orientation as Ibn Khaldun, Virgo,

Hegel, Marx, Emerson and Toynbee understood and described it

and not as great historians and historiographers such as Hero-

dutus, Gibbon, Tabbari and Bihaqi mention.

The same is true of sociology. It is what sociology means as a

school of thought and not as a science in the sense of how a

professor of sociology at the university describes it.

It is my belief that these three form the basic pillars of a school

of thought - view of the human being, history and society. These

three have been shown in the Fig. 1. All of them rise from

a world view and have a logical cause and effect relationship with

it. These are the three columns which build a school of thought, the

foundation of which is the world view.

All of the ideological suprastructure is built upon them. It is like

an individual who is carrying the weight of a trust for someone.

Every individual who has reached the stage of 'consciousness' and

senses within himself the burden of a mission for humanity, finds

himself like Atlas who bore the weight of the world upon his

shoulders.

This concept is a concept of an ideological school of thought. It

is a form which carries the truth of a human being because a human

being is, in fact, nothing more than belief and struggle.

Islamology
The Basic Design for
a School of Thought and Action
by: Dr. Ali Shariati
Part Three

Sociology
 By this I am referring to the special human belief, based upon

the expediences of one's school in regard to human society and

one's attitude towards it. The sociology of a school of thought first

defines what it recognizes as the reality of society and secondly,

how it has come to know it from the intellectual and ideological

point of view. This is because the social view in a school of thought

holds commitment to society as a doctrine for its ideology. It is not

just a question of analysis of society without an aim or constraints.

In a school of thought, the sociology is in harmony with the

inclinations, ideals and special views of that school. Based upon

this, it judges, criticizes and evaluates. It is oriented and has

commitment like the views of Durkheim and Gurwitsch as op-

posed to the sociologies most often offered at universities where

the aim is only to analyze and come to know relationships and

phenomena, to study exactly what exists as it is and as one sees it,

to simply study effects, as it were, without any attention being

given to causes.

The sociology of the 19th century was mainly an ideological

one or as Europeans say: a committed social view. Today, on the

other hand, along with the general attitude in other sciences, the

emphasis is on distancing science from ideology and even remov-

ing any sense of commitment, holding back from any determina-

tion of good or bad. In regard to value judgments, it is deemed that

the sociology should only judge the realities instead of turning to

good or evil, offering solutions and guidance and accepting respon-

sibility or social, ethical or even human commitment. In general, it

refuses to accept an idea or adopt a determined direction or goal in

either theory or practice. Instead of evaluation and guidance, it

turns to fact-finding and analyses.

It has also announced the thesis: Having commitment, an

ideology or a goal will harm science and will limit it to the frame-

work of determined or particular ideologies, to particular beliefs. It

will automatically take the issuein hand. It will direct it towards the

goal in which it has faith. As a result, science, instead of objectively

searching for the truth, whatever it may be, will be obliged to seek

pre-determined results which serve and confirm the belief system.

This is because, in this view, a 'committed researcher' (some-

one committed to religion or atheism, spirituality or materiality,

socialism or capitalism, freedom or dictatorship, etc.) can naturally

not be free. One cannot be a researcher who has unlimited or

unbounded opinions so that nothing will influence one's research

and taint any result one may attain.

 For instance, a committed sociologist cannot be an objective

and free scholar of history. Why? Because in the study of history,

one just looks for class struggle. Whenever one finds it, it confirms

one's view and whenever one does not find it, he/she justifies it.

Wherever one finds something that opposes this view, one ignores

it. Sometimes one does not even see it and cannot see it because one

is wearing glasses colored with one's particular ideological views.

The same is true, in this view, of a religious physicist who

continuously searches for God in one's scientific research. In con-

trast to this person, a materialistic physicist sees everywhere to be

empty of God. Thus, only that researcher can objectively under-

stand the physical world as it really is who is free of both of these

bonds.

We see how firm these arguments are and, from one point of

view, they are sound in the sense that we saw in the Middle Ages,

because of religious commitment, science and research were obliged

to only prove those truths which had previously been suggested by

the religious scholars. They attained results which Christianity had

predetermined.

In the 19th century, the sciences, in particular, the social sci-

ences like history and sociology, so strongly opposed the scientist

having a belief system and predetermined ideas fixed by various

parties involving the laws of ideological class or anti-class, racism

or nationalism to the extent that a kind of neo-scholasticism ap-

peared. Science, which had been freed from serving religion in the

Middle Ages, in the new century, was now employed by a school

of thought.

The necessity for releasing science from the narrow constraints

of ideologies, its commitment to proving a party's position and

justifying the racial, national, class, political and economic desires

of the ideologists and philosophers created a most suitable situ-

ation so that because of one skillful error, those who supported this

view were able to separate science from its mission and essential

responsibility to serve humanity and to bring consciousness and

guidance to the people.

In their study of realities in the search for truth, they isolated

and separated science from the people with arguments like 'objec-

tive truth', 'free research', 'pure science', 'the non-commitment of

thescientist', 'avoidingprejudgments', 'pre-fabricated ideas',which

were all attractive and logical. This was particularly true with the

social sciences such as history, sociology and literature which, more

than other fields, could being consciousness to the intellectuals and

guidance to the masses throughout the whole world.

What happened was that, using these arguments, modern

science could no longer propose solutions, make judgment values,

determine directions, explain aims, prove or deny ideas, give

methods for procedure, show the way, criticize existing realities,

suggest proposals for improvement or foresee suitable situations.

It basically studied and analyzed problems, made unknown scien-

tific matters clear and, discovered logical causes and effects in

phenomena. There was no longer the mission of prophetic-like

guidance.

Science has been separated from the fabric of society. It has lost

touch with people's thoughts. Not being able to criticize the present

situation, it could no longer help solve life's problems. It could no

longer guide society in the direction it should, making the essential

elements clear, causing public ignorance to decline and helping

human beings realize the causes of their past and present miseries.

It no longer concerned itself with the fate of society and its ability

to control its own destiny and achieve its ideals.

Just like the pious and devoted people who are isolated by their

piety, thereby making them easy prey for plundereers, impious

and deceiving people, proponents of 'objectivity', in the name of

'objectivity', separated science from its commitment and responsi-

bility to bring consciousness, illumination, guidance and help to

human beings so that science could better achieve their goals and

targets.

Sociology and history developed from this. Neither do objec-

tive historians nor missionless sociologists describe what has passed

or is passing for human beings nor what they must do nor in what

lies their salvation. They were negligent of the fact that when they

put aside their commitment to humanity and they became unre-

stricted by and indifferent to an aim or goal, they were then used as

tools by those who play with history and the powerful elements of

society in order to help them reach their aims!

By separating science from its service to people and its re-

sponsibility to bring perfection, consciousness and salvation to

society, it automatically was used to serve the enemies of the

people. It became a tool to further the decline, ignorance, intellec-

tual and social servitude of the human being. As we see today, the

natural sciences have been released from their commitment to

search out the truth of the universe or to prove or deny the existence

of God, but for all practical purposes, it has become the slave of

capitalism.
 Sociology is no longer disturbed by faith as it was in the Middle

Ages nor by an ideology as it has been in recent centuries. It has

become a science which proposes research and teaching behind

closed doors. It is used to saturate the egos of the professors, to

amuse the students or to show secret, imperialist-oriented institu-

tions how to humiliate, deviate and plunder the Western masses

and/or deprived Eastern nations. It serves capitalist or anti-popu-

lar organizations by developing ways and means whereby they can

dilute, pollute and essentially destroy the human spirit, resulting in

man's stagnation and deterioration.

I accept the argument that prejudgement and ideological

dogmatism hurts scientific research and that the scientist who

already believes that he knows what the truth is cannot be a good

scientist because research means exploring, analyzing, explaining

and measuring the problems in order to find the truth. The physi-

ologist who previous to making any study believes that the 'soul'

exists or does not exist, certainly cannot find the real truth. A

believing capitalist or communist when he begins to study history

in order to find the truth and understand the intellectual movement

of history, will finally discover those very truths that he already

believed in.
 The Tradition which clearly states; "Anyone who interprets the

Quran with his own 'opinion' will be burnt in a fire," explains the

said scientific principle.

'Opinion' here is the same as pre-judgement. It is a pre-judg-

ment which either consciously or unconsciously makes the scientist

change the meaning of the Quran so that it agrees with his own pre-

determined opinion, instead of interpreting its meaning. It is for

this reason that we see when Sunnis, Shi'ites, Sufis, philosophers,

etc. study the Quran, they achieve the same results as they had

before they began . The Quran has become a means for proving their

ideas not that they obtain their ideas from it.

It is both amusing and tragic that someone interpreted the

word 'opinion' in the Tradition as 'intellect', concluding that no one

has the right to interpret the Quran with his own intellect! as if there

were something other than the intellect by which means one

understand something!

They have purposefully done this so that people will not

understand the Quran. The same was true in the Middle Ages

where the reading and understanding of the Bible and the Penta-

teuch belonged exclusively to the priests and clergymen. They

prevented the translation, interpretation and distribution so that

people would not be able to refer to them. In this way, the books of

salvation remained in the possession of the of ficial religious clergy.

This same thing has been done with the Quran. By preventing

people from studying the Quran and thinking about it, religious

scholars made it into a book so that only its form remained for the

people. Its spirit, purpose and aim remain unknown. They turned

it into phrases and verses of secret words without their meaning

being understood. As has been pointed out and as the Quran

warned, they interpreted the Quran with their own pre-conceived

ideas and not with their minds or the use of logic.

Thus, there are two basic theories. The first - science at, the ser-

vice of a belief system - makes science the means for justifying pre-

conceived notions. The second - science free of any belief system

and for the sake of science alone - makes science ineffective and

valueless. In the name of objectivity, it lacks purpose. As a result,

the scientist no longer serves the people and society and for all

practical purposes, science is either rendered sterile or is made use

of to serve the powerful, wealthy and/or deceivers.

I propose a third way: Scientists, prior to undertaking any re-

search, must be free of any particular beliefs and after achieving re-

sults, be bound by them.

 Before undertaking any study, scientists must not be commit-

ted to the extent that through the studies they are about to under-

take, they will, of necessity, prove their own pre-conceived notions.

Rather, the results of the research itself, not researchers, should

show the truth to them and then this proven truth become a belief

for researchers. After realizing the truth, they should be committed

to it and realize their responsibility to it as well as their responsibil-

ity towards people and their times for their own scientific con-

sciousness. That it, the belief or idea which their research proved to

them.

This way, then, neither enslaves science nor confirms pre-con-

ceived ideas. It does not prevent science from performing its

function of guidance and showing the way of salvation to the

people. It does not remove it from seeing to the needs of the human

being, service to human society, criticizing, offering solutions and

showing truth and falsehood. It does not isolate science in the

university nor is it to be used exclusively by the powerful opportun-

ists or those who wish to deceive.

Sociologists, historians or anthropologists should not allow

their knowledge to be used to justify and confirm their pre-con-

ceived and unscientific notions. They should not allow those who
believe to use science as a means to their goals. Neither should they

stop with this knowledge, that is, be satisfied with a logical and

scientific analysis and explanation of the causes of history, society

and present day human beings.

Rather, after discovering the truth, after an objective and

unprejudiced search, they should present both the negative and

positive causes and effects. They should guide the people in a

prophetic-like way. They should recall the causes for the back-

wardness and degeneration of society or class or human kind, in

general - attained through objective research and then show the

way to progress and salvation. They should endeavor upon this

way and become committed to it, neither 'science for ideology' nor

'science for science's sake'. Rather: A guiding science committed to

truth. Commitment to a belief before research harrns science and

deceives people but commitment to a belief after research is the

prophetic-like mission of the scientist.

Part Four

Philosophy of History

Some believe history to be useless. One of the people who did

not believe in history was Napoleon. He said: "History is no more

than lies which are accepted by all."

There are some famous people who looked at history as an art

and not a science. One believed that history is not an objective

reality like a mountain, nature, a sea, a man, a society or life itself

but it is a poem. The poem is not an outdated reality which the poet

discovers. Rather, the poet uses different substances and creates a

poem. He invents it and creates that which had not existed. Using

the same argument, history is the poem that a historian sings and

not an external reality which he discovers. One historian sings it in

one way and another in another. In this way, everyone sings it as he

wishes it sung or as he is able to sing.

A contemporary Frenchman says the same thing but with more

seriousness: "History is like a mountain for which I - like everyone

else - make my own blocks of stone in order to construct the design

that I myself have. That is, I enter history and select anything and

any shape which I wish, cut and change it and then use the selected

pieces in the construction of an historical building where I myself

am the designer, builder and architect.

For example, the history of the French Revolution is not a

reality that historians discover and then express. The historian

creates it. It is the aforementioned mountain that an historian starts

to build according to his own tastes, beliefs, needs and creative

ability by selecting the blocks of stone for the construction of the

history he wishes to have been.

But the philosophy of history does not believe that history is

separate accidents of the past, accidents made by personalities, the

powerful, military leaders, heroes and conquerors. It does not see

history as material, stored in the past that a writer select according

to his own needs and tastes.

History is the continuous and united process which moves and

grows from the beginning of the life of humanity according to the

deterministic scientific law of cause and effect. It coercively passeS

through different stages and encounters deterrnined points-

which can be foreseen. Finally, it certainly and of necessity reacheS

its goals which were pre-determined by the law of the movement

of history.

Just as a plant or a chicken grows up or like the earth moveS

within a certain period of time, so history is a living, natural reality-

Thus, according to scientific laws and the principles of cause and

effect, it has its own movement and evolution. Consequently, it is

not a tool to be made use of by this or that person. It is also not an

illogical or accidental process without having any goal.

As the flow of history is a scientific one, if I found myself in the

middle of this flow, if I accurately discover the laws of movement

of history, I can foresee the destiny of any society or other societieS

three hundred years from now. It is Xust like meteorology whereby

knowing the laws of the atmosphere, which are logical laws of

cause and effect, one can accurately foresee the changes of weathert

the rising and falling of temperatures, the possibility of rain, the

coming of clouds, the occurrence of a storm and the blowing of

winds.

Therefore, if we discover the flow of the movement of history,

we can guess what will happen in the future. A person who adheres

to Ws principle, who believes in a philosophy of history or better

yet, a science of history, believes that history is a scientiffc reality

and a movement which flows according to fixed scientific laws.

Therefore, the destiny of humanity throughout the ages is not

accidental. It is not made by persons nor does it stand, move, incline

or progress according to the desires of Ws or that person. It moveS

according to coercive, existing scientific laws which exist in the

very fabric of society and time. This movement which occurs

according to scientific law in society is called 'history'.

 Therefore, history is a continuous, deterministic flow which

moves according to certain strict laws. This is to believe in the

philosophy of history.

But how does it move? According to which scientific laws?

How can they be foreseen? Which direction does it take? The

answer to these questions creates the special philosophy of history

of each school of thought. Every school of thought replies to these

according to its own views. As the 'science of history' has not as yet

been discovered or has not, as yet, been completely recognized and

accepted by all, we design it in an ideological school as the 'philoso-

phy of history' and not as a proven, confirmed and fixed science.

Ideology

Ideologys includes both a belief and the knowing of it. It is to

have a special attitude and consciousness which a person has in

relation to himself, his class position, social base, national situation,

world and historic destiny as well as the destiny of one's own

society which one is dependent upon. According to one's ideology,

oneexplains the above pointsand on thatbasisone finds one's own

particular responsibilities, commitments, directions, solutions,

desires, positions and judgments. Consequently, he adheres to a

special behavior and ethical system of values. That is, it is according

to the world view and fundamental type of sociology, philosophi-

cal anthropology and philosophy of history that a person has, his

beliefs about life, the relationship to 'self' with others and with the

world.

It makes it clear how one must live, what one must do, what

type of society must be made, how an ideal social system is created,

what the responsibilities and commitments of an individual to

one's society are, what types of conflicts, relationships, ideas,

needs, beliefs, negative or positive values, collective behavior,

scales of good and evil, social and humanitarian identity must be

created and established.

Therefore, ideology is a belief system that interprets the social,

rational and class orientation of a human being as well as one's sys-

tem of values, social order, form of living, ideal individual, social

situation and human life in all its various dimensions. It answers

the questions: What are you like? What do you do? What must you

do? What must be?

The various aspects of infrastructure (i.e. world view) and

suprastructure (philosophical anthropology, sociology and phi-

losophy of history forming an ideology) find meaning, can be

understood and turned into life and movement in a school, when

two points are made clear: Its views on the ideal city and the ideal

human being.

The Ideal Society (Utopia)

Utopia is the ideal society that one conceives of in one's own

mind, desires and struggles for so that human society take that

form. All philosophies, religions and human beings have a differ-

ent type of utopia in their minds. Paradise is the utopia or ideal

society in the mind of a religious man. Plato's utopia was the ideal

city for the aristocratic Greeks and intellectuals of his age. The City

of God of St. Augustine, The Sacred City of Jean Isolah and the

Society of Universal Justice of the Shitites, at the end of time, are all

ideal societies.

In many of the ancient books, ideal cities such as philosophy of

Jabalwa and Jabalsa have been described - cities with idealistic peo-

ple, government, religion, political organization, social classes,

ethics, economics, social fundamentals, thought and culture. There-

fore, contrary to what is superficially stated, the creation of utopias

is the result of a need of every idealistfior goal-oriented person.

All of this shows that the desire to have a higher form of society
exists both in the primordial nature of each and every human being

as well as in the consciousness of each society. It is the manifestation

of the evolving spirit of each human being.

This 'higher form of society' in a school of thought is not an

imaginary or fictitious society but an ideal society which is formed

from the ideology of that school of thought. This is because the be-

lievers of each school of thought believe in a human, free and ideal

way of life and not only believe in the possibility of such a life and

its certainty, but struggle to create it.

The desired, the ideal or higher form of society is the ideal men-

tal image of that society which an individual or group who believe

in that school of thought have about it and they try to change

human society for that type of society.

Essentially, the existence of an imaginary society proves that

the human being is always moving from the 'present situation' to

a more 'desirable situation', whether it be imaginary, scientific, the

utopia of Plato or the classless society of Marx. But the desirable

society in a school of thought is a scientific and potentially objective

society which is in harmony with the spirit and orientation of that

school of thought, based upon its world view and is in accordance

with its ultimate goal and the philosophy of life in that school.

Ideal Prototype

The ideal human being is motivated by a desire as to what he

'should be' and 'must become'. It was this person that the mystics

sought to become. The universal prototype (insan-i-kamil) is clearly

referred to in our treatises, particularly the ones on philosophy and

illumination. It is the person who has reached the highest level that

a human being can reach and evolve towards . It is a person who has

released the 'self' from the bond of 1ust' and 'passion' and has

soared as a human being.

Fascism speaks of a 'superman'. Nietzsche speaks about the

man who becomes the heir of the gods. Hegel, in his philosophy of

history, which is based upon his special idealism, foresees a future

in which the 'absolute ideal', after passing the evolutionary stages

of self-awareness of the highest form of man, reaches 'absolute

awareness' and in this stage, the universal prototype.

The ethical socialism of the 1 9th century in Gerrnany, which the

majorityof Hegel's studentsbelieved in, wastrying to attain the hu-

man being of a 'sound disposition', 'the human being who is

human', whose talents have progressed freely and soundly by

struggling against both bourgeoisie 'this worldliness' and pious

'other worldliness' for both of these make a person defective,

metamorphosized and alienated from the truth of 'self' and one's

primordial nature.

Even Marxism, which is based on 'materialism' and as our

intellectuals explain it, 'the human being' to them is an economic

animal, speaks about 'a total human being'. This person is one who

is total, perfect and complete. He has not become imperfect, para-

lyzed, cut into pieces or alienated. He has not been made insane by

the system or been metamorphosized. He does not suffer from a

sense of self-loss. He does not worship wealth. He is not one-

dimensional. He is neither a colonizer nor colonized. He is neither

a master nor a slave. He is not a seeker after lusts, a monk or an

ascetic. He is not a worker who is without work because of the

existence of reactionary and deviated elements, economic condi-

tions, class system and inhumane working conditions.

Therefore, all schools of thought, whether materialistic or mys-

tic, have a mental concept of a 'perfect type', a total person, an ideal

prototype of humanity. Otherwise, a social philosophy, an ethical

school of thought and a path to follow in one's life is meaningless

because it lacks orientation.

 A human model is a model which gives direction and causes us

to move. It requires that both our hands and our thoughts be put to

use in seeking or reaching towards that model.

The model can be used as a scale of life, an ethics, a means of

training and teaching human beings. It is not possible to discipline

human beings without recognizing the universal prototype and

without having a universal prototype for the human race. We must

know the potential human being in order to create that person by

means of a developed, accurate and scientific technique or method.

Discipline means 'becoming a human being' and bringing one

near to the universal prototype. If we ask those who are engaged

in the training of the human being what is intended for each person

to become, they cannot answer that such a problem is of no concern

because they intend to change the present position of the human

being. Therefore, the universal prototype must be clear and it be

made known what type of person it is.

They cannot argue: "We are experts and are only responsible

for their training and teaching. The universal prototype does not

concern us. It is up to philosophy and religion to make it clear."

Such training and teaching is similar to a carpenter who has

gathered a hundred pieces of equipment and various kinds of

wood and is expertly working on those but when you ask him what

he is working on, he answers: "I have no idea. I am a realist. I am not

an idealist. I just cut wood but I have no idea what it is for and who

will use it."

We must consider the point that the system of human values is

determined by the universal prototype who is in our thoughts and

whom webelieve in as a model humanbeing, a symbolic model, the

exalted human being that we must be and yet are not. The main aim

and effort of training and teaching is to make human beings grow

more similar to that model generation by generation. Therefore,

each school of thoughtmust present its ideal image of the universal

prototype, otherwise all its efforts are in vain and its movement,

without aim.

It must be noted here that a universal prototype or society

which moves towards exalted symbols, ideal and exemplary models

always destroys fixed moulds and standards upon its way. The

universal prototype individual or society is the attractive force

which identifies the orientation of a movement but does not iden-

tify the final or fixed form.

It is the factor of movement which negates the immobile and

prohibiting factors. Fixed standards put the human being in pre-

constructed forms and dimensions. It moulds the person as it wants

while seeking the ideal it releases an individual from these forms

and takes that person out of the stagnancy of each course of action

and system. It moves the person in the streams of time towards the

ocean and/or absolute eternity.

Therefore, as I mentioned at the beginning of my lecture, just as

I do not believe in fixed and pre-constructed moulds, similarly I do

not believe in non-engagement, non-commitment and irresponsi-

bility. Instead of release or limitations, I believe the orientation

must be selected not in its 'form of being' nor 'in being without

form' but rather as an eternal evolutionary becoming, an eternal

movement and migration - not to reach a point - but to orient

towards a direction.

Therefore, a design for a school of thought consists of an infras-

tructure of a world view and a suprastructure of a philosophy in

regard to the human being, society and a philosophy of history (the

principal pillars) forming one's ideology, developing the ideal

society and the ideal human being.

 Figure – 1

School of thought and action

Ideal Prototype
Ideal Society
IDEOLOGY
Philosophy of
--|
History
Philosophical Supra
--|-->
Anthropology Structure
Sociology --|
World View -----> Infrastructure
 Figure - 2
School of Islam

God
Successor of God on
Earth:
Consciousness
Freedom
Creativity
Leader:
Protype of the School of Islam
Muslim Community
Books/Scale/Iron
Leadership:
Temporary Revolutionary
ISLAM
Dialectic: ---|
Cane vs Abel |
Prophethood/Leadership
Commited Democracy
|
(Occultation) |
World Revolution |
Dialectic: |
Mire vs Spirit |
Divine spirit/Iblis ---|
Four prisons: nature |
history, society, self |
Dialectic: |
Cane vs Abel |
Tyranny/Justice |
Religion vs Religion ---|
Human Being
Monotheism
Society