|
By Thomas Michel
1. A methodological problem The topic assigned to me is that of Said Nursi’s view of tolerance, engagement with the other, and the future of dialogue. There is no doubt that Nursi had much to say on these points, which are of great relevance to our world today, but first I must begin by stating a methodological problem. Terms come into vogue at certain times in history and gradually take on accepted meanings which, as the exchange of views continues to progress, undergo their own evolution and take on greater clarity and precision. Although a term comes into popular or academic usage at a certain given historical period, this does not mean that the concept itself is new. The idea may have been discussed in previous ages, but other terms were used to describe it. The above-mentioned terms of tolerance, engagement with the other, and future of dialogue are good examples of this. In the years when Said Nursi was writing the Risale-i Nur, terms such as the other, and future of dialogue were not part of everyday speech. Since Said Nursi was writing his immense commentary on the Qur'an not as an academic exercise but as a practical guide for ordinary believing Muslims who were seeking to live their Islamic faith in the context of rapidly modernizing societies, it is not surprising that unfamiliar terms such as dialogue and the other appear but rarely in the Risale-i Nur. Hence, our task is to discover Nursi's views and advice on what today we call tolerance and dialogue, although Said Nursi may have couched his ideas in the popularly accepted terminology of the day.
2. God’s dialogue with humankind according to the Risale-i Nur On the few occasions when Nursi speaks explicitly of dialogue, he is first of all thinking of the way that God communicates His message to humankind. Dialogue is seen as an aspect or style of God’s revelation and finds its most perfect expression in the Qur’an. When God reveals His word through the prophets, God is engaging humans in a process of discovery whereby they learn what they would not otherwise know and, in revealing His word to humans, God elicits a response on part of the person who studies the Qur’an. This dialogical nature of the Qur’an is, for Nursi, an sign of the miraculous nature of the Qur’an. The value, superiority, and eloquence of a speech or word is apparent through knowing, from whom it has come and to whom, and for what purpose. The Qur'an then can have no like, and none can reach it. For the Qur’an is the speech and address of the Sustainer of all the worlds and Creator of the whole universe and a dialogue in no way hinting of imitation and artificiality.[1] Thus, the concept of dialogue is primarily meant to form and shape the approach of Muslims to the Sacred Book. The Qur’an is not a dry, ancient text to be preserved and honored, nor is it a list of regulations to be blindly followed, but rather a living conversation with the sovereign Creator who teaches people what they did not know about the works of his own creation. As Nursi says: The Qur’an is a dialogue with no imitation... It describes and explains the matters concerning happiness in this world and the next, the results of the creation of the universe, and the sovereign purposes within it. It expounds also the belief of the one it addresses, which was the highest and most extensive of belief and bore all the truths of Islam. It turns and shows every side of the huge universe like a map, a clock, or a house, and teaches and describes it in the manner of the craftsman who made them.[2] The idea of God in ongoing dialogue with humankind is not limited to the nature of the Qur’an as revealed Scripture. For Nursi, dialogue is a constant aspect of God’s creative activity, an idea he expresses in a beautiful passage written near the end of his life. In reflections inspired by his old age and the nearness of death,[3] he turns to the Light Verse in the Qur’an (24: 35) for guidance, and then catalogues the wonders of creation, which he sees as signs or manifestations of the loving and compassionate nature of God. He sees God as a skilled architect who designs a palatial structure to reflect his own admirable qualities and aesthetic sense. One who sees the exhibition of wonders and beauties of the magnificent palace of this world, that is, the universe, will realize that the palace is a mirror, decorated the way it is in order to show the beauties and perfections of another. Since there is nothing similar to the palace of the world from which its beauties could have been imitated and copied, certainly its Maker possesses the necessary beauties in himself and in his Names. It is from these that the universe is derived and according to them that it was made.[4] The skill which the Divine architect employs to beautify the palace of the natural universe is surpassed only by what He has bestowed on His creatures who are able to possess a conscious awareness of the Creator. God has blessed human beings, men and women, with an ability to know God and has invited humans to respond freely to God’s gifts. He has called people to relate to God as His friends and to establish a dialogue with the Creator. It is friendship and dialogue with God which should thus characterize the human religious experience. God speaks and teaches, but also listens and responds to prayers. In order to please conscious creatures [humankind] and make them happy and friends of Himself, He has bestowed every sort of delightful bounty from unexpected places in a way it is impossible to attribute to chance. Also to be observed are His generous treatment, his establishing a relationship of mutual acquaintance and friendly dialogue with a readiness to speak and a compassionate response to supplication which make [God’s] profound compassion and elevated mercy able to be perceived.[5]
3. Pope Paul VI on a the dialogue of salvation As a Christian, I would like to pause for a moment and reflect on Nursi’s understanding of creation as a dialogue of God with humankind, in the light of my Christian faith as enunciated by the late Pope Paul VI. Writing in 1964, only four years after the death of Said Nursi, hence less than a decade after Bediüzzaman wrote the above words, Pope Paul VI, in his encyclical Ecclesiam Suam, elaborated on the idea of human history as a dialogue of salvation initiated by God with men and women. Many of the phrases used by the Pope show the correspondence of thought between these two men. The noble origin of this dialogue is in the mind of God Himself. Religion of its very nature is a certain relationship between God and man. It finds its expression in prayer; and prayer is a dialogue. Revelation, too, that supernatural link which God has established with man, can likewise be looked upon as a dialogue... God tells us how He wishes to be known: as Love pure and simple; and how He wishes to be honored and served: His supreme commandment is love. Both child and mystic are called to take part in this unfailing, trustful dialogue, and the mystic finds there the fullest scope for his spiritual powers.[6] God Himself took the initiative in the dialogue of salvation. God has first loved us. We, therefore, must be the first to ask for a dialogue with men, without waiting to be summoned to it by others.[7] Our dialogue should be as universal as we can make it,... relevant to everyone, excluding only those who utterly reject it or only pretend to be willing to accept it.[8] Our dialogue must take cognizance of the slowness of human and historical development and wait for the hour when God may make it effective. We should not on that account postpone until tomorrow what we can accomplish today. We should be eager for the opportune moment and sense the preciousness of time.[9]
4. Dialogue in Nursi’s life and thought Paul VI’s view that, since God has invited humans to enter into a dialogue of salvation, religious believers must be the first to seek dialogue with others, without waiting to be summoned to it by others, would provide a good description both of Said Nursi’s life as well as the thought of the Risale-i Nur. Although by nature attracted to solitude and silent reflection, Nursi’s life shows him in constant dialogue with Muslim scholars of various points of view, with secular authorities and ideologues, with ordinary people who posed questions to him on countless topics, even with his jailers, magistrates and others who oppressed him. Particularly toward the end of his life, he took the initiative to seek dialogue with committed Christians and Jews. A glance at Said Nursi’s biography gives evidence of a life characterized by repeated dialogue. His early education grew out of a fascination with intellectual interchange. Whenever the opportunity arose, and especially in the long winter evenings, Said would go and listen to any discussions being held by students and teachers of the medreses, that is, the religious schools, or by religious figures. These discussions, often about the famous scholars, saints, and spiritual leaders of the past, usually took the form of contest and debate [10] (p. 4). His discussions were not limited to religious topics, but included philosophy and the natural sciences. On one occasion a debate with a teacher led him to memorize a geography book, and on a second occasion, he is said to have mastered the principles of inorganic chemistry in five days (p. 24). It was, however, questions of religion that most stimulated his desire for dialogue with men of differing points of view, first at the Van residence of the Governor, Tahir Pasha (p. 28), later at the Fatih medrese (p. 40), then with schoolteachers on the train to Skopje (p. 107), and much later with court officials in Afyon (p. 285). As Mardin points out, Said Nursi’s dissatisfaction with the medrese system, with its emphasis on rote memorization and its discouragement of intellectual speculation, led him to develop his thought in ongoing interaction and disputation with a wide variety of religious and political viewpoints.[11] As much as his life gives evidence of an approach to knowledge based on the give-and-take of intellectual interchange, it is the thoughts on dialogue enunciated in the Risale-i Nur that are of primary interest today. For Nursi, dialogue is to be a typical mark that characterizes Islamic society. For Muslims who are convinced of the revealed message received from the Creator, all elements of social intercourse are to be employed in the pursuit of truth. This was the case already in the earliest period of Islamic history. He states: At the time of the first generations of Islam and in the marketplace of that age, deducing from the Word of the Creator His wishes and what He wants of us were the most sought-after goods, the way to gain through the light of prophethood and the Qur’an eternal happiness in the world of the hereafter...At that time, since people’s minds, hearts and spirits were directed with all their strength towards understanding the wishes of the Sustainer of the Heavens and the Earth, the discussions, conversations, events, and circumstances of social life all looked to that. Since they occurred in accordance with those wishes, in a person of high ability, his heart and nature unconsciously received instruction in knowledge of God from everything. He received knowledge from the circumstances, events, and discussions which took place at that time. As though everything became a teacher for such a person, and inculcated in his nature and disposition the preparatory knowledge for independent judgments.[12] Nursi laments, however, that in modern times, this kind of dialogue, while no less necessary, has become a greater challenge. Modern people are too often cut off from the life of the spirit and their attentions scattered in many directions. Interreligious dialogue presumes that all those involved are serious in their desire to understand the will and commands of the Creator, yet modern people are frequently alienated from the Source of true knowledge. 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 endeavour and favour divided. Minds have become strangers to non-material matters.[13] The concerns of dialogue in the form of good communication determine Nursi’s approach to theological discourse. He is impatient and critical with those whose goal in discussion is simply to impress others with their cleverness and erudition or to claim for themselves positions of pre-eminence.[14] Sincere dialogue should follow the pattern of divine revelation, which takes into account the knowledge, background and presuppositions of the hearer. God knows and regulates the thoughts of the heart, and through an exposition of this sort, transforms that simple and unlettered level of discussion which takes into account the minds of ordinary people into an elevated, attractive, and general conversation for the purpose of guidance.[15] Thus, in elaborating the ideas of the Risale-i Nur, Nursi adopts a simple and common language in a straightforward style, [16] rather than an erudition aimed at impressing the reader. This concern to adapt one’s discourse to the needs of one’s partner in dialogue Nursi sees as the model followed in Muhammad’s preaching as reported in the Qur’an. As for the Medinan Suras and verses, since the first line of those they were addressing, those who opposed them, were the People of the Book, such as the Jews and Christians who affirmed God’s existence, what was required by eloquence and guidance and for the discussion to correspond to the situation, was not explanation of the high principles of religion and pillars of belief in a simple, clear, and detailed style, but the explanation of particular matters of the shari’a and its injunctions, which were the cause of dispute, and the origins and causes of secondary matters and general laws. Thus, in the Medinan Suras and verses, through explanations in a detailed, clear, simple style, in the matchless manner of exposition peculiar to the Qur’an, it mostly mentions within those particular secondary matters, a powerful and elevated summary; a conclusion and proof, a sentence relating to Divine unity, belief, or the hereafter which makes the particular matter of the shari’a universal and ensures that it conforms to belief in God.[17] Nursi has something important to say on the limits of dialogue. In dialogue, one cannot prove matters of faith to one who does not believe. One can strive to explain clearly what faith teaches and to show how that faith is a blessing from God, but it is not possible to demonstrate aspects of religious teaching to one who does not profess any religious faith. Speaking in the context of the Night Journey and Ascension of Muhammad, Said Nursi has this to say: The Ascension is a question that results from the essentials and pillars of belief and follows upon them...The Ascension cannot be proved independently to irreligious atheists who do not accept the pillars of belief, because it cannot be discussed with those who neither know God, nor recognize the Prophet, nor accept the angels, and who deny the existence of the heavens. Firstly those pillars must be proved. Since this is the case, we shall address the discussion to a believer who, since he considers it unlikely, has misgivings about the Ascension...However, from time to time we shall take into account the atheist who is the position of listener and shall set forth the matter to him.[18] Said Nursi mentions a second important limit to dialogue. One must not dispute about questions of belief. Since religious faith comes from God, the elements of faith held by each believer are holy. They are matters that touch directly upon the believer’s relationship with God and, as such, should not be submitted to the same kind of disputation that is common in political or economic affairs. It is permissible to discuss questions of faith with the proper respect and reverence, but people should not get into arguments about them as they would over worldly matters. At one point, some disciples asked Said Nursi questions in an argumentative fashion and tried to draw him into a dispute. Nursi refused to get involved in the dispute, but some days later, when tempers died down, he prepared a thoughtful response to the questions submitted to him and advised his hearers to consider his views, not as they would read a newspaper article, but as the sharing of one believer to another. You asked me a question that night and I did not reply, for it is not permissible to argue over questions of belief. Your discussion of them was in the form of a dispute. Now I am writing very brief replies to your three questions which were the basis of your dispute. You will find the details in The Words...It did not occur to me to mention the Twenty-Sixth Word, about divine determining and man’s faculty of will. Look at that too, but do not read it like a newspaper.[19]
5. Dialogue between Muslims and Christians At the Fourth International Symposium on Bediüzzaman Said Nursi, held in Istanbul in September, 1988, I gave a paper entitled Muslim-Christian Dialogue and Cooperation in the Thought of Bediuzzaman Said Nursi [20], which treated this topic. I will not repeat what I said in that paper, but would like to note several points which I believe to be relevant to the need for interreligious dialogue in the world situation at the present time. Very early on in his career, Nursi stressed the need to distinguish, on the one hand, between sincere, believing Christians and, on the other, Western civilization, which Nursi saw as A Christian in name, but non-religious and materialist in reality. Time and again in the Risale-i Nur, Nursi affirmed that the enemy of the Muslims was not all Christians; rather, true Muslims and true Christians must see one another as allies in confronting the true danger to human society, that is, the refusal to believe in God and to respond to God in faith. If Muslims and Christians are together to work to uphold the principles of faith in the modern world, they must move beyond ancient polemical debates and inimical attitudes toward each other and put aside, least for the time being, discussion of issues that divide the followers of the two religions. Nursi emphasizes that this is not simply his own opinion, but part of the Islamic heritage rooted in the sound hadiths from the Prophet. He states: It is recorded in authentic traditions of the Prophet that at the end of time, the truly pious among the Christians will unite with the People of the Qur’an and fight their common foe, irreligion. At this time, too, the people of religion and truth need to unite sincerely not only with their own brothers and fellow believers, but also with the truly pious and spiritual Christians, [and refrain] temporarily from the discussion and debate of points of difference, in order to combat their common enemy - aggressive atheism.[21] It is interesting that this passage was added by Nursi as a footnote to his Nine Rules for acting with sincerity. Because of the relevance of these rules for understanding Nursi’s view of dialogue, I include them here: 1. To act positively out of love for one’s own outlook, but avoiding enmity for other views, not criticizing them, not interfering in their beliefs and sciences or in any way meddling in their affairs. 2. To make unity within the fold of Islam, irrespective of particular outlook, remembering those numerous ties of unity that evoke love, brotherhood and concord. 3. To adopt the just rule of conduct: the follower of any right outlook has the right to say, My view is correct, or the best, but not that My view alone is true, or that My view alone is good, thus implying the falsity or repugnance of all other views. 4. To consider that union with the people of truth is a cause of Divine favor and the high dignity of religion, [i.e., God will bless those who work for unity]. 5. To realize that through the union of the people of truth, the attacks of the followers of misguidance and falsehood will inevitably be defeated, [i.e., truth will win out in the end]. 6. To preserve truth from the assaults of falsehood, [i.e., the jihad of the word or the pen]. 7. To abandon the self and egoism, 8. To give up the mistaken concept of self-pride, 9. And to get rid of all petty feelings of rivalry.[22] In these nine rules, Nursi is primarily concerned with showing how through the practice of sincerity, the unity of the Islamic umma can be built up and preserved. Differing points of view need not cause division, factions, and enmity within the community. If each Muslim is willing to admit that others also have part of the truth, even when they disagree with one’s personal view, unity can be maintained despite differences of opinion. One might say that Nursi’s understanding of a positive tolerance towards others and differing views is summed up in these nine rules of sincerity. By adding the above-mentioned hadith at the end of the nine rules, he notes that these principles indicate not only the way that Muslims should relate to one another but also imply how Muslims should act towards sincere and pious Christians - and, I might add, point out the way that Christians should act towards sincere and pious Muslims. One point needs to be clarified, that is, Said Nursi’s view of aggressive unbelief as the most dangerous enemy of modern man. Nursi is not trying to turn back the clock, to return to some traditional way of life based on a nostalgia for the past. He recognized that there is much good in modern civilization, whose origins he locates in the prophetic tradition which has influenced the development of society. However, there is also a negative current in modern life that, if followed, will alienate modern people from their roots in the teachings of the prophets, will alienate them, in fact, from their own true nature. This negative tendency can be called a radical secularism that either denies God directly or, more often, simply ignores God’s prophetic message and pushes religion to the margins of social life.[23] Against this destructive ideology, which can reduce modern people to becoming pleasure-seeking consumers, pious, believing Muslims and Christians must together struggle against. I would like to draw a final point out of Nursi’s view of Muslims, Christians, and Jews in modern pluralist societies. Dialogue must characterize the way that religious groups live together in every place, and it makes no difference who is governing and who is governed. Said Nursi is not in favor of religiously segregated societies, but advocates societies in which each individual and religious community has an inalienable right to their proper freedom. This right is one which must be respected by governments and is limited only by people’s willingness to abide by and contribute to societal harmony. He adds that those who study the Risale-i Nur are restrained thereby from causing trouble and dissension in society. There were Muslims under Zoroastrian rule and Jews and Christians under the Islamic government of the Caliph Umar. All those who do not cause trouble to the government or disturb public order have personal freedom, and this may not be curtailed. Governments look to the hand and not to the heart. Without doubt, no one can attack me and my brothers [students of the Risale-i Nur] on grounds of governmental wisdom, the laws of politics, and principles of justice. If they do, it is due to misunderstanding or out of hatred or obduracy.[24]
6. Conclusion: The true meaning of tolerance It should be obvious from the above that what Nursi is advocating is tolerance in human relations, not only towards students of the Risale-i Nur and other Muslims, but towards Christians and other believers whose outlook is different. Tolerance is an ambiguous term, and because of this ambiguity, some prefer to avoid it. Tolerance can mean putting up with someone even though one would wish to be rid of them. This kind of tolerance, of gritting one’s teeth and suppressing one’s anger, is no virtue. This is not what Nursi means by tolerance. He sees tolerance as a loving acceptance of the other despite that person’s failings and differences. In this sense, tolerance means letting the other be himself and not trying to make him like one’s own self. It means recognizing that it is in the nature of persons to err and fail and that we should not judge other’s failures more harshly that the merciful and compassionate God would do. In the Risale-i Nur, Nursi frequently asks his brothers to look fairly and with tolerance at any of his faults, mistakes, or shortcomings.[25] He asks them to correct him when they are able and to pray for his forgiveness.[26] He is not asking them merely to put up with him, but to accept him as a brother who, like them, is not perfect. This kind of tolerance which Nursi taught is much needed in our world today.
FOOTNOTES [1] Risale-i Nur, The Words, Twenty-fifth Word, First Addendum, p. 463. [2] The Rays, The Supreme Sign, First Chapter, p. 161. [3] The Rays, p. 83. [4] The Rays, p. 88. [5] The Rays, p. 89. [6] Pope Paul VI, Ecclesiam Suam, Vatican City, 1964, par. 70. [7] Ibid., par. 72. [8] Ibid., par. 76. [9] Ibid., par. 77. [10] Said Nursi, Bediüzzaman Said Nursi: the Author of the Risale-i Nur, translated from Turkish by Sukran Vahide, p. 4. [11] Serif Mardin, Religion and Social Change in Modern Turkey: the Case of Bediüzzaman Said Nursi, SUNY, 1989, pp. 68-69. [12] Risale-i Nur, The Words, Twenty-seventh Word, pp. 495-496. [13] The Words, p. 496. [14] The Words, Twenty-seventh Word, Addendum, p. 511. [15] The Rays, The Fruits of Belief, p. 268; cf. also The Words, A Flower of Emirdag, p. 470. [16] The Words, Tenth Word, p. 59. [17] The Words, A Flower of Emirdag, p. 469. [18] The Words, p. 583. [19] The Letters, Twelfth Letter, p. 61. [20] Thomas Michel, S.J., Muslim-Christian Dialogue and Cooperation in the Thought of Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, in Three Papers from the Fourth International Symposium on Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, Istanbul, 1998 [21] The Flashes, The Twentieth Flash, On Sincerity, p. 203. [22] Ibid. [23] The Flashes, The Seventeenth Flash, Fifth Note, p. 160. [24] The Rays, The Fourteenth Ray, p. 380; cf. also p. 398, 444. [25] The Words, Twenty-fifth Word, p. 375; [26] The Words, Thirty-Third Word, p. 723. |