Presence Of Mind by Taqiuddin Nabhani

We said pursuance treats slowness of thinking. In other words, it treats spontaniety. However, the pursuance that treats slowness of thinking needs the addition of another factor so as to treat spontaniety. This is because though spontaniety results from thinking and intelligence, in reality it might originate from those who are not intelligent. Or it might be present in those who have less intelligence than those who just lack spontaniety. Moreover, quick thinking might occur while spontaniety does not exist.

Therefore, to assume that the treatment of spontaniety can occur just by generating quick thinking based on pursuance is overly optimistic, awarding (pursuance) more weight than the reality or the people can afford. The example of the woman’s complaint to Omar bin al-Khattab is a practical evidence of this. The woman came to Omar bin al-Khattab to complain about her husband.

However, she did not complain explicitly. She rather implied what the one who has spontaniety can understand. She said to Omar, “My husband stands the night praying and fasts in the day.” Omar answered her: “What a good man this husband is!” Then she went away. One of the attendants, who had less intelligence than Omar and less speed in thinking, said to him, “She emphasised her complaint but you did not deal fairly with her.” Omar said to him, “How?” He said, “If her husband stands all the night and fasts all the day, when will he tend to her?” Omar said to him, “You said the truth.” Then he tried to settle the complaint. Omar did not have spontaniety in this case and speed of thinking did not benefit him.

Therefore, though pursuance is focused on speed of thinking, when the creation of spontaniety is intended, something else has to be added. This is the explanation of the evidences that indicate the presence of spontaniety. So what is presented, repeated and diversified creates quick thinking. However, when it treats spontaniety alone and not the speed of thinking, it is necessary to add to it an explanation of the presented things indicated by spontaniety, or things whose understanding indicates the presence or absence of spontaniety. When it is said spontaniety results from quick thinking, then this is true in terms of it being the result of quick thinking. However, this does not mean that this result will necessarily exist; rather it is of its nature to exist. Therefore, the treatment of the speed of thinking treats the creation of spontaniety. However, it might or might not exist. Thus, quick thinking leads to spontaniety, but does not create it. What creates it is quick understanding of what exists in quick thinking, or characteristics that lead to its creation. For example when the poet praised the Ameer with the famous verse, where he said to him:

“Daring of Amru with the generosity of Hatim With the forbearance of Ahnaf with the Intelligence of Iyas” One of the attendants said, “The Ameer is above your description.” The poet quickly understood that the Ameer, with his courage, generosity, forbearance and intelligence was above those whom he mentioned. So he changed the matter into comparison and added the two famous verses:

“Do not deny that I gave him, by those who are less than him, A peculiar example in generosity and power For Allah gave the less, for His Light An example of the niche and the lamp.” So, this spontaniety made him apologise for his lapse by the form of explanation. Thus, he added the two famous verses to explain that what was understood to be an insult to the Ameer, was a misunderstanding. This is because the matter was not given in its true meaning, but rather a comparison. For Allah, Who is greater than everything, has made the comparison of Himself not with the stronger, but with the lighter and smaller thing. If the poet had no spontaniety or quick understanding of what he had fallen into, then his share would be death, he would have fallen into the danger of criticism when he intended to praise. Thus, he was saved by spontaniety. If he did not have that he would have fallen into danger. Thus, spontaniety results from quick understanding; it cannot come from anything except quick understanding. However, quick understanding does not necessarily lead to spontaniety. The example of the woman’s complaint to Omar bin al-Khattab, a man of quick understanding, is evidence that quick understanding does not necessarily lead to spontaniety. In the two famous verses from the poet, spontaniety in them came from quick understanding.

Therefore, these events indicate clearly that spontaniety does not come except from quick understanding. To create spontaniety, it is necessary to create quick understanding. Therefore, effort has to be focused on creating quick understanding with the people. However, quick understanding might or might not produce spontaniety.

Therefore, other things must be added to create it. That is, something else must be added to what is presented, which is the explanation of the matters included in the presented material. It is not enough that they exist and they are things that can be understood. If one of the attendants in the assembly of Omar bin al-Khattab did not have spontaniety, or he did not draw his attention to what lay behind the words of the woman, Omar bin al- Khattab would have not understood. If the poet also did not notice the validity of the words of the one who disputed his verse, he would have not understood his mistake, so he would not have rectified it with the last two verses. Thus, it is necessary to draw the attention to the matter or the speech, whether this draws to the attention by spontaniety or by what spontaniety requires. Therefore, there must be another matter in addition to pursuance in quick thinking, if it is intended that this pursuance create spontaniety straightaway, not just quick thinking. The example of this is presenting the future before the people, whether the future of the individual, the Ummah, or the country. Let us take, as an example, the future of a country like Egypt. It is not enough to draw the attention to the standard of living of the people or the social injustices befalling them. This is because whatever is said in this regard will be enough to create quick thinking in the people and they will immediately choose socialism. This is because through its progress it secures the production and thus the standard of living rises and through its rise the social injustice is removed. So quick thinking might lead to the opposite of what is intended. However, added to this, the people are Muslims, Islam does not aim at making living an extravagant life, nor does it intend that removing the social injustices should ruin the values and destroy what the people have of the advantage of intelligence and capability. The loss of this might lead to the wrong choice and the failure in reaching the truth, from spontaniety or from quick thinking. Therefore, there must be added to this that the people in Egypt are Muslims, or adding Islam as a solution to the future of a country, like France, for example.

The addition is necessary to create spontaniety and in order that spontaniety be effective and productive, not quick thinking on its own. Though pursuance creates spontaniety, it does not create it definitely and accordingly the productive spontaniety does not exist.

Thus, pursuance, even alone, can initiate quick thinking. However, for creating spontaniety and making it fruitful and productive, another thing must be added. This thing is to draw the attention to what is presented; whether by showing the deficiency in it or showing the hidden matters in it, like the example of the woman who complained about her husband to Omar bin al-Khattab.

What should be done first?

It is true that the problem is the people’s preoccupation in thinking and their sanctification of thinking. The only way to solve this matter is to make its harm clear. The preoccupation of the people in thinking is recommended and their deviation from it is deviation from the basis of success in life. Respecting thinking is also recommended; it is rather obligatory, for it is one of the highest values. The destruction of the existent values, or those that must be created will cause harm to the Ummah and to the individuals.

Therefore, there must be respect for thinking. In order that we do not cause this harm, i.e. in order that we do not destroy the preoccupation of people in thinking, nor destroy their reverence of thinking, we must correct this thinking. Thus, beside the preoccupation of the people in thinking, we should give this thinking its appropriate reality, or the reality of its subject. So, there should be no thinking in the automatic matters. It is rather enough to see them or hear their name. Thus for the venture, the plate and the chair, it is not correct to make the mind think of them. In other words, they are not subjects for the preoccupation in thinking. In such a way, we would not destroy the preoccupation in thinking, nor destroy the reverence of thinking as thinking. We rather put thinking in its appropriate place. Accordingly, people will turn away from thinking in the automatic matters, whilst they retain preoccupation in thinking and the reverence of thinking. Another example is to make thinking proceed in accordance with what is thought of. If it requires speed then one creates the speed by the pursuance. If it requires slowness, then there should be slowness, such as thinking in politics or thinking in the indication denoted by the thoughts. For such subjects, speed of thinking is not good; rather there should be slowness. So we let thinking proceed in accordance with what is thought of (i.e. in accordance with the subject of the thinking), not in accordance with what we intend from it. This creates quick thinking and the absence of quick thinking. Though speed is required to create spontaniety, with life we must know that it is not everything. Therefore, we must create it as much as is enough for success in the domain of life, without making it dominate over everything. This is in terms of words and events. However, what is intended first and before anything else is to create that in the souls, i.e. the souls should not be preoccupied with thinking and should not sanctify thinking. This should first of all, be performed in a way that does not turn away from thinking and lead to it being treated with unease; nor should it destroy or decrease the reverence for thinking. So one has to start first with the centre of emotion in man and in life, then make the people understand that centre. This centre of emotion exists in men. If people continue to deny this centre of emotion and its effect on man, man will continue to turn away from the emotion. He would thus be preoccupied with thinking and reverence for it would prevail over emotion and everything else. If treatment of thinking is intended, then it is necessary to focus on emotion, its centre, its effect and the necessity of its presence, for man is composed of both intellect and emotion. When Islam came, it came with the intellect and emotion together. Thus, emotion is an indivisible part of man, just like intellect. Love and hatred, activeness and laziness, sadness and happiness, no man is devoid of these and their like.

The intellect is a similar matter. Man’s concentration on the emotions alone makes him proceed in life without a controller.

Man’s concern about thinking alone, or with the intellect alone, deprives him of the capability of resistance in life, because emotion is the instigator, while intellect is the director. So if the movement occurred without direction, it could be destructive. However, if the direction existed without a stimulator or without a motion, it would be in a direction detached from the stimulator and from the motions. Thus, it would not lead to a result. When Islam was the driving force of the Ummah in life, through the intellect and the emotion, she proceeded successfully. When time passed and the events followed one another, the emotion started to be driven with the weakest stimulation, or with the old momentum. So, the director was dispensed with and the emotion became the controller. At that time, the struggle between the Ummah and her enemy became crystallized, i.e. between Islam and Muslims against Kufr and the Kuffar. The Muslims then lost the director, i.e. they lost thinking.

Therefore, their actions did not bear fruit and their enemy defeated them. They thought that their enemy defeated them with intellect and thought, but they were defeated because they were preoccupied with the emotions. Therefore, they turned their attention to the thinking and turned away from the emotions. So they lost everything that resulted from thinking. Because of their reverence of thinking they became busy with the automatic things, hence they became slow in thinking for they were preoccupied with it. Thus they lost spontaniety due to the absence of emotion in them.

Therefore, the first thing that we have to do is to restore the emotions to their appropriate place, where thinking will return then to its domain: no thinking should be in the automatic things and quick thinking should be created in man. Thus, the issue is related to emotion and its place, not to the thinking. Therefore, the first thing to do is to re-activate emotion, which is present in man by creation. Thus, the problem is not the people’s concern about thinking or with their reverence of it. It is rather to restore emotion to its centre. It is true that emotion remained in man, as well as the intellect; nobody removed the emotions from man. However, the issue is the concern about emotion and the concern about thinking.

So, emotion remained in man, but concern about it disappeared.

Being emotional was even attacked, while the concern about thinking increased and it replaced emotion. Thus, the disbelievers succeeded in deviating the people from emotion. Since they turned away from it, they turned away from everything less important than it. They accordingly turned away from quick thinking and from spontaniety. They devoted themselves to preoccupation in thinking, until the lack of use of thinking and the loss of spontaniety became apparent and was noticed in most of the people. The origin of that is the loss of preoccupation in emotion and confining themselves to preoccupation in thinking. Since man has emotion and intellect, negligence of one of these two means negligence of the other; also lack of productiveness results from being preoccupied with the factor that was not neglected. In other words, negligence of emotion is negligence of intellect, because without emotion, intellect can’t be productive. Though it was not neglected, because of the negligence of emotion, it became non-productive. Therefore, intellect or thinking can’t be productive unless emotion existed, not only being present in man but also by being concerned with it.

Concern with emotion, together with concern about the intellect, is what restores to thinking its centre and makes it productive.

Therefore, to treat the productiveness of thinking requires concern about emotion, besides the concern about thinking.