Democracy and Societal Values: Nursi's Evaluation of Social Ethics

By Thomas Michel

Said Nursi was not a political scientist, nor was he interested in carrying out a theoretical analysis of the nature of democracy, a term which hardly ever appears in the Risale-i Nur. His famous statement “I take refuge in God from the satan of politics” is an indication of the extreme skepticism with which he viewed political developments.

More than politics, what Nursi was interested in was society. Specifically, he was concerned with the values by which human societies are governed and the way that the prevailing political, economic, and social structures reflect and sustain those values. For Nursi, these are key questions that have to be answered by every nation, if their society is not to become a vehicle hurtling forward without direction or brakes.

Nursi recognizes that societal values are founded on the philosophical standards that people adopt. From their philosophical understanding of life in common they derive the values that are then instilled into society. Where do people look to find that philosophy of life? Is its source the postulates of human reason, or does it come from revealed information whose origin is outside and beyond human experience?

Nursi roots the divergent ethical systems in the recourse to what might be called a “materialist” or “spiritual” philosophy of life. This is an issue that goes beyond any specific religion. On the one hand, for example, a Muslim or Christian could follow a deeply religious way of life and adopt spiritual values which would inspire and direct that person’s involvement in society. The pious Muslim studies and learns guidance form the Qur’an; the Christian seeks to apply what he has found in the Bible. Through the study and meditation on God’s revealed message, a religious believer can compile a truly spiritual set of values by which he or she can live in the public sphere.

On the other hand, another person might identify himself as Muslim or Christian, but his societal values might derive entirely from a materialist understanding of the world. Despite that person’s claim to religious adherence, the way he lives in the world is actually determined by his adoption of a materialist philosophy. This is precisely what Nursi judges to have occurred in the course of European history. People who claimed to be Christians were in fact trying to create a social and political system on the basis of incompatible principles.

In many places in the Risale-i Nur, Nursi notes the divergence between the societal values proposed by modern civilization and the vision of society presented by the Qur’an. To Nursi the Qur’anic vision offers a set of values which should characterize a humane, just, and dignified society. This Qur’anic ethic differs only in details from what had been proposed by all the prophets before Muhammad, hence it is a vision that Muslims share with “true Christians” who are followers of the prophet Jesus. Jesus’ Christian followers sought to build European society on these prophetic values, but this effort was sabotaged from the beginning by their reliance on an alien philosophy, that of Greco-Roman thought (Words, 119-120, 379-382, 664-666.)

In the 18th-19th Centuries, by way of the naturalist and materialist philosophical systems proposed by the scholars of the Enlightenment, even the vestiges of prophetic teaching which remained in European civilization were attacked and abandoned. Thus, the Enlightenment philosophers set themselves the task of building “modern Europe” on principles of their own making. Modern Western civilization, according to Nursi, is the fruit of their labors. Since the principles on which they based the new civilization were the result of their human rational speculations which rejected the teaching of the prophets, modern civilization offers a very different set of values which should characterize social relations.

When Nursi looked at Turkish society of his day, he saw that the same process which had previously occurred in Europe was taking place in his own country. Adopting the notion that religion was an obstacle to progress, many in the Turkish Republic were attempting to replace religious values and way of life with ways of acting derived from modern Europe. Often these changes were justified in the name of democracy. Consequently, the proponents of this “democratic” revolution opposed the dissemination and study of the Risale-i Nur as well as other value systems based on revealed teaching.

In his defense in the Afyon court, Nursi pointed out the futility of the campaign to replace a religious outlook with one of secular modernity. “No sort of progress or civilization can take the place of religion, or righteousness, or the learning of the truths of belief in particular, which are the innate need of the people of this country, who for a thousand years have enlightened the world with their religion and heroically preserved their firmness of faith in the face of the assaults of the whole world” (Fourteenth Ray, p. 379). Nursi appealed to democratic and patriotic principles to defend himself against the treatment he and the students of the Risale-i Nur had received at the hands of state authorities. “Although the patriotic service they have performed for this country and its government has been greater than a police force of thousands, and is worthy of recognition and appreciation, it has been misinterpreted and we have been arrested, as though deliberately on behalf of some foreign power. Our work and businesses have gone to ruin and our wretched families and children have been left weeping and destitute. Which laws of democracy does this conform to? Which just decisions of which just judges?” (Fourteenth Ray, p. 562).

Those who promote modern values claim that they are simply interested in providing a good life for the majority of the people. However, when this concept of “the good life” is examined carefully, it becomes clear that it is a “deceptive fantasy” (Thirteenth Word, p. 167). The concept is usually limited to providing for bodily needs, based on the supposition that if people have food in their bellies, a roof over their heads, and access to medical treatment, they have achieved “the good life.”

To Nursi, this is a short-sighted understanding of the true needs of humankind. A person also has spiritual needs, which cannot be met by modern facilities. Concentrating on the limited goals of the good life ultimately reduces man to a tame animal, a well-fed, well-cared for pampered pet, but an animal nevertheless. Nursi writes: “O foolish friend! Do you suppose your life’s duty is restricted to following the good life according to the requisites of civilization and to gratifying the physical appetites? Do you suppose the sole aim of the delicate and subtle senses, the sensitive faculties and members, the well-ordered limbs, the inquisitive feelings and senses that make up your life is restricted to satisfying the low desires of the base soul in this fleeting life?” (Eleventh Word, p. 139.)

The basic problem, according to Nursi, is that modern civilization has clouded people’s minds so that they are unable to see the value of the life of the spirit. Modern societies focus on the immediate, temporal, and ephemeral, and find it difficult to see beyond immediate gratifications to questions of eternal importance. “At this time, due to the domination of European civilization and the supremacy of natural philosophy and the preponderance of the conditions of worldly life, minds and hearts have become scattered, and endeavor and favor divided. People’s minds have become strangers to non-material matters” (Twenty-seventh Word, p. 496.) Instead of seeking the truly good life intended by God for people, men and women are caught up in a rat race of seeking wealth, prestige, and political power in the mistaken fantasy that these things will bring them happiness.

The psychological toll of modernity is high, and people can become frozen into inactivity. Modern man, “since his thought is submerged in philosophy, his mind plunged in politics, and his heart is giddy at the life of this world,” is unable to evaluate seriously questions of eternal weight. He becomes dulled to reality and unable to take serious decisions and exercise his creativity in a positive direction. “Through philosophical investigation and natural science, and the seductive amusements of dissolute civilization and its intoxicated passions, sick philosophy has both increased the world’s frozen state and inaction, and made denser heedlessness, and increased its opaqueness and turbidity, and caused the Maker and the hereafter to be forgotten” (Twenty-fifth Word, p. 451).

By contrast, Nursi holds that the teaching of the Qur’an “gives the world a transparency and removes its turbidity.” Nursi insists on drawing the contrast between the values of materialist societies and those based on divine guidance. He points to five characteristics of “modernity” which are destructive of human relations, rather than enhancing them, as do religious values. Firstly, modern civilization relies on force rather than reasoning or persuasion, and it is thus characterized by aggression. Secondly, modern values are oriented toward self-interest and characterized by selfish competition. Thirdly, modernity is based on the principle of conflict and characterized by constant strife. In modern life, what links people one to another are ethnic and nationalist bonds, which are marked by judging others to be enemies. Finally, the immediate motivation for action is immediate gratification (Seeds of Reality, aphorism 61).

These five principles, which have an immediate bearing upon Nursi’s evaluation of democracy, can be summarized as follows: 1) might makes right, 2) self-interest and competitive edge, 3) the law of the jungle, every man for himself, 4) ethnic and nationalistic chauvinism, 5) I can do and have what I want. To these principles Nursi sees as both destructive of human relations and self-destructive of the individual human person. To these “modern” values Nursi contrasts the teaching of the Qur’an, which is based on truth rather than force, goodness rather than greed, service rather than selfishness, unity rather than racism and nationalism, sound guidance rather than hedonism.

What does all this have to do with democracy? As I mentioned at the beginning, Nursi did not write a treatise on the principles of democracy. No one could claim that Nursi was opposed to the notion of democracy and in the early years of his life, before he turned away from public issues, he was much involved in the life of the early years of the Republic. However, the principles by which he judged democracy were those elucidated in the Risale-i Nur.

If democracy can be seen to be compatible with the values found in Divine guidance, it can be an effective way to provide for people’s material needs. But when democracy gets manipulated on materialist principles to become an instrument for forcing the will of some on others, of seeking to satisfy self-interest, competition, and greed, and of attempting to establish racial or national superiority over others, Nursi is the first to criticize and condemn.