However, there is still an ideology involved at this point which declares the end of all ideologies. It would be beneficial to look at its fundamental arguments: according to the defined environment formulized by liberals today, the loss of either of the two interacting parties is out of the question. A relationship established upon the mutual will of both parties benefits both of them because they have come together to gain; therefore the frame that borders their relationship came into existence as a result of free will and as one party gaining and the other losing necessitates the relation to come to an end, the common interest is taken as a base every time to come up with a mutual interest and an optimal benefit -- and this goes on and on. This being the case only theoretically, in practice, in financial and commercial systems, in international relations and in political struggles dominated by groups and classes with high advantages and privileges, where free market rules are applied, it is witnessed that one of the sides usually loses and this generally losing side is the weak, in line with the established practices of the market. In the natural system the liberal law bases itself on, there are also protective mechanisms and relations which play determining roles. Looking at the cosmic system, we can see this: every existential level receives support and help vertically from the one above it and helps the ones below it, giving them power. Not a single object or level is autonomous or independent on its own; not a single creature or object has power stemming from itself or a potential for self-existing. Above them all is God the Creator. We can know also through witnessing that there is a solidarity and cooperation based on mutual benefits and maturity in the world of existence and the creation is able to exist only through this solidarity and cooperation.
In social life, thinking that individuals or groups have self-existing social, financial and political power beyond the limited will they were granted, acting with their free will only in line with their interests, would be tantamount to thinking that human beings exist through their own power and therefore do not receive help and power from any entity beyond their potential -- in other words, tantamount to thinking that they have a God-like attribute, impossible in terms of man’s position in this limited existence. Be it in terms of the physiological, intellectual or psychological dimensions, man has an end and his power is limited. Therefore, he has to be supported vertically by the force above him, but without having pretensions of establishing an absolute hegemony over the other entities below him, horizontally.
Such an imagination (that places the individual at the center of existence and tries to read all the humanly states from the market perspective) manifests itself through the ideology of “crocodiles and ducks swimming freely in the same water,” as pointed out by Muhammad Iqbal, a very influential poet, philosopher, and politician of the early 20th century, whose vision of an independent state for the Muslims of British India inspired the creation of Pakistan. In such liberal waters, the crocodiles always devour the ducks and in the liberal forests, the wolves always eat the lambs. The great Turkish Sufi saint Mevlana Rumi says, “There is nothing surprising in the wolf desiring to eat the lamb; what is truly surprising is the lamb wishing to be eaten by the wolf!” For whatever purpose it may be, opposing all sorts of interventions, such as the regulations and financial source transfers in poor people’s favor and considering such interventions and regulations that have similar purposes the same as the state’s plans in socialist economies, is defended as the ideology of crocodiles and wolves that want to transform the entire world into “liberal” market waters and forests. The opposite of liberalism is not socialism or autocratic regimes; this is an ideology developed by liberals. The simple guile utilized by liberals is their attempt to define their opposites by themselves. This being the case, every ideology that is not liberal would end up labeled as a repressive regime. This is entirely wrong.
