Kinds of Ideologies
I. There are two kinds of ideologies: human ideology and class ideology.
Human ideology is that which is addressed to all mankind, not to any particular class, race or community. The proclaimed aim of a human ideology is the emancipation of human race, not of any particular group or class. Its plan covers all strata of society and does not remain confined to any particular stratum or group.
Class ideology, in contrast, is addressed to a particular class, group or a stratum of society, and its proclaimed aim is the emancipation or supremacy of a particular group. The plan that it puts forward is confined to that group only, from which alone it recruits its supporters and defenders.
Each of these two kinds of ideologies is based on a particular conception of man. Every general and human ideology like Islamic ideology has that attitude towards man which may be called natural. From Islamic point of view man has been created to be superior to historical and social factors. He has a special existential dimension, and has been endowed with high qualities which distinguish him from animals. According to this view, man's creative design is such that all human beings have been endowed with a sort of consciousness and intuition, which makes them fit to be addressed and enables them to respond to a call. Human ideologies base their preachings on the natural intuition peculiar to mankind and infuse a spirit of action in man.
Some ideologies have a different view of man. According to them, the human species is not fit that a call be addressed to it, nor can it respond to a call. They maintain that the consciousness and the tendencies of man are determined by the historical factors of his national life and the social factors which fire his class status. Should we overlook historical and social factors, then man in the absolute sense has neither consciousness nor any intuitive power nor is he fit to be called upon to perform a mission. In that case he will not be a concrete man and his existence will be merely conceptual. Marxism and similarly national philosophies are based on such a view of man. These philosophies aim at class benefits or are based on national and racial sentiments or at the most on national culture.
There is no doubt that the ideology of Islam is of the first kind, and is based on true nature of man. That is why Islam addresses its message to the 'common people',2 and not to a particular group or class. Islam was able to draw its supporters practically from all groups, even from those to fight against which it had risen, namely the groups which it termed the luxuriously living. It was a great achievement of Islam that it was able to draw recruits from a class to fight against that very class and from a group to fight against the interests of that very group, and even to arouse the individual to fight against himself. This is a deed which Islam has performed and is still performing. Islam being a religion which relies on the innate nature of man and infiltrates into the inmost traits of his existence, can arouse the individual to fight and bring about a revolution against himself. This revolution is called penitence. The revolutionary power of a class or group ideology is limited to the instigation of an individual against another individual or a class against another class, but it cannot persuade an individual to revolutionize himself, nor can it put the inner sentiments and passions of man under his own control.
Islam, being a religion, and for that matter the final religion, has come, more than any other religion, to set up a system of social justice.3 Naturally it aims at the emancipation of the oppressed and the underprivileged. But it does not direct its message to the oppressed and the underprivileged alone. Islam has not recruited its supporters from this class only. As history bears witness to it, relying on the force of faith and the innate nature of man, Islam has been able to draw its supporters even from among those classes to fight against which it had risen. Islam presents a theory of the triumph of humanity over animality, of knowledge over ignorance, of justice over tyranny, of equality over discrimination, of virtue over depravity, of piety over sensuality, and of monotheism over polytheism. The success of the oppressed people against the tyrants and the despots is a manifestation of this triumph.
II. In consequence of the foregoing discussion a question arises whether the genuine human culture is of a uniform character or there exists no human and uniform culture; and all that exists and will exist in future is a series of many cultures each of them having national, communal or class characteristics?
This question is linked with another question. Has or has not man a genuine and uniform innate nature, giving uniformity to human culture? If human nature is uniform, it should impart uniformity to human culture also. Otherwise it will be reasonable to believe that culture is a product of historical, national and geographical factors or a product of class financial interests. Islam, because of its particular world conception, believes in the uniformity of human nature. It supports the idea of the uniformity of ideology and culture also.
III. Evidently it is only a human, not class ideology, a uniform ideology, not one based on the division of mankind, and a natural ideology, not one inspired by profiteering interests, that can be established on human values and can have human characteristics.
IV. Does the nature of every ideology depend on its time and place? Is it necessary for man to have a different ideology with every change in times, circumstances and environment? Is ideology subject to the principle of a change with a variation in place, and subject to the principle of cancellation with a variation in time? Is human ideology uniform or multiform?
In other words, is it absolute or relative?
The question, whether an ideology from the viewpoint of time and place is absolute or relative depends on another question: whether its source is human nature and its goal is the prosperity of human race, or its source is group interests and national and class feelings?
From another angle this question depends on what we think about the nature of social changes. When society undergoes a change and enters a new era, does its nature change so essentially that it is no longer governed by the laws by which it was governed previously, as for example, when water with the increase in its temperature, turns into steam, it is governed by the laws of gases and not by those of liquids. Or do we believe that this is not the case with social changes and developments, and that social changes constitute only a stage in the evolution of society and do not affect the fundamental laws or the course of evolution, just as we find in the case of animals that as they develop, their way of life changes, but the laws of their development remain fixed and constant?
From another angle the question whether an ideology is absolute or relative to time and place, is dependent on whether its conception of the world is scientific, philosophical or religious. Scientific conception of the world being transient, an ideology based on it cannot be lasting. On the contrary the philosophical conception of the world is based on self-evident truths and the religious conception on Divine revelation and Prophethood.
This not being the proper occasion, we skip over the discussion of the pure state of human nature, which is one of the most important topics of Islamic science. Similarly we skip over the discussion of changes in society. Anyhow, we propose to take up the question of social changes and their relation with pure state of human nature when we discuss the topic of history and society later.
V. Now the question is whether an ideology itself is governed by the principle of constancy or the principle of change. In the foregoing we have discussed whether human ideology is different in different periods and places. There the question was that of the abrogation and cancellation of an ideology. Now we take up a different question, namely that of the development of an ideology. Irrespective of the fact whether it is absolute or relative and whether in regard to its content it is general or particular, an ideology is a phenomenon. As all phenomena are subject to changes, development and evolution, naturally a question arises whether the same is true of the ideology also. Is the reality of an ideology at the time of its birth different from that during its growth and during the period of its maturity? In other words, should an ideology be constantly revised, improved and modernized by its leaders and ideologists, as we find in the case of the materialistic ideologies of our time? If the modern ideologies are not constantly revised, they soon lose their vitality and become obsolete and outdated. Anyhow, the question is whether it is possible to have an ideology, which may be in complete harmony with the course of the development of man and society so that there should be no need of its further revision and improvement. In the case of such an ideology the role of its leaders and the ideologists will be confined to the interpretation of its meaning and content, and the ideological development will be in the field of interpretation, not in the text of the ideology itself.