The Ummah is a group of people gathered by one ‘Aqeedah from which its system of life emanates. Since this is the definition of the Ummah, then the jurists are part of the Ummah, whether they were Arabs, Turks or other non-Arabs. This is because they are gathered by one ‘Aqeedah from which the systems of life emanate. The Ameer ul-Mu’mineen is also from the Ummah, because he is linked with the people by one ‘Aqeedah. The people are from the Ummah, even if they were individuals, because they are bonded with the Ummah by one ‘Aqeedah. The people might be gathered by nationalism (qawmiyyah) or tribalism (qabaliyyah) and the entity they have exists for the common good. Yet though spontaniety exists in the individuals, it does not exist in the people or in the entity. This is because there is no concept for the people, for there is no concept from nationalism and tribalism that leads to solutions that emanate from it. The fact that no concepts can emanate from it as a system for life cannot be explained to all the people in the same style, for their understanding varies. Therefore, there is no effect from spontaniety in people, nor in entities. Though these have a system, it does not emanate from the general concept.

Though the system might exist with everybody, it would not be suitable for spontaniety to develop in him or her, because it does not emanate from the general concept. In order that spontaniety develops with the individual or individuals they must be gathered by an ‘Aqeedah from which a system emanates. Therefore, with the Arabs, the Turks and the other non-Arabs as they are, it is not possible to develop in them, as a whole or as individuals, spontaniety or to have any such effect on them. This is because there is no bond between them except the bond of blood and bond of entity. It is not possible for a system to emanate from any one of these bonds and therefore it is not possible to develop spontaniety in them. Thus, spontaniety is developed in the Ummah and influences the Ummah, but it is not developed in the people and does not influence the people. To develop spontaniety and its effect in the individuals, these individuals should be part of the Ummah, so that it becomes possible to generate a system from the ‘Aqeedah that they embrace. Accordingly, spontaniety cannot be developed in the Arabs as a people, based on nationalism, nor it can have an effect on them. There must exist an ‘Aqeedah from which a system of life emanates, so that spontaniety is developed and for it to have an effect. This is because the speech or the action is directed towards a concept, so as to remove the injustice or get rid of the danger. Quick understanding and quick judgement take place in the concept. The example of the woman’s complaint about her husband refers to a concept concerning justice for the woman and the giving of her rights. This concept comes from the system that emanates from the ‘Aqeedah. If the concept did not exist, then spontaniety would not exist and consequently neither would its effect. The example of the car driver’s understanding that the fluid is petrol refers to the concept that it is not correct for him to be in danger.

If he was one of those who do not care, then the concept would not exist with him and consequently he would not understand what the fluid is, for it does not concern him. Thus, the concept is the matter that stimulates understanding and it is the matter that has an effect. Therefore, it is necessary when developing spontaniety and creating an effect from it that this should be in the Ummah and in individuals of the Ummah. In other words, there should be reference to a concept emanating from a decisive ‘Aqeedah. From here arises the view that developing spontaniety and creating an effect from it must take place in an Ummah. In other words, it must be in a group of people gathered by one ‘Aqeedah, from which its system for life emanates. As for what some people call spontaniety in entities like the separated regions (of the Islamic lands), this is only quick observance and not spontaniety. This is because spontaniety is quick understanding and quick judgement on something connected with a concept emanating from a decisive ‘Aqeedah. As for quick observance, it differs from spontaniety. This is because it is quick observance of the thing itself, while spontaniety is quick observance linked with a concept. Though it is claimed to be spontaniety, it however is not. It can exist with every person, but it is not spontaniety. Spontaniety is grown in the Ummah and it has its effect in the Ummah. The fact that it is in the Ummah is one of the conditions of influence; it is also a condition for education and creation. This is because the ‘Aqeedah from which systems and concepts emanate is a fundamental condition for the influence to exist. For example, when you develop quick understanding and quick judgement, it is necessary that these be in accordance with a concept. In order that everyone understands this concept, it is necessary that it emanates from an ‘Aqeedah embraced by everybody. This would not take place except in the Ummah. When this exists with everybody, its effect will be on everybody. Therefore, there is no way to examine the effect of spontaniety with the Ummah unless she was an Ummah. If however, they were a people, or entities, then it is difficult to develop spontaniety in them; consequently there would be no effect from it.

When the West realised that the Islamic Ummah is gathered by an ‘Aqeedah, it tried to detach the concepts from the ‘Aqeedah. With time, it detached some concepts. So spontaniety became neglected and accordingly it vanished. To restore spontaniety to the souls, it is necessary to revive the concepts and link them with the ‘Aqeedah.

In other words, it is necessary to link the ‘Aqeedah with the concepts about life, i.e. with the systems. Only then will spontaniety exist in the people, it will grow in them and its effects will exist spontaneously.

Spontaniety, that is quick understanding and quick judgement, has effect on the Ummah according to the level to which the Ummah understands this concept. The understanding by the Ummah of the concept and crystallisation of it come through its linkage with the ‘Aqeedah. At that time spontaniety is grown in the Ummah in a natural way. Its effect in the Ummah will be as strong as the strength of the linkage of the concept with the ‘Aqeedah. As an example, the political issues, the issues of science and information, the issues of war, struggle and their like, are issues that are not linked with the ‘Aqeedah. This is because they relate to man as man and relate to danger and life. It could be said that these issues are not linked with the ‘Aqeedah. In reality, these issues are related to man as man, but man must have a basis about life so as to understand their realities. The basis of life is the ‘Aqeedah.

Therefore, these issues must have an origin in the basis, i.e. linkage with the ‘Aqeedah. Therefore, in these matters, there is quick understanding and quick observance, i.e. there is spontaniety in them. If they are not linked with the ‘Aqeedah, they will only have quick observance, but not spontaniety. In order that spontaniety exists in them, it is necessary that they are linked with the basis of life, i.e. it is necessary that they are linked with the ‘Aqeedah; then spontaniety exists. But before that, it is only quick observance.

For example in the incident of seeing the fluid and realising it is petrol, the linkage is with the danger of continuing to drive in the same direction. If the one who realised the fluid to be petrol was a Muslim, he would link this with the ‘Aqeedah that warns of the danger, thus changing his direction and not rushing towards the fluid. This would be spontaniety, because he linked with the ‘Aqeedah, even if this was automatic linkage. If the one who realised this was not a Muslim, he would not link it with the ‘Aqeedah and he would employ quick observance only, and he would avoid the danger by any way. In the example of the incident of Omar bin al-Khattab, one of the attendants realised from the speech of the woman that she had complained. His realisation was from the fact that the woman spoke to the Ameer ul-Mu’mineen, and the fact that the woman said, “my husband.” So he linked that with the ‘Aqeedah which makes the right of the wife on the husband preferable to the right of Allah through worship and fasting, i.e. prayer and fasting. Thus, he linked the fact that the person spoken to was the Ameer ul-Mu’mineen with what the ‘Aqeedah dictates in this situation of making the right of the servant preferable to the right of Allah. Thus, this was spontaniety and not quick observance only. Therefore, this was from the ‘Aqeedah. That is why it was spontaniety and not quick observance only.

From these two examples, it appears clearly that the effect of spontaniety is only in an Ummah that is gathered by one ‘Aqeedah.

It can’t be in the people and with the people, for it would then be quick observance only, not spontaniety. Accordingly, the effect of spontaniety is only in the Ummah and not in the people. If it existed in the people, i.e. if it was not linked with the ‘Aqeedah that gathers the people, then it would be quick observance only, not spontaniety. Therefore, if progress in creating spontaniety in the people is hoped for, this could happen in an Ummah, but not with the people. It would have no effect if there were no bond. This is important from two aspects: The first is the fact that it is necessary when working to create spontaniety. The second aspect is the effect on the people. The degree of effect on the people is quite obvious.

This is because the effect only occurs by realising a matter dictated by the bond of the Ummah or emanating from it, i.e. dictated by the ‘Aqeedah that governs the people. If that did not exist, one cannot understand what it means, for one does not have that which indicates what it means. Therefore, there would be no effect.

Realisation is necessary for spontaniety. If there were no realisation, even if the speed was there, then there would be no spontaniety.

Thus, spontaniety is quick realisation of the aim and this only results from linkage. It is true that quick realisation might lead to understanding of the aim, but this would be quick observance and not spontaniety. For example, if you know that a judicial investigator wants to know your identity, when he asks a question, from the circumstances you realise quickly what is wanted from this question. Thus you can answer quickly foiling this objective, because you realised his purpose from the circumstances linked with the question. However, this is quick observance and not spontaniety. Quick realisation was due to the understanding of his aim, not due to your understanding of what emanates from the ‘Aqeedah. Therefore, this realisation was quick observance and not spontaniety. This is because you did not link with the ‘Aqeedah and what emanates from it in order to know his aim. It rather resulted from your understanding of his aim from the circumstances.

Moreover, understanding the intention from other than the ‘Aqeedah, what results from it and what emanates from it, is a deficient understanding. This is because it is taken from the circumstances or from other matters. This understanding may or may not be correctly concluded. It also may or may not indicate this. Therefore, it was not complete, so it only leads to quick observance and does not lead to spontaniety. This is because it is quick understanding of the reality and linking it with other than what it is usually linked with and so it is definitely incomplete; because it is devoid of the linkage with the ‘Aqeedah. It is in fact devoid of any linkage. If it was linked, it was linked with other than the ‘Aqeedah. Even if this was correctly and quickly understood, it however remains quick observance, for it is quick understanding of the reality and not understanding of what emanates from the ‘Aqeedah.

Understanding the intention of the speaker does not result from quick observance, for it is not complete. It rather results from the linkage; this linkage is what reveals the intention of the speaker quickly and accordingly gives spontaniety. This is the reality and this indicates that that effect is only in the Ummah, not in the people.

In summary, the effect of spontaniety in the people comes from their quick understanding of the reality, together with the linkage to the ‘Aqeedah and what emanates from it. The understanding of the reality only gives quick observance, but linkage to the ‘Aqeedah is what gives spontaniety, though the intention is understood in each case. The intention of the speaker can be understood from the circumstances, but this understanding remains incomplete until it is linked with the ‘Aqeedah and what emanates from it. If it were linked with that, it would be correct and complete. Otherwise it would not be complete.

Therefore, two matters are necessary: Firstly, quick understanding of the reality, which gives quick observance - this is general in the people and in the Ummah. The second is that it has to be linked with the ‘Aqeedah and what emanates from it, which is specific to the Ummah. It is this that certainly creates spontaniety. Therefore, the effect should be targeted in the Ummah and not in the people, for it affects her clearly and thus spontaniety becomes natural to her. This is because linkage is one of the necessities of spontaniety.

Therefore, the effect should be targeted in the Ummah through the ‘Aqeedah, or through the rules and thoughts that emanate from it.