Pursuance initiates quick thinking or leads to speed in thinking.

Speed of thinking is what initiates spontaniety. However, spontaniety is a matter that demands consideration by itself.

Regardless of the duration of pursuance and its constancy, regardless of how quick the thinking is, spontaniety will be of no use in any simulated scenario, unless it was of its own and stands by itself. Evidence for this is the incident of Omar bin al-Khattab.

Undoubtedly Omar bin al-Khattab was usually of quick thinking and had spontaniety. However, he lacked them in the incident of the woman’s complaint against her husband. Omar bin al-Khattab did not have spontaniety when the woman complained about her husband that he stood the night in prayer and fasted the day, making him negligent of his marital rights. Omar bin al-Khattab did not understand this complaint; he rather believed that she was praising her husband. But one of the attendants was quick-witted, as he understood her complaint. He even understood that she persisted in the complaint. The fact that somebody, in this incident, was more quick-witted than Omar bin al-Khattab, means that spontaniety in a single matter or in a specific incident is separate from other matters and depends on one’s capability to understand the events and incidents. Therefore, pursuance creates the concept of spontaniety, but not spontaniety itself. Spontaniety is related to quick thinking, quick understanding of the matter or the incident, together with the presence of the concept of spontaniety being a characteristic of the person. Thus the actions, like quick thinking, and the concepts, like pursuance, are only stimulators to create spontaniety. As for spontaniety, it must come by itself. Since we talk about spontaniety, it must be of its own in the people and in the individual. Its concept is what brings about its benefits or creates the readiness for it. Spontaniety either exists or does not exist according to the circumstances and situations, the form of the speech, or the form of the incident or the statement. Omar bin al- Khattab did not notice that the statement of the woman about her husband to him as Ameer al-Mu’mineen was a complaint about her husband’s negligence. The Ameer al-Mu’mineen’s lack of understanding of this prevented him from having spontaniety. This lack of observance does not mean that the attendant always had more spontaniety than the Ameer al-Mu’mineen, Omar bin al- Khattab. This is because the observance of this man in one matter might be more than Omar bin al-Khattab’s. So it is a specific situation that produces spontaniety, it doesn’t indicate the level of intelligence. So spontaniety does not come about with a person who does not carry it as a concept. But in order to come about from the one with whom it is a concept, it is necessary to notice certain matters and situations in the specific incident. Therefore, spontaniety in the single incident is not an evidence of its presence with the one from whom it came in a spontaneous and natural way, though it is necessary that its concept exist in him. Thus, the subject is to work to create spontaniety in the people by creating its concept. The work that we have discussed to create spontaniety was only to create its concept, or the readiness for it, not to create spontaniety itself. Therefore, it is not true to say that observing a particular matter is one of the subjects of spontaniety; it is rather the basis. This is not true because this is incidental and it may or may not create spontaniety. The basis is creating the readiness in them and not creating spontaniety itself.

What we suffer from is not only the loss of spontaniety; rather what we suffer from is the complete absence of its concept and the absence of readiness for it. So the action should be to create its concept and create the readiness for it. After that, the observance, incidents and styles are left to stimulate its creation. It must be known that we do not aim to make spontaniety exist immediately in the people. This is a matter that, besides being unreasonable, is impossible to achieve. Therefore, action should be taken to create that which develops spontaniety, or to create the right soil for growing it, or create its concept or readiness for it. Hence spontaniety exists in the one who is quick-witted and its existence becomes natural. Muslims in all the Islamic countries did not lose spontaniety completely. Rather they have no more incentive for it, or the soil for growing it. So the action is to generate the atmosphere and create the soil, i.e. to initiate its concept and readiness for it.

The reality of what actually exists.

What actually exists in the people, as individuals, groups and societies, is the preoccupation with thinking in everything and also slow thinking in everything. The people find that every matter needs study, thinking, discussion and examination. This makes the soil in which to create spontaniety infertile, for this makes man gradually move away from quick thinking and makes him prefer slow thinking, study and examination. Therefore, it is necessary to emerge from this reality and proceed in quick thinking, so that spontaniety can exist. Unless coming out of slow thinking occurs, it is not possible to move to establish spontaniety, nor to create the soil for spontaniety. The treatment should be focussed on spontaniety - not on it itself and the attempt at creating it - but rather on creating the soil that grows it, creating its concept and the readiness for it.

There is a difference between spontaniety itself and the emergence of spontaniety. Spontaniety varies with the age, group or society. For example, in the age of Omar bin al-Khattab, his group and his society (which was directed by Islam), spontaniety existed strongly. Whether spontaniety came from Omar bin al-Khattab, or from some people in his group is not important. What is important is that it existed. We now want to create it in this age, in the Muslim Ummah and in their society that after all is directed by Islam.

Whether this later exists with the leaders or with the public is another matter. Nevertheless, it will begin with the intelligent people and it rarely comes from the stupid people.

This whole subject is the treatment of a situation and not the creation of something out of nothing. The present reality is that the soil of spontaniety does not exist, so the aim is to create it first and foremost. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the reality and understand the situation of the people. Then this reality is treated resulting in the situation of the people being treated. The reality is that there exists slow thinking and also the concept of study and examination. This alone is enough to destroy the concept of spontaniety. Therefore, it is necessary to destroy the concept of study and examination in its general form. Thus, the soil and atmosphere need to be targeted first and foremost. After that spontaniety will follow.

The creation of spontaniety has already been discussed in terms of the concepts that initiate it. However, it is necessary to have the soil and atmosphere for spontaniety. No matter how numerous the thoughts may be, the soil and the atmosphere are the origin. These are related to the soul and the outlook towards everything. The soil means the soul is prepared for treatment and is aware of the dangers of this sickness; the atmosphere means the presence of a public opinion about that. Thus, the subject regarding its basis is the outlook towards the matters of life. If the view were that everything needs an opinion, study and examination, then spontaniety, i.e.

quick thinking, would not exist at all. So it is necessary to remove this view firstly from the souls of the people. It is necessary to change this view radically. Then the treatment ensues. So the origin is the soil, which is the basic outlook towards the matters of life.

This view has to be changed and thus the soil will exist. Changing this view is not easy, for people have become consumed in thinking.

They viewed thinking as the matter that leads to the correct opinion. So, thinking became necessary for them. Thinking, whether it was slow or quick, is the preferable basis, or rather the basis that is hoped for. Therefore, treatment should not be focused on thinkers, for it is contrary to their reality and not what is required. Treatment should rather be focused on the type of thinking, whether it should be slow or quick. This would lead to abandonment of the reverence of thinking. Thinking is encouraged, but it is blameworthy for its slowness, which leads to slowness in results. Thus, the treatment occurs. Thus, souls should not be turned away from thinking; they should rather be directed to quick thinking. In this way one will generate the concept of spontaniety when one generates quick thinking. As for whether it exists or not, this is another issue which we do not need to address, for it is not the subject of study. Thereupon, the reality of the problem dictates to us how to follow the path to create the soil and then to create the atmosphere. The reality of the problem is that people sanctify thinking, they mark it high and believe that study and examination should exist. The reality of the problem is the study and examination; therefore treatment is focused on this reality, which is the treatment for it. It is not correct that treatment be aimed at thinking itself. It should rather be for the study and examination, because not every problem requires study and examination. The automatic thinking, for example, is harmed by study and examination. The chair, which is an ordinary object, does not require study and examination. Rather all that needs to be said about it is that it is only a chair, without adding anything else. Though it is a designated matter, its reality becomes obvious by the mere mention of its name, without study and examination. What was said about the automatic thinking is also said about many thoughts.

Thus, study and examination of everything is a mistake. The correct approach is to view the matters of life objectively. If the matter requires study and examination, then it is studied and examined. If it however does not need that, then it is incorrect for it to be studied or investigated. By such means we arrive at the treatment and spontaniety.

Circumstances surrounding a matter are what decide the need for study and examination. For example, the West made both Lebanon and Israel bridgeheads (for intervention) on the eastern side of the Mediterranean adjacent to the Islamic countries. This was undoubtedly a planned matter. However, does the destruction of this bridgehead need study? The circumstances themselves decide this. If the circumstances imply that the West is heedless of this bridgehead and it is possible to destroy it without trouble, then in this case study and examination would obstruct and delay the destruction; or it would be in the interest of the West more than in the interest of the Ummah. Therefore, it should be viewed based on its true reality. There is a difference between the fact that the West established this bridgehead, but neglected it and the fact that it was afraid that it could be destroyed, but was not yet destroyed. In the case that it is neglected then the matter does not need thought.

When, however, the West mobilises its forces to prevent the destruction of the bridgehead, then in this case, the matter must be studied and examined. If it is not studied and examined, then a disaster would occur. So the issue is not a matter of study and examination. It is rather a matter of circumstances. If the circumstances require study and examination, then it is necessary for this to take place. If they however do not require this, then it is not correct to become engaged in study and examination. Rather there should be a move towards quick action due to spontaniety in understanding. Therefore, the circumstances arbitrate.

This is the first point. As for the second, love for quick thinking must exist with the intelligent people. It is not enough that they examine the circumstances to understand whether a matter is of the type that requires study and examination or not. They should rather be accustomed to quick thinking. This is not by undertaking study and examination of the matters before them, but rather by undertaking the type of thinking; for they, by the nature of their intelligence, are inclined to quick thinking, quick judgement and settling the matters quickly. This alone is enough to deal with them in a specific or exceptional way. In origin, everything should be examined to see if it is in need of thinking. If it then requires study and examination it is studied and scrutinized. However, if it is not in need of that, then it is improper to study and scrutinise, because this may cause harm and delay. As for the intelligent people, it is said to them it is necessary to have speed in every thought. So they are treated in a special way. Thus, they are helped to jump quickly from slow thinking to quick thinking, i.e. to spontaniety. The others would imitate them and thus their treatment will be special. It might also be an exceptional treatment, not benefiting them only, but rather giving a general benefit, which is what is intended.

In summary, the society is taken as a whole, where the concept of study and scrutiny is removed from it. This is through the giving of examples for everything that requires study and scrutiny and the things that do not need it. If the examples were given through the same question, under two different cases, then this would be better.

However, the intelligent people in society, who are prominent and well known, are treated in a special and exceptional way. This facilitates the treatment of the whole of society. This is because what matters is removing the concept of study and scrutiny from the souls, regardless of the paths followed to achieve this.

If the soil existed or was created and the trust in creating the soil reached the level of reliability, then creating the atmosphere would be easy. This is because if one couldn’t create the atmosphere, then the reliability that study and scrutiny did not exist nor will exist, would on its own create the atmosphere. Thus, creating the soil creates the atmosphere. We must not concern ourselves with creating the atmosphere, i.e. creating public opinion against study and scrutiny. It is rather sufficient that we make the society, particularly its intelligent people abandon the concept of study and scrutiny. Removing the concept of study and scrutiny in everything is the cornerstone. If it is broken and removed, then the treatment has taken effect. If it was not attacked and removed, then every effort in treatment will be in vain, or perhaps even harmful.