This is from the book “Islamic Thought”
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 thought s 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 nice and beneficial 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.
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), ie, 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 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 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.
