Thinking can be of three levels ; shallow, deep or enlightened.
Shallow Thinking
Thinking may be shallow, deep or enlightened. The shallow thinking is the thinking of the common people. The deep thinking is that of the scholars. As for the enlightened thinking, is most often the thinking of the leaders, and the enlightened among the scholars and the common people. The shallow thinking is the transferring of the reality only to
the brain, without discussing anything else, and without trying to sense what is related to the reality; then linking this sensation with the information related to the reality, without attempting to search for other information that is connected to it, then coming out with a shallow judgment. This is what prevails in the groups, and what prevails in those of low thought, and what prevails in the uneducated people and in the intelligent people who are not cultured.
The shallow thinking is the curse of the people and nations, for it does not help them to revive, and even not to enjoy a pleasant livelihood. Though it might help them to have an agreeable life. The cause of the shallow thinking is weak sensation or poor information, or the weak linking ability present in the man's brain. It is not the natural thinking of men, though it is the primitive thinking. Human beings differ in the power of sensation and in their level of weakness. They also differ in the power and weakness of their linking ability and in the amount and type of information they have, wherever this information was obtained whether by learning or by reading or gained from the experiences of life. Thus thinking is in accordance with the difference of these matters. In origin, the majority of the people are strong in their brain and linking ability, except a few who were created weak, or they became weak later on. In origin, the information of the majority of the people changes daily, even if they were illiterate, except the abnormal people, whose attention is drawn by nothing, nor do they take any account of anything they learn or read of information. Therefore, shallow thinking is not natural, rather abnormal. However, the individuals being accustomed to the shallow thinking, their content of its results, and the absence of ambition amongst them for better than they have, make the shallow thinking a habit, so they continue with this mode of thinking and enjoy it, and their taste becomes reshaped on that. As for the groups, due to their deficiency in thinking because they are a group, the shallow thinking prevails in them, even if they were a group of creative thinkers. As a result, the shallow thinking prevails in life. Had there not been some individuals in the people or the nation, who are granted an exceptional capacity for sensation and linkage (relating), and then it is inconceivable to have revival, or a material progress in life.
There is no cure to the shallow thinking in the groups. However, it is possible to raise the level of the reality and the events, and to provide the level of the reality and the events, and to provide the groups with sublime thoughts, and rich information; thus it becomes possible to raise the level of their thinking. Yet it remains, anyhow, shallow thought, but of a high level. In other words, the people and the nation can act the in the way dictated by the enlightened thinking, but their thinking remains, anyhow, shallow. The groups of people would not be able to think deeply or enlightened, whatever level they reached of elevation and progress. This is because, as a group, they are not able to go deep in study or to have enlightened thought. So, to raise the level of their thinking, no attempt should be made to treat the thinking of the group, rather the attempt should be made to treat the reality and the events on which the sensation of the group falls. It is also possible to treat the thoughts and information which are placed in it. Thus shallowness is raised up, but not removed, and accordingly the level of its conduct is improved. As for the individuals, it is possible to remove the shallowness, reduce it or make it rare in them. This is firstly by removing the habit that they have in thinking. Teaching them or educating them and drawing their attention to the triviality of their thinking and the shallowness of their thoughts achieve this. Secondly, by increasing the trials, whether those they do or see, and make them live in many incidents and sense a reality that varies, renews and changes. Thirdly, by making them live in life, and proceed with it, and thus they abandon shallowness or shallowness abandons them, and thus they become not shallow. When such individuals increase in the ummah, then helping the ummah to revive would become easier and more achievable. Though these individuals live in the ummah, receive the existing information and sense the existing reality and events, and they cannot precede their time; and they are not a type different than that of their ummah.
Deep Thinking
As for deep thinking it is trying to be deep in thinking, i.e. to be deep in the sensation of the reality, and in the information that is linked with this sensation to understand the reality. The deep thinker will not be content with the mere sensation and the initial information to link with the sensation, as is the case in shallow thinking. He rather repeats the sensation of the reality, and tries to increase his sensation of it, whether through experimentation or through the repetition of sensation. He also repeats the search for other information beside the initial information. He also repeats the linkage of the information with the reality more than he did before, whether through the repeated observation or through repeating the linkage again: so he comes out from this type of sensation and this type of linkage and this type of information, with deep thoughts, whether they are truths or not. Through the repetition of this approach and becoming used to it, the deep thinking originates. So the deep thinking is not content with the initial sensation, not content with the initial information and the not content with the initial linkage. It is the second stage after the shallow thinking. This is the thinking of the scholars and thinkers, though it is not necessary to be the thinking of the educated people. Thus deep thinking is to be deep in the sensation, information and linkage. As regards the enlightened thought, it is the deep thinking in addition to thinking about what surrounds the reality and what relates to it, so as to come out with the true results. In other words, the deep thinking is to be deep in thinking itself, while the enlightened thinking is to add to the thinking in depth and the thinking in what surrounds it and relates to it, for the sake of an aimed objective, that is to reach to the true results. Therefore every enlightened thought is deep thinking. It is not possible for the enlightened thinking to result from the shallow thinking.
Enlightened Thinking
However, every deep thinking is not an enlightened thinking. For example, the scientist with the atom; when he researches into the splitting of the atom; and the scientist in chemistry when he researches the formation of things; and the jurist when he researches the deduction of rules and laying out the laws. These scientists and their like, when they discuss such matters, they do that depth, which without they would have not been able to come out with those magnificent results. However, they did not think with enlightenment, neither was their thinking considered an enlightened thinking. Therefore, you should not be surprised when you find a scientist that researches into the atom, praying to a piece of wood, i.e. the cross. Though the least enlightenment shows that this piece of wood neither benefits nor harms, and it is not something that could be worshipped. Don't be surprised also to find the skilled legist believing in the presence of priests; and he submits himself to somebody like him in order to forgive him of his sins. This is because the scientist and the legist and their like, think deeply but not with enlightenment. Had they thought with enlightenment, they would not have prayed to a piece of wood, neither would they have believed in the existence of priests, or sought forgiveness from people like them. It is true that the one who thinks deeply is deep in what he thought of and not in other than it. So he might be deep when thinking about splitting the atom or putting a law, but he is stupid in other matters when he thinks about them. However, the thinker, being accustomed to deep thinking goes deep in most of what he thinks of, particularly the matters which relate to the great complex, or the outlook in life. However, the absence of enlightenment in his thinking makes him accustomed to deep thinking and to shallow thinking and even the stupid thinking. Therefore, deep thinking is not alone enough to revive man and to raise his intellectual level. It is rather necessary to have enlightenment in thought so as elevation in thought occurs and so that man revives.
Though enlightenment is not necessary to reach to correct results in thought such as the empirical science, laws, medicine and the like, it is necessary to raise the level of thought and to make thinking result in thinkers. Therefore, the ummah will not revive by the presence of jurists and legists, of the presence of doctors and engineers, and their like. She only revives if she has enlightenment in thinking, i.e. if she has enlightened thinkers. Enlightenment in thinking does not require the presence of education. In other words, it is not necessary that the enlightened thinkers be educated. The Bedouin for example, who said: The camel dropping indicates of (the presence of the) camel, and the mark (footprint) indicates of (the existence of) the travel, he is an enlightened thinker. The speaker who said: Precaution cannot protect from the qadar (destiny), and the patience (sabr) is one of the causes of success, he is an enlightened thinker, but the poet who said:
The Khaleefa has died, O Ins and Jinn
As if I broke the fast in Ramadan,
he is not an enlightened thinker, though he is an educated faqeeh (jurist). Also the wise man (Hakeem) who said: The head of wisdom is the fear of Allah; he is not an enlightened thinker, because the head of wisdom is the realisation of the existence of Allah and not the fear of Allah. Thus, the enlightened thinking does not need knowledge, or wisdom. It rather needs to think deeply, and to look around a thing and what relates to it for the sake of arriving at correct results. Therefore, the enlightened thinker could be illiterate or educated or even a scholar. The enlightened thinker would not produce an enlightened thought, unless he had enlightenment while thinking. Thus the politician is an enlightened thinker. However, each of them needs to have enlightenment when thinking in everything so that thinking can be enlightened. Therefore, he would not be surprised if we saw great leaders and great politicians pray to a piece of wood, and seek forgiveness from people who are less enlightened than them. This is because their thinking has no depth or enlightenment; it is rather following habits or imitation, or a sort of deception and hypocrisy. All of this is neither depth nor enlightenment. This is because the enlightened thinker, has nothing to do with deception or hypocrisy, neither is he dominated by customs and traditions.
The thinker, whether he is shallow, deep or enlightened, must be serious in his thinking. It is true that with the shallow thinker, his shallow thinking does not help him in being serious. However, by avoiding amusement and his habits he can be serious. Seriousness does not need depth, though depth encourages it. Neither does it need enlightenment, though enlightenment requires it. This is because seriousness is the presence of the purpose, and the struggle to achieve this purpose, besides the good conception of the reality that is thought of. So thinking about danger is not actually thinking about it, rather it is thinking to avoid it. Thinking about eating is not thinking about it, rather it is thinking about obtaining it. Thinking about playing is not thinking about playing; rather it is for the sake of playing. Thinking about a picnic is not discussion of the picnic; it is rather for the sake of enjoying the picnic. Thinking about walking aimlessly is not thinking about this walking, it is rather for the sake of driving away boredom. Thinking about enacting a law is not thinking about the law itself, it is rather for the sake of enacting the law itself. Thus, thinking, whatever type it is, is thinking about the matter itself or thinking about acting on that thing. Thinking
about the thing must be for the sake of knowing it, while thinking about acting on this thing is for the sake of acting on it. In both case, amusement should not be involved in any one of them. The habit of thinking about the thing or about the action with the thing, should also not dominate the thinking. So if amusement and habits were removed from thinking, then the serious thinking will exist. This is because it would be easy, if not inevitable, for the purpose to exist, and also the struggle for achieving that purpose to exist. It would then also be easy, if not inevitable, for the conception of the reality of what is aimed at, to exist, i.e. the reality of what is thought of. Accordingly, seriousness is possible to exist in shallow thinking, as it must be serious, whether it produced the results in reality or failed to do so. So the seriousness is necessary in the thinking. Without it, thinking will be amusement or play or monotonous, in that it that proceeds in the same manner because of the habit and the imitation. The monotonous thinking gets pleasure in the life in which the thinker lives and the life in which the people live, and thus removes from the mind the concept of change and thinking about change.
Thinking about change is necessary for life, because stagnation of life and submission to the destiny is one of the greatest evils that make the people and nation extinct and disappear with the incidents and days. That is why thinking about change is one of the most important types of thinking. Thinking about change is not regarded pleasant by the languid people, neither is it accepted by the lazy people, because the price of change is high, and because those who are dominated by habits perceive the thinking about change as harmful for them and changing them from one state to another. That is why the declined people and the lazy people fight against it, and the so-called conservatives and those who dominate the people and their livelihood oppose it. Therefore, thinking about change is dangerous for the one who thinks about it, and amongst all the types of thinking, it is the most fiercely attacked. Thinking about change, whether it is the changing of the souls of the individuals or their situation, or the changing of the societies or the changing of the situations of the people and nations or any other thing that requires change, it must start with the basis upon which man lives, and with the societies that are not established on a basis or established on a wrong basis, or with the situations that proceed aimlessly. This basis upon which life is established is that which elevates or declines it, which brings happiness or hardship to him and it is what originates the outlook towards life. According to this outlook man proceeds in the battlefield of life.
Firstly, this basis is examined. If it is a rational creed that complies with man's innate nature (fitrah), then this basis does not need changing. Nobody would ever have it occur to him, or have it come to his mind, the idea of changing this basis, because it is the basis upon which life is established. Change only occurs when the things are not correct and matters are not right, and the error is apparent to the mind or conspicuous to the feelings of the life energy of man. If the mind was decisively certain about the truthfulness of the thing and the correctness of the matter and the feelings (mashaa'ir) of the life energy (at-Taqah al- Hayawiyyah) were satisfied and pleased, then the idea of change would not exist at all, and there will be no need for thinking about change. However, if the basis upon which man lives, the society is established and in accordance to which the situations proceed, does not exist in origin, or it exists in a wrong way, then it would be useless to undertake thinking about changing anything else before changing the basis, i.e. before changing the creed which the people embrace. Therefore, Muslims, who enjoyed the rational creed that agrees with man's innate nature, should have made the change in the people who have no creeds, or have erroneous creeds, that are rejected by the mind and do not agree with man's innate nature. That is why it was obligatory upon them to carry the Islamic da'wah to all non-Muslim people, even if this lead to fighting, and to being involved in battles with the kuffar, i.e. with those who do not have the rational creed that agrees with man's innate nature(fitrah).So changing should start with the basis. Once the basis has been changed and replaced by the basis whose truthfulness and validity has been definitely established, then thinking about changing the societies and situations follows. Changing the societies and situations is achieved by changing the criteria, concepts and convictions. For when the true and correct basis exists it becomes the principle criterion for all other criteria, and the principal concept of all the concepts and the principal conviction of all the convictions. So once this basis existed, it becomes possible then to change the criterion, concepts and convictions, and subsequently to change the societies and situations. This is because by changing the basis, all the values change, whether the values of the things or the values of the thoughts, and hence the fundamentals of life change. Thus man should think about change or he should be made to think of change. Everybody who has a rational creed that agrees with man's nature has the potential to think about change, that is latently inside him, or by changing; such as when he actually carries out thinking about change during his immersion in the battlefield of life.
_________________________________
Further Reading
Changing Life's Perspective and Thinking
AdduOnline
their doors, and every lover is alone with his beloved, and here I am alone with Thee."
No comments:
Post a Comment