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.
 

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.