Method is a technique or process of or for doing something. It implies an orderly logical arrangement usually in steps of doing an action. It differs from one action to another. True, methods may resemble one another, and one method may be useful in several actions, but when we think of method we must think of the type of action for which we exploit that method. This is because resemblance between one method and another may mislead us as to which method is the most efficient one for a definite action. For instance, the method of propagandizing for a specific notion resembles the method of preaching that notion, because each of them depends on the exposition of the notion to the people. But this resemblance may mislead both the Da’ee and the propagandist, because if the method of propaganda is used in place of the method of preaching, it will eventually fail; and if the method of preaching is used in place of the method of propaganda, it will make propaganda fail too. This is due to the fact that the method of preaching rests on the explanation of the notion as it is, while the method of propaganda depends on it’s adornment. Another example; the method of the governor’s appointment in the democratic system and of making the people elect him, is useful in the governor’s nomination is the Islamic system and in making the people elect him as well. But to adopt the method of nominating the Muslim’s Khalif, we must think of the nature of the government in the Islamic system, and take into account that it is based on the nomination of a permanent governor, not on the nomination of a governor for a limited period of time, as the case is in the democratic system. Therefore, we must think of the type of government in the Islamic system when we think of sketching the method of the Khalif’s nomination. Hence, we introduce a condition into this system which restricts candidature to those who are qualified for the Khalif’s position. Then, we ask the people to choose whoever they want of those candidates only. Lastly, all the people are asked to confer Bay’a on the one whom the majority consents to. True, Bay’a is a way of nominating the Khalif, not a method; but the way of performing Bay’a is a method nevertheless. Therefore, it is insufficient that the method be useful in the new action as it was so in other actions. But to determine a method for an action we must think of action and method at the same time.

Method indicates the way of shaping the operation, or the way of usage and application of an action. A method is opposed to the way which is permanent. A way does not change at all and does not need a creative mind to use it, because it is ultimate in that it is authentic or of authentic origin. But method may fail when it is used to perform an action; it may change and it needs a creative mind to use it. As a result, thinking method is far loftier than thinking of a way, because a way may be derived by a creative mind, and yet may be used by an ordinary mind. But to construct a method a genius mind is needed, although it’s application may be carried out by an ordinary mind.

For this case, men vary in problem solving. In other words, they use different methods. One may attempt to solve a problem, and when it appears to be difficult to solve, he may escape from confronting it, declare his inability to solve it, or think that it is insoluble. But one who possesses the mentality of problem solving does not leave a problem without a solution. If a problem becomes difficult, he changes the method he has used, or he may use several methods. If the latter fail to operate, he does not flee from the problem, nor odes he declare his inability to solve it. He does not run into despair nor gives up. Instead, he remains patient and leaves the problem for a later time. Or he leaves it, as they say, to time. Then, he tries to solve it again and again until it is solved. Therefore one who has the mentality of problem solving has no problem which he has no solution to. To him every problem is solvable because he relies on his ability to find the methods which solve intricate problems. For this cause, thinking of methods is one of the qualities of creative minds, and problem solving depends on this activity.

Likewise, thinking of means is similar to thinking of methods. The former consists in thinking of the material devices and instruments which are used to perform an action. Therefore, if thinking of method is what solves a problem, it is certain that method is of no avail if it employs the wrong means, namely means which do not lead to the solution of the problem. But to know the method one has to try out the means. Hence, a thinker of method must be a thinker of means too. Otherwise all methods shall fail if the wrong means are used. For example, making the plan for fighting the enemy is a method. Thus, if devising the plan of confrontation is one hundred percent correct, but the weapons used are less efficient than those of the enemy, there is no doubt that the plan is a failure, even if the fighters against the enemy are stronger and even double in number. The plan is a failure because, as it is worked out for war it is a method, and men and weapons are means to carry it out. So if thinking of method is not accompanied by thinking of means, or if improper means are used to carry out a method, then thinking of method will be useless. Therefore, it is unsound to think of means without thinking of proper method, and it is equally unsound to think of method except in light of the proper means. But even though methods may be unknown to a thinker, means are more so because it is enough that methods are thought of in order to be determined, but means must necessarily be thought of and tried so that this attempt will determine their fitness or unfitness for the method. For example, non-industrial states purchase their weapons from industrial states and yet their armies trained in these weapons by the experts of the industrial states themselves. But if they do not try these weapons and check their soldiers training, these countries are not said to have chosen the proper means which are in accord with the proper plans. To be proper the means should be tried.

For example, let us assume that a political bloc is formed, adopting a certain notion in order to spread it among the people so that is can later on take the rule over and carry out that notion.

If this bloc is formed of scholars and men of influence, it will fail to achieve it’s goal, because if it succeeds through scholars in spreading the notion, it will fail in taking the rule over, and if it succeeds through men of influence in taking the rule over, the rule will not be built on the notion and the latter will not be built among the people. Again, forming the majority of the bloc from one party or from both parties, will curtail the bloc’s life span. Thus it will fail and move along the path of ruin until it passes away. But if facts of history are taken into consideration, and the proper means are devised, the bloc will spread the notion and make the rule the channel through which the notion is carried out, expose the notion to the people and accept anyone who accepts it, regardless of his degree of education of social rank. This alone is what guarantees the bloc’s success and realization of it’s goal.