Possessing spontaniety is to issue judgements on matters promptly, based on a very quick understanding. As an example, when somebody asks, “Where are you from?” you understand promptly his aim from the question and what lies behind his question. Thus, you would have judged on the question promptly.

In such a case, you have used spontaniety. Based on this spontaniety, you can give the answer required in such a situation. As another example, when you hear of the visit of an official to a country, then you will promptly understand the aim of the visit from hearing this news. Thus, you can be said to have spontaniety. Based on this spontaniety, you take the necessary measures in this regard. Also, when you are surprised by an unexpected visit, you can promptly understand the reason for this. Thus, you would have spontaniety; based on spontaniety you can take the measures that conform to this quick understanding.

Spontaniety, in origin, means understanding issues quickly, or quick thinking. However, it should result in a quick judgement on the matter that you are faced with, based on quick understanding.

Though in origin, it means quick understanding or quick thinking, its aim however, is to make judgements quickly. Thus, spontaniety is quick judgement on matters. This is because judgement on matters is comprehension, or thinking, as well as being the result of understanding or thinking.

Thus, al-badeehah (initiative insight) means the innate (fitri)

understanding or the natural (tabee’ee) understanding.

Regardless of the linguistic meaning of the badeehah or badaahah, it means, in this context, the natural or innate judgement and the natural or innate understanding. It is said to be natural or innate because it does not need deliberateness and close examination. It rather comes spontaneously and in an automatic way. It is as if just hearing the news or the question or the surprise had provided, by itself, everything required for understanding or thinking, so judgement can be issued instantly. Therefore, spontaniety or quick judgement is incompatible with slow thinking, though it is not incompatible with deep or enlightened thinking. This is because what matters is speed of thought, not the source. So, in the example of the question, “where are you from?” you think quickly about the questioner, the wording of the question and also the context of the question, thus you deduce the aim of the question. This thinking is deep, because it is not easy to think about the question, the questioner and the context in which the question came. It is difficult to ascertain the purpose of this question. Thus, this spontaniety comes from deep thinking. In the example of hearing of the visit of an official, you think quickly about the visitor, the state he represents, what took place before this visit and what will result from it. From this you deduce the aim of this visit. This is enlightened thinking because you thought of the matters that surrounded the event and what relates to it; then you issued the judgement. So, spontaniety here came from enlightened thinking.

With the example of an unexpected visit by an official, which surprises you by its timing, this surprise alone will guide you to the purpose of the visit. This thinking is normal; it is not deep or enlightened. However, the speed of issuing the judgement, based on the speed of understanding or thinking, is what produces spontaniety and not the thinking itself or its type. Therefore, spontaniety results from quick thinking, regardless of the type of thinking, whether it is deep, enlightened or normal. So what is important is the speed and not the source of thinking.

Thereupon, spontaniety is incompatible with slow thinking, but not incompatible with the deep, enlightened or normal thinking.

What is important is the speed only and not the depth. Spontaniety is necessary for peoples and nations and for the individuals, groups and parties who are part of these peoples and nations. This is because spontaniety is necessary to engage in life, whether with other individuals, or with other peoples and nations, or with discharging the affairs. This is because success in undertaking life affairs requires two matters: firstly, the speed of issuing judgements on matters and then taking the necessary measures towards them.

If you do not do this, you will fail and face matters beyond your capability to bear. As time passes the burden becomes heavier and obstructions increase. This will lead to failure in the course of life.

Secondly, the opportunities offered to a person are the ones which force progress forward quickly, such that long distances are covered.

If you do not seize an opportunity, you will lose it. It may not return, so you would lose the use of this opportunity. If the loss of opportunities were repeated, you would lose the speed of transferring from one situation to another. You would stay in the same place and thus become motionless, a failure in the course of life. The reason for all of this would be the lack of spontaniety.

Therefore, spontaniety is necessary for success in the course of life. If education and thinking themselves, together with preparation, invention and industry, trading and farming and other matters are for the sake of success in the course of life, then these matters and life itself are pointless if not accomplished with spontaniety. Therefore, one of the matters that the states, peoples and nations pay attention to, in their struggle against their enemies, is to cause paralysis in their actions. There is nothing more dangerous than spontaniety in this matter. Therefore, the states, peoples and nations take care in removing spontaniety from their enemy so as to cause him paralysis and cause him to lose the ability to be productive in work, as well as to miss the opportunities one after the other. It then becomes easy to destroy the enemy, colonise and dominate him, extending influence over his territories. Though the West started the cultural invasion of the Islamic countries and the citizens of the Islamic State, only after it had already extended its authority over it, it started by seducing them in mind and thinking. This aimed to make them lose spontaniety and preoccupy them with thinking. Its success in that was unmatched until they, the Muslims, were almost paralysed. All the people were engrossed in deliberation, pondering and waiting, until they failed in the course of life; they even failed in removing the authority of imperialism and its influence, despite the revolutions and wars they entered against it. Each one of them, in every small or big problem, started to resort to pondering and thinking, until the time passed and the available opportunity was lost. Many opportunities were lost without being seized. So they missed the quick transfer from a situation to another until they immersed themselves in the “automatic” philosophies (al-falsafah al-aaliyyah). They were engaged in them, so that the matter became obscure to them and they lost clarity because of their concern about the automatic philosophies. Indeed, there are matters that need to be philosophised, which are not the simple ones but the deep ones, such as revival (nahdah), liberation (tahreer), the political and military manoeuvres and the like. These matters must be philosophised and studied in depth, without being satisfied with their apparent forms.

However, with the clear matters that do not need thinking, trying to philosophise in them only increases their ambiguity and vagueness, such as a chair, cup, plate and the like. With these matters and things, it is not correct to think and philosophise about them; they are rather taken as they are, once they or their names were mentioned. This is what is called the automatic philosophy (alfalsafah al-aaliyyah) The automatic philosophising or the automatic thinking thus is the philosophising of the apparent object, of which nothing is hidden; this thing is not understood except by mentioning its name. So the chair is a chair. If you philosophised it or thought about it, it would increase in obscurity and you would become unable to understand it. The more you philosophise the subject, the more you will plummet into vagueness. The West praised the mind, thinking, deliberation, study and calculation and the like until we lost spontaniety. We even went beyond that to the automatic philosophising. It was said to some people; “carry out a venture; why do you not undertake a risk?” Risk means to carry out an action without first making calculation. However, these people philosophised the risk in a form of automatic philosophy. So they said; ‘we do not undertake a reckless venture; we are rather ready to undertake a calculated or studied venture.’ This statement is philosophising the venture, which is a form of automatic philosophy. This is because if the venture was calculated and studied, it would not then be a venture. Thus the attempt to philosophise the venture changed its concept and removed it from its reality. So if the people by themselves started to follow the automatic philosophy, then spontaniety will be far from them.

It is true that thinking is indispensable and pondering is necessary, as it was said in the past “haste is from Shaitan”. But this is only in the matters that need study and scrutiny, not in matters that do not need it. Moreover, matters that need study and scrutiny are studied and examined if there is still time to do so, or if the circumstances are suitable. However, if the circumstances are not suitable for thinking and such thinking would squander the opportunity or it would lead to disruption, then nothing would save the situation except spontaniety. Therefore, spontaniety is indispensable for nations and peoples, groups and parties in order to succeed in the course of life. Rather its presence is necessary for success in the course of life; it is one of the conditions of this success.

The conditions and matters of life are numerous and diverse, its paths are various, rugged and flat, easy and difficult. At the same time, ‘time is gold’; it is in fact more valuable than gold. So it is very important to take into account the situation, condition and the matter at hand. Accordingly, if the matter requires thinking, then it is necessary to think about it, if it requires spontaniety, then it is necessary to have spontaniety. Thus, every situation is dealt with according to its requirements. We do not say that everything needs spontaniety. There are many matters that do not need spontaniety; thinking is rather important regarding them. However, there are other matters that are harmed by thinking because they need spontaniety. As an example, the definitions, the divine rules and the technical matters are not solved except with thinking.

Spontaniety has nothing to do with them; it is rather wrong for spontaniety to enter them. On the other side, for the surprises, all the mischievous questions that are asked purposefully and all the hasty matters, spontaniety is indispensable for all of them. Thinking is unacceptable in them; it rather should be distanced from them. If thinking entered them, then it is possible to increase their vagueness, to remove the opportunity from the people, expose the reality of the thinker or be harmed because of that. Life has matters for which thinking is indispensable, as well as matters for which spontaniety is indispensable and it is incorrect to think regarding them. So, life is conducted and its course is engaged according to the situation. If balaaghah (eloquence) is the agreement of speech with what the circumstances require, then taking up the course of life is the agreement of action with what the circumstances require.

If it requires thinking, then thinking is used. If it requires spontaniety, then spontaniety is followed. As thinking is necessary for the course of life, with all of its types, spontaniety is also necessary for life. We do not criticise thinking, for it is necessary for life. We rather criticise the automatic resort to thinking and the absence of spontaniety from life.

Thinking is one of life’s necessities. If it is true that man is an animal (creature) endowed with the faculty of speaking, it is also true that man is a thinking animal (creature). What distinguishes man from other creatures is thinking. The mind, in its true meaning, is thinking. The animal, although it has a brain, does not think, for it does not have a mind. This is because the presence of the brain alone is not enough for the thinking process to exist; rather there are other requirements. Therefore, thinking itself is one of the characteristics of man. Thus, there could not be a man without thinking, i.e. without the mind. Thinking itself can’t be absent from man. Therefore, attacking thinking is irrelevant. The attack is rather focused on the slow thinking, i.e. on the lack of spontaniety. This is because quick thinking or spontaniety is necessary to proceed in the course of life, as well as to achieve success in this course.

Spontaniety has three matters to discuss: Firstly, what is it?

Secondly, what is its practical reality? Although its definition or knowing what it is guides to its practical reality; but this is different from the reality. When you are, for example, surprised with a matter that requires you to determine your position towards it, then in this case spontaniety is quite evident, but it is not spontaniety. This is because in spontaniety you need to issue a judgement regarding it swiftly and very quickly, in a way that this position determines the measures that have to be taken towards this surprise. For example the surprise at a question that you did not anticipate, or finding an enemy in a place you did not expect, or of a problem you did not expect to occur. The surprise or the reality is the subject of action or spontaniety, but it is not spontaniety itself. The third matter is to provide examples about these two from life, about the reality in which spontaniety took place and about spontaniety itself. As for examples of measures taken in such cases, though they are beneficial they are not necessary. This is because the measures can vary with varying realities, or with the spontaniety in the same issue.

After understanding the difference between spontaniety and thinking, it is necessary to know how to initiate spontaniety in people, i.e. how to develop spontaniety in the people. This is particularly the case with those who do not have spontaniety. The answer to this matter depends on the fact that people are of two types. Firstly, there are the people of scientific research and their like. The task of these people is the involvement in thinking, such as the people of scientific research and the non-conventional politicians. Secondly, there are ordinary people, i.e. other than the first type, whether they were educated or not, as well as the conventional politicians. This is because the original task of the people in the Ummah is either thinking or material actions, without the presence of something else. The position of each of these two types differs to the other. Thus the action with each type should be different, regarding initiating spontaniety with it or developing spontaniety with it. This is because the one who is used to thinking is different from the one for whom thinking is new. Therefore, the work will vary with them. As for the ordinary people, including the conventional politicians, the work towards initiating spontaniety in them is easier than with those whose original task is thinking. This is because with these people the thinking is new and not original.

Since they are thinkers innately, for man is a thinking creature, the task with them is simply habituation, i.e. to initiate the habit of spontaniety. So it becomes a natural process, even in their normal work. For example, the carpenters, the masons, the labourers, the craftsmen, the farmers, the simple people and their like, all need to be given examples from their work or profession to which they can relate. Then the process is gradually increased in them through more complicated examples, given in a repetitive way. This would make spontaniety in them habitual and natural. It is, for example, said to them, “if you faced a surprise in your work, how do you solve it?” If the answer were correct many times, then it would become easy to move to more complicated questions. If only one answer was given, right or wrong, but was not repeated, then one needs to agree with him about the right answer so that it is repeated, or to correct the wrong answer so that it is not repeated. This repetition is continued until the matter becomes sound and then the task is carried out related to more complicated examples. Questions about a sudden problem need not always be verbal; it could rather be in illustration or writing. What matters is the training through presenting thoughts to the people collectively and to avoid training them as individuals. Everything that produces collective training or presentation of thoughts to the people should be followed, whether this is in a written form, such as leaflets, books, letters, and booklets and the like, or it is verbal, like talking, speeches, conversation, advice, direction and the like. Both of these two forms allow presentation of thoughts to the people and collective training. What matters in this is the subject of talking or the subject of writing, where it should be thought, and then action in accordance with this thought. Undoubtedly, it should be a thought that is not subject to argument between the presenter and the people. It should rather be indisputably correct for both of them. In other words it should be a concept (i.e. well understood) and not merely a thought. This is because the aim is not to convince of the thought. It is rather to see how one acts, and how one takes the thoughts by which one treats and solves the problems. Thus, the way according to which one acts and the manner by which one takes the thoughts is the subject of treatment. In other words, it is the matter about which or through which the sense of correctness or the sense of error is known. Along with this is the repetition, pausing, help on repetition, then moving to more difficult and complicated questions. The common people do not need the initiation of spontaniety in them except by making it a habit or natural for them. Then spontaniety will exist in the people. It is preferable that the thought is detailed and defined, not obscure or vague - such as asking, “If you faced a problem, how do you solve it?” Instead it is said to the farmers, for example, “if there was no rain, and you can not undertake industrial irrigation, what do you do regarding your crops?” If he answered quickly, then he has spontaniety. If he did not answer, or answered slowly but after study, then he has no spontaniety. This detail in the question is preferable with such people. But with the ordinary people, it is not important because the people take the matters without complication and they understand what they can of the ambiguous and the vague. So what matters is their answer or the follow up of their answer. Therefore, there is no difficulty in customizing the people to spontaniety and in creating it in them.

However, difficulties exist with other people, i.e. with those who work in scientific research (academics) and unconventional ideological politicians. The difficulty exists with those whose work is thought or science and not the material actions. They need great attention regarding them and regarding initiating spontaniety within them. This is because, though it may exist in some of them, the basis of their work is in that which has no material existence.

Therefore, their subject must be discussed, for it is the discussion point.

It may appear at first that man’s facing of danger is the reason for the existence of spontaniety, due to the frequency of surprises and the abundance of the occurrence of matters that need spontaniety.

It may also seem that practice or training and habits are the matters that initiate spontaniety. It is true that these two matters help in initiating spontaniety, but neither one of them nor both combined, initiate it. This is not the case with those who work with thought, like doctors, engineers or teachers and their like, nor with those who carry out physical work, like the carpenters, blacksmiths, labourers and their like. This is because man’s living in dangers aids spontaniety. Practicing it and being accustomed to it make it natural and develop it and help in initiating it. However, none of these ever initiate it as spontaniety or as quick thinking.

We said before that initiating spontaniety with those who carry out physical work, who are the great majority of the people or the nation, is by collective training. In other words, it is by initiating the thoughts that initiate it, such as asking a man about what he does or why a surprise occurred to him? This is beside similar questions. Initiating it with those who work with thought, such as the teachers and the ideological politicians, is easy. It is simply done by urging them to use spontaniety. Though spontaniety is one of the profound matters, in which it is valid to involve philosophy and thinking, nevertheless it is at the same time, of the routine matters, i.e. it falls within the routine philosophy. Therefore, it is enough to be requested as such, i.e. it is said to those who work with thought that it is necessary that they have spontaniety. Then they would understand from spontaniety what it means and what it is, without the need for entering into the details or answering to questions, or even the need for explaining the meaning of spontaniety. This is because these people work with and in thought. Due to the fact that much of their work is in thought, science and knowledge, they become used to that; so it manifests in them due to this habit of resorting to thinking for solving every problem. Therefore, slowness of thinking or slow thinking that requires study, scrutiny and calculation, manifests often in them. If it said to them, it is necessary that they have spontaniety, they hasten in thinking and thus spontaniety develops with them from this speed in thinking.

Therefore, it is enough merely to encourage those who work in thought to have quick thinking. This is done by saying to them that they must have spontaniety. Thus, spontaniety is created in such people who work with and in thought, like the teachers and the ideological politicians and their like, by urging them to use spontaniety. In other words, it is enough to tell them that they must have spontaniety, for spontaniety to exist. They do not need much difficulty or new matters. They rather work in and with thought, so they do not need anything else. It is because they practice this work and it is their daily work, so they develop, due to the habit and training, the attribute of thinking or the characteristic of slow thinking. Thus, they say about everything presented to them, “this requires study and examination and investigation,” though it might not be the case. In order that they become used to quick thinking and they distinguish between that which needs study and that which does not need study, they are asked to have quick thinking, i.e. they are requested to have spontaniety. Quick thinking itself is spontaniety. This quick thinking, if not obstructed by a barrier, would produce, immediately, the judgement on the matter quickly.

One would know then that this is spontaniety or from spontaniety regarding that which does not need study or scrutiny. If there were a barrier or an obstruction in the issue, he would know then that it needs study and scrutiny, because it is not among the type of issues that require spontaniety.