Systematization of "the Thought"

“Systematization of the Thought” is Also a Proposal for the “Method” to Change the World

Here is the question at issue: Does the level of knowledge raise as a result of the improvement in the material conditions of the people or do the material conditions of a people improve as a result of an increase in the level of knowledge in a society? All ideologies, belief systems or worldviews have sought an answer to this question when they try to explain the very dynamics of “the change”, and we can easily observe that throughout history there have always been thinkers or philosophers who fairly support each one of the two arguments. In contemporary era, especially Marxists tackled the problem on the basis of the dialectic of infrastructure and superstructure and simply argued that the former arises from the latter. For them, the superstructure i.e culture which includes belief systems, art, literature, philosophy, societal mores and even some aspects of government and law is determined by the infrastructure i.e the economy which includes modes, means and relations of production. A similar approach was advocated by Ibn Khaldun in Muslim history. He also gave much importance to the material conditions and alleged that any kind of development in a society (including the raising of the knowledge level) or emergence of an urban civilization (umran al-hadari) depends basically on social solidarity (asabiyya) or group cohesion. On the other hand, there have been always those ones who supported the counter argument. For them, even the improvement of the material conditions is directly related with the increase in the level of knowledge in a society. This idea is advocated generally by the idealists in the Western world. One of the most notable among them is Hegel. In the history of Muslim Thought, al-Ghazali seems best represent this approach because he not only believed that Muslim scholars in his time must wage an “intellectual” struggle against the Greek Thought but also alleged that the success of this struggle does not depend on the improvement of the material conditions of the society.

We can ask the same question in a more concrete way by establishing a connection with the issue of the “strategy” of Islamic struggle: must we strive first for establishing an Islamic state or for systematizing the thought? The proponents of the former argument assert that primary condition of the change is to form powerful organizations at first and allege that even the increase in the knowledge level of society depends basically upon the performance of these organizations. According to this approach, if an Islamic state is established, the level of knowledge would raise authomatically because the power, in its strictest sense, is now seized by Muslims, and determining factor in raising the level of knowledge is, as a matter of fact, to have the material i.e organizational or financial power needed to support the scholarly efforts.

This approach is mainly false because a goal without a plan is just a dream. No one can achieve his/her objectives without a good planning. The planning is, for sure, essentially related to the “thinking.” So, what creates a state is, indeed, the idea or the plan that was already projected in mind. In another saying, thinking before acting is the most important factor in achieving goals. Of course, improvement in material conditions makes a positive contribution to the process or may have an effect on some variables, but can not determine the social change. As we know, whereas material conditions have a similar effect on every single man and woman, the knowledge level of the members of the society has always been different, and accordingly, the scholars who are of sound instruction and proved himself/herself to be an “authority” in his/her own field has always been very few in number in every society. So, there is no causal relationship between the improvement in material conditions and raising of the level of knowledge. On the contrary, we can readily allege that the more the level of knowledge raises, the more the probability of the improvement in material conditions increases. If the society knows better what to do and how to do, this is exactly because it has previously a good knowledge about the relevant fields. There is no doubt that when we know better how to do, then we would perform our task better. If we do our job better, this leads to, inevitably, increase in efficiency, and thereby increase in production and material conditions.

Hence the project of the Systematization of the Thought offers Islamic Movements a proposal for a new “method” of establishing an Islamic state. To make our presence felt in a global scale, we, as Muslims must have previously a good and strong foundation. And in order to have a strong foundation, we must first have a robust ideology.

Muslims of the world! Unite around the project of the Systematization of the Thought. We will not seize the political power unless we overcome and correct our deficiencies. Even if we manage to seize it, this will not be a permanent and nonvolatile one. The falsehood will vanish away only if the Truth comes. If we want the Truth to come, we must first have a good knowledge of it!