Islam today is acquired and studied through these methods, and it is obvious by their nature that they cannot establish any Islamic thinking. As a result of their prevalance, idleness in thinking, and superficial and emotional thinking are encompassing the current thinking of Muslims in spite of the tremendous number of Muslims studying Islam in universities, masjids, and institutions, and the increasing number of Shaykhs. These methods naturally lead to such a situation because Islam is no longer viewed as an ideology that shapes the point of view towards life. Rather, Islam is taken either as rigid or static information, or as stories to appease the emotions. Following are some characteristics of the current thinking of the Muslim Ummah that have emerged as a result of acquiring Islam through these methods.

Thinking can be characterized as either superficial, profound, or enlightened. The superficial thinking results from a lack of deep and comprehensive study of the situation, and the individual who resorts to this thinking is content with looking at the surface of any event or situation. This superficial though reflects in the current political thinking of the Muslims. When Muslims look to the existing states in the Muslim world, they think that these states are independent and that the rulers have their own will simply because they each have their own borders, flag, constitution, and membership in international organizations. However, if the same person who reaches this conclusion would spend time studying the reality of these states, how they were developed, and their relationship with the West, he would not conclude that these states are independent.

Another example of superficial thinking is claiming that Democracy parallels the Shura that Islam calls for based solely upon the fact that Islam recommends consultation and gives the Ummah the right to choose the Khalifah. However, closely examining the ideological basis of Democracy in a profound way will reveal that Democracy is a specific system based on the notion that the human being has the right to make his own laws and decide for himself his own standards of right and wrong. This notion contradicts the basis of the Islamic system, which states that only Allah (swt)

has the right to make laws and decide what is halal and haram while the human being has only the right to understand and implement these laws. Not only do the Democratic and Islamic systems differ in the source of their laws but in the process of extracting the laws from the legal sources.

Whereas in Democracy the process of extracting laws is governed by the prevailing interests of the society, in Islam the process of extracting laws in done through ijtihad, which is a specific process that is dictated by the Arabic language and the strength of the evidence from the legal text.

Furthermore, the institution of Shura as defined by Islam is distinct from the functions of the Congresses and Parliaments of the West.

Still another example of superficial thinking among Muslims is seen in the evaluation of some individuals and movements by their external features without attempting to study what they call for, how they think, how they were established, and other factors, in a profound and critical way. No one can be a good person by the mere fact that he is a member of a specific group or because he has a long beard or holds a religious position. By the same token, no group or institution can be considered Islamic simply because it carries the name of Islam and its founders are Muslims. Both cases require probing beyond the apparent features and scrutinizing any individual or group that claims the name of Islam.

Because this type of thinking requires very little effort, most people find its utilization easy. And with the passage of time, individuals will gradually be content with this type of thinking if left to their own devices. This type of thinking has to be fought because of its lack of productivity, both for the individual as well as for the Ummah.

Contrary to the superficial thinking, the profound thinking is produced by conducting a deep study of the issue at hand as well as by analyzing and scrutinizing both the situation and the information related to the situation deeply. In examining a table, the superficial thinker would focus only on the apparent features, and would thus conclude that a table with a brownish color and four supports exists. A deep thinker would scrutinize the table more profoundly, which would result in information about the table’s physical composition, the specific type of wood used, and other physical parameters such as its hardness and its dimensions. Thus, the deep thinking is sufficient in fields such as chemistry or physics. However, due to its nature, the profound thinking does not require from the individual in the lab to think about other issues beyond the material at hand, such as where the material came from or its relationship to the surroundings.

The highest level of thinking is the enlightened or comprehensive thinking. This type of thinking is needed in areas or fields which require thinking deeply about a specific situation or issue in addition to thinking comprehensively by connecting the issue or situation at hand to other situations or issues. Areas such as political analysis and jurisprudence require this type of thinking. In the field of jurisprudence, the person must utilize the enlightened thinking in order to think about the situation, refer back to the legal texts addressing the situation, understand and analyze the texts according to a specific methodology, and then apply this understanding to the situation. In the example of the table, an enlightened thinker would think deeply about the table with all of its physical features, in addition to thinking about where and how the table was constructed, where the material used to construct the table came from, and the relationship of the table to the rest of the furniture and the overall setup of the room.

To more vividly illustrate the distinction between the three types of thinking, some examples are needed. Calling to establish a Palestinian state in the West bank and Gaza would constitute superficial thinking. As a result, a superficial person will perceive only the surface value of this slogan and will look to those who call for such a state as heroes and saviors. However, thinking deeply about this state in terms of its resources and internal situation would lead a profound thinker to conclude that such a state is impossible to emerge and sustain itself, and that the call to establish such a state is a mission impossible. And an enlightened thinker would not only scrutinize the Palestinian state itself but would connect this situation with the plans of the superpowers in the region and their relationship with the different parties in the Middle East. Based on this comprehensive research, the enlightened thinker would conclude that the issue extends beyond the impossible and dreaming about impossible things. From this context, the issue of the Palestinian state will be viewed as part of a wider plan that calls for establishing a Palestinian entity, either as a buffer zone or as a connection between Israel and the other neighbors, where the one who calls for such a state is only a player in this game.

Another example to illustrate the distinction between the three types of thinking is seen in the Missionary invasion of the Uthmani Khilafah which began in the 17th century. A superficial thinker would look at such a situation as a group of people who came to the Islamic State, opened up various missionary organizations, associations, and schools, in order to preach Christianity and endorse education in various sciences. The deep thinker would scrutinize these Missionary movements and examine the reality of their organizations and their ideas. Based on this profound study, such a person would conclude that these Missionary organizations were in fact calling for Nationalism, Western Culture, and other corrupt ideas that seeped into the thinking of the Muslims.

And the enlightened thinker would scrutinize the nature and reality of these movements and what they were calling for, in addition to thinking about the origins of such a movements, their ultimate objective, and their relationship to the West and its objectives. Such a comprehensive thinking process which would encompass all the issues related to the Missionaries would conclude that the Missionary movement was a continuation of the West’s objective of diverting the Muslims from their ideology with the overall objective of dismantling the Khilafah and colonizing the Muslim world.

The superficial thinking has to be fought, and the Muslims must be trained to think not only profoundly but comprehensively because such an enlightened thinking process is the only way for the Muslim Ummah to understand its situation and its course of action in this life.

The development of profound and enlightened thinking can materialize by presenting case studies and continuing to work with the individuals until they will never be content with their until they think in a profound and enlightened manner.

When the thinking level declines, the individual will be unable to conduct any original research on his own. In this situation, the individual will adopt already-existing ideas established by others when faced with any case or issue that requires any type of original thought or research. Whether in political, legal, or any other issues, such a person will turn to others to provide him with the answers. And after taking the answer or opinion from others, he will defend and justify this opinion as if it was his own without researching the related evidences, only because of his trust in the one who established the opinion.

This type of thinking is widespread among Muslims in spite of their large numbers, whereas the amount of original thinking is almost non-existent. Such taqleed (imitation) is acceptable in fiqh for those unable to conduct ijtihad and is also acceptable for the mujtahid is some where he does not have to exercise his own ijtihad. However, this type of thinking is not allowed in the Aqeedah, as it is well known that Muslims are prohibited from adopting their Aqeedah through taqleed. Such an approach towards the Aqeedah originated from the non-Muslims who simply follow their ancestors without initiating any type of thinking or research into their beliefs. Furthermore, the definition of Iman leaves no room for the taqleed in the Aqeedah because Iman is defined as the conclusive belief that agrees with the reality and is based on conclusive evidences. Taqleed cannot establish such an Iman because it requires thinking about the issue and building one’s case based on daleels that establish the conclusive belief. Therefore, it is incorrect for anyone to say "I believe in Allah and the Messenger" because his father or shaykh said so.

Regarding the political thinking and the intellectual issues, the prevalence of taqleed in these areas is a strong indicator of the declined status of Muslims. The Muslim cannot shift aimlessly from one opinion to another while having no opinion or original thinking of his own. Rather, he must build his culture and thinking based on original research and study. If the Ummah carries a creative way of thinking, its members will no longer constitute a discordant mass of bodies that will shuttle from one opinion to another like cattle.

Furthermore, the members of such an Ummah will no longer accept for themselves to follow personalities, which will translate into a creative Muslim Ummah.

Because of the taqleed and the lack of thinking and creativity, the thinking of Muslims was reduced to a personalized type of thinking that became connected with personalities and not ideas.

Nowadays the idea carries no value unless it is connected to a well-established or high-ranking personality. And any existing research in this case will focus on the person and not the thought (i.e., the discussion will emphasize "Who said what" rather than "What is being said."). Any person who opposes the opinions of such personalities will be attacked severely, and the "character assassination" will dominate the focus of any discussion. At the end, the individual will view the correct idea as the idea that comes from a personality that he respects, and the wrong idea is the idea that comes from a person that he does not respect. And the only way to explain the fallacy of any idea in this context will be to focus the discussion on the personalities.

In everyday life, there are areas that require deep and comprehensive thinking, such as political events or conducting research in the lab, or searching for the evidence in a legal matter. In addition, there are situations that need to be addressed by thinking, such as how to deal with an attack and what specific strategies and measures to undertake. Such an incident was demonstrated by the Prophet (saaw) during the Battle of Al-Khandaq, in which the Prophet (saaw) initiated numerous tactics which required extensive thinking about the situation in order to effectively counter the attack upon Medina.

On the other hand, there are situations and issues which do not require thinking. One does not need to conduct lengthy experiments and engage in extensive study to prove that water fulfills the need of a thirsty person or to prove that any nation must protect itself against its enemies. Such issues are plainly obvious from everyday experience. Also, when a Muslim hears the Adhan, he does not need to think about how to perform the wudu because this action is so well-known to him that he automatically does it without any need to think about the movements. While a new Muslim may initially require a few demonstrations of the wudu, he does not need to philosophize the wudu every time he needs to perform it.

However, Muslims lost this fine line that separates what requires thinking from what does not require thinking. As a result, Muslims began discussing in a very lengthy and detailed fashion issues that do not require such detail. A shaykh would exhaust one year explaining the rules of wudu to the people, although a few practical would suffice. In addition, other individuals would write volumes upon volumes of literature about wudu, taharah, the movements of the salat, and other such issues.

Similarly, Muslims have begun discussing trivial issues that keep them occupied from discussing more critical issues that affect their status quo. Nowadays, one finds extensive research and books written discussing the beard, its length, its shape, and whether we are allowed to dye it and with what color. Also, one would find lengthy research on moving the index finger during the tashahud, whether it should be raised or wiggled, and whether the finger should be straight or slightly bent.

On the other hand, no serious and comprehensive discussion or research exists about issues such as the oil industry, who has the right to own it, and its relationship to the state. To illustrate this trend, a journal published by the religious establishment of Saudi Arabia a series of articles discussing in extensive detail the possibility of landing on the moon and whether or not the earth revolves around the sun, while ironically no article exists discussing the Hukm Sharii of the Peace Process or the Hukm Sharii regarding the exploitation of the Ummah’s resources by the current regimes.

Such a distorted thinking process exists despite the fact that Islam teaches Muslims how to prioritize their issues. Within this context, a man found a date and came to Umar asking him what he should do with it. The man was referring to a rule in Islam which states that if one finds something, he needs to identify it for a period of time, and if no one comes to claim it, then the object is the property of the one who found it and he would have to pay 20% of its value as Zakat.

In order to address this issue, one must realize that the thinking process requires that the individual sense and comprehend the issue at hand. No one can think about issues that are beyond the scope of their senses unless an authentic evidence regarding such issues comes from a source that the rationale has already established as credible. Within this context, Muslims believe in the Jinn, the Angels, the Day of Judgment, Paradise and Hell-fire, and other aspects of the Ghaib. The belief in such realities is built upon the conclusive evidence that is established through the intellect, to be distinguished from metaphysics, which is based upon pure speculation.

Recently, the metaphysical thinking has seeped into the thinking process of the Muslims.

Nowadays, the Muslims manifest the metaphysical thinking in two aspects:

Failure to understand the limits of the thinking process and the human mind has resulted in Muslims discussing issues related to the Ghaib using their own mind and senses. As a result, issues such as the jinn occupy a very large space in the thinking of Muslims, to the extent that some even claim that they can communicate with the jinn. Another example of such an issue is the discussion that revolves around the Attributes of Allah and whether or not they are part of His Entity. Although Muslims must believe in the existence of such realities, this belief must be limited to the text of the evidence and cannot venture beyond it because the thinking process requires sensation in order to occur. Attempting to initiate the thinking process upon realities that the human mind cannot comprehend or sense will result in speculative imagination devoid of any thought.

Many reasons contributed to such a level of thinking. One important reason is that discussing the current situation of the Muslim Ummah may lead to some problems with the ruling elite. As a result, people would shift towards such issues because they may not be problematic to the ruling establishments. In fact, the ruling elite may even encourage this type of thinking to distract the Muslims from the real issues facing them. Another reason is that the low level of thinking that exists among Muslims may push the individuals to discuss such issues because metaphysics does not require serious thinking, which is difficult for many people to initiate. All that metaphysical thinking requires is bringing stories and unleashing the imagination without the need to establish any concrete evidence to build a case or argument, which is something that anyone can do with relative ease and comfort.

What Muslims fail to realize is that the Qur’an and the Sunnah themselves shifted their thinking away from the direction of metaphysics. Allah (swt) in Surat Al-Kahf, after talking about the number of people who were inside the cave, said:

"(Some) say they are three, the dog being the fourth among them; (others) say they were five, the dog being the sixth – guessing at the unseen; (yet others) say they were seven, the dog being the eighth. Say (O Muhammad), ‘My Lord knows best their number; none knows them but a few.’ So debate not (about their number, etc.) except with the clear proof." [TMQ 18:22] Furthermore, a man came to the Prophet (saaw) asking him about the time of the Day of Judgment.

The Prophet (saaw) asked him, "What did you prepare for it?" Thus, the Prophet (saaw) shifted the man’s thinking from the Ghaib to the practical aspect of the issue.

Qadriyya Ghaibiyya refers to shifting the connection of the actions from the Hukm Sharii to what someone may imagine as the Knowledge of Allah. Examples of such a mentality are claiming that the current backwardness and decline of the Muslims is their destiny that cannot be addressed or changed, or using the Du’a as the only means of changing the situation of Muslims without initiating any action, or claiming that the jinn and the shayateen are the cause of some diseases and that the way to cure the disease is to communicate with them.

Muslims must believe that Cause-and-Effect is a natural law that Allah (swt) set in this universe.

The effect will occur only if the cause exists. For example, victory cannot materialize unless its causes exist, such as the army’s firm conviction in its objectives, the shrewdness of the leaders, and the level of preparation and planning. Also, curing a disease has a cause, which is the correct medication. The Prophet (saaw) said, "O servant of Allah! Seek medical treatment since Allah created the disease and the medication." In one incident, a man came to the Prophet (saaw) asking him to make Du’a to his camel to cure her from a skin disease. The Prophet (saaw) told the man, "Add to your Du’a some tar," indicating that the Du’a by itself will not accomplish the objective. In another incident, the Prophet (saaw) told a man who wanted to unleash his camel while depending on the tawakul to protect her, "Leash her, and then have the tawakul." By the same token, reviving the Muslims from their current status quo will occur not by Du’a and ibadah alone but through initiating the change and working towards creating the revival. Allah (swt)

says clearly:

"Allah does not change the situation of any people until they change what is within themselves." [TMQ 13:11] However, instead of facing their problems and acquiring the correct ways and means in order to reach the solution, Muslims chose the easy route and began depending on the Ghaib, thinking that this is the Iman.

Similarly, they began thinking that any other approach constitutes shirk or denying Allah’s Will, although Allah ordered the Muslims in many ayahs to acquire the requirements and the causes to achieve their objectives and mentioned explicitly that He does not change His Law. For example, Allah (swt) mentions regarding the preparation:

"And prepare all you can of power, including steeds of war to alert the enemy of Allah and your enemy..." [TMQ 8:60] The Prophet (saaw) also instructed the Muslims to acquire these ways and means and said, "Act.

Each one will be facilitated towards what he was created for." Thus, these requirements and complying with the law of Cause and Effect is not shirk and does not constitute weakness in the Iman. Rather, such an approach manifests the correct tawakul and the correct Iman. And through this approach, the discussion of the course of action for Muslims will be based on the Hukm Sharii and not the Will or Knowledge of Allah, which is part of the Ghaib.

As previously mentioned, the intellectual way of thinking is a process which involves the reality, a sound human mind, senses which transfer the reality to the mind as a sensation, and previous information which the mind links to the sensation to produce a thought. Thus, the intellectual method entails thinking about the reality at hand or the issue as it is. However, the scientific method is based upon performing experiments and reaching a conclusion based on the data collected. Any kind of scientific research does not depend on the situation or the reality as is but necessitates subjecting the material under scrutiny to an environment different than its natural environment and then observing the impact of these imposed conditions on the material. This process is referred to as the scientific experiment, which constitutes the cornerstone of the scientific method of thinking.

The scientific method is a branch of the rational method because, like the rational method, the scientific process requires a reality, senses in order to perceive the reality, and a human brain in order to perform the research and analysis to arrive at a conclusion.

However, the difference lay in the type of reality involved, and as a result the type of research and analysis performed in the scientific process will differ from the rational process. The scientific method cannot be used in all disciplines because not everything can be subjected to experimentation. While areas of knowledge such as physics, biology, and engineering, can be discussed based on experimentation, areas of knowledge such as philosophy, history, economics, law, and doctrines of belief cannot be discussed using the scientific method because such disciplines are not tangible material that can be subjected experimentation and measurement. For example, scientifically testing the effect of an ideology on the progress of a nation would require subjecting one nation to an ideology and stripping another nation of the ideology in order to determine whether an ideology would result in progress.5 Such a study is beyond the scope of the experimental method because one cannot forcibly subject nations, individuals, or societies to conditions in such a manner. However, one can observe nations or individuals as they are or throughout history and arrive at a rational conclusion that the ideology results in progress for a nation. Another crucial difference between the scientific and rational method is in the type of facts or conclusions reached by the two types of thinking. The scientific method leads to establishing relative and not absolute facts because it is based on relative measurements.

For example, the conclusion that mercury is very dense is not an absolute fact but a relative fact because the density is relative to the density of water. No fact or conclusion can be considered scientific unless it is based on such relative measures. In contrast, the rational method arrives at absolute facts because it entails studying the reality as it is and not comparing the reality to something else. Thus, the conclusion that the earth has gravity is an absolute truth that can be reached at by observing things falling towards the earth’s center. However, scientific research is required to measure gravity and quantify it.

This type of thinking can manifest in two aspects:

1. Wishful Thinking: When a person possesses an emotional inclination to reach a specific conclusion, he wishes the events to lead to this result. As a result, he would start interpreting everything based upon this wish. The intellect’s role in this type of thinking is to justify the wished for result and attempt to prove its case. For example, some people have a certain loyalty to a regime, and based upon this emotional attachment, they would wish that this regime is a just system. Based upon this wish, they would conclude that a certain regime is just, and they would justify the actions of this regime in order to fit this conclusion, even if this justification amounted to denying clear facts altogether.

The wishful thinking also manifests in the wish of many Muslims for a certain state to be an Islamic State. Living under the Islamic System is the wish of every Muslim, but for some, this wish may incline them to label any regime as Islamic based upon the presence of certain symbols of Islam.

Such people would then use the existence of these symbols to claim that a particular state is Islamic.

And if the state in question is in reality a Kufr state, such individuals would try to justify this in order to support their wished-for conclusion that the state is Islamic.

This type of thinking leaves the emotions a free reign to determine and decide. In most instances, the emotion conceals or overshadows the intellect, and as a result, the person will not perceive the reality as is. Instead, the person will see the reality as he likes it to be. It was reported that the Prophet (saaw) said, "The Qadi must not judge while in a state of anger." Similarly, a judge cannot preside over a court session while in a state that may clout his judgment, such as hunger, anxiety, or extreme happiness. Thus, Islam makes it clear that a person cannot make a sound judgment or issue decisions if his emotions control him.

2. Addressing the People in an Emotional Way: Usually, one can address the people directly by presenting the facts the way they are without paying too much attention to the eloquence of the presentation because the primary concern is the soundness and correctness of what is being presented. However, there could be speeches that are addressing the emotions instead of the intellect. Once a person is exposed to this type of speech, his senses to the reality will be weakened because his emotions are controlling him. As a result, the eloquence of the speech will be controlling him.

For example, consider the following two texts taken from different sources, which both address the issue of defining the society and defining the basis of human relationships:

"While the human being is in need of quiet moments, of time to reflect alone, or privacy and solitude, he is by nature a social being. To live in society and interact with others is a natural or inborn characteristic of human beings. The human being was not forced into being social nor did he simply learn by experience that he cannot live in total isolation and solitude. Neither did he just use his reason to decide that it was better if he cooperated and shared with others. One of the reasons for saying that social life is natural is suggested in the noble verse of the Qur’an:

Narrowness in thinking refers to the inability in conducting comprehensive research in different issues. It could either result from the strong attachment to the status quo or from limiting the discussion to the status quo, or the lack of information or sources of knowledge to the individual.

Such constraints eventually shift the individual into an isolated person who restricts the scope of his thinking to the status quo. In fact, this type of thinking is similar to the superficial thinking, and it could be one of the reasons behind the superficial thinking. This type of thinking is distinct from being specialized in one area because specialization means to focus in one aspect in order to develop creativity in a specific field. Such a person is not narrow in the scope of his thinking but is focused in one aspect. However, the narrow thinker cannot think in any issue, general or specific, and the scope of his thinking is limited and usually does not extend beyond thinking in his livelihood and related matters. For example, a merchant may know all of his customers and their needs, as well as the details of his merchandise. However, the same person, if narrow in his thinking, would avoid any intellectual discussion. If he participates in any such type of discussion, his participation will be superficial and for the sole purpose of showing that he has something to say.

The Imperialists during the Colonial Era encouraged this approach among Muslims, and the rulers who presided over the people on behalf of the Colonialists enforced strict laws that prevented people from discussing certain issues seriously, such as politics, economics, and the legal system.

Even the intelligentsia, or the educated class, were banned from any intellectual or profound discussion, unless their discussion would reach a pre-set set by the regime. For this reason, one witnesses the conferences in the Muslim World devoid of any thinking in such issues. Any discussion in any Arab parliament or economic seminar will result in nothing but superficial discussion because those who are organizing these functions know that they have no power and are tools used by the ruler to enhance his image. Such a restrictive policy by the regimes has resulted in narrowness among the educated people.

When it comes to the common people, their situation is even worse. The regimes caused them to stay away from anything related to the public affairs while keeping them occupied with their livelihood. Combined with the oppression and the influence of the media, this condition results in a state of fear among the people that prevents them from thinking and results in viewing the world from a very narrow angle, which itself is based on a pre-set point of view. Institutions such as the media and schools provide the people with data on a selective basis, magnifying some issues while trivializing others. All of this has produced closed minds which analyze everything according to the "Conspiracy Theory." Such a theory prevents the people from understanding the real causes of their problems, and it refers all the problems facing the people to an imaginary enemy manufactured either by the regime to preoccupy the people or manufactured by the people themselves due to the fear they live in.

Logic is an old Greek discipline set by the classical Greek philosophers. They applied it to any aspect, whether they relate to things within or beyond the senses. They employed it in discussing God, His Attributes, and His Essence, in addition to other issues such as nature and justice. This way of thinking is built upon a specific philosophical order that leads a person to reach specific results. The specific format which characterizes logic consists of two premises: The major premise, which states a general rule or natural phenomenon, and the minor premise, which could be a specific idea or issue that the person must think about. Based on the relationship between the two premises, the logician reaches a conclusion.

Logicians do not emphasize the soundness or correctness of any of these premises or logical analysis. Rather, the emphasis is on the formality. In Ibn Taymiyya Against the Greek Logicians, by Hallaq, he states: "The inherent nature in Syllogism renders it hardly superior to analogy, because however valid the syllogism may be, it cannot, by virtue of form alone, lead to a certain conclusion.

It is the subject matter of the argument, not its form, that determines the truth of the conclusion…A syllogistic mode of reasoning will not result in a certain conclusion by virtue of form alone."