|
By Thomas Michel
1. Elements of goodness in other religions In a sense, the title of my paper is somewhat anachronistic. One would look in vain through the Risale-i Nur for any reference to a “dialogue” among the various religions. The term “dialogue of religions” did not come into current usage until after Said Nursi’s death in 1960. So it is not the precise term that we should look for in the Risale-i Nur; rather, we must try to discover whether Said Nursi believed that Jews, Christians, and Muslims had anything positive to say to one another and whether he felt that there was any basis for their cooperating in the world. If Nursi’s notion had been simply that Jews and Christians were irreconcilable enemies of Muslims, to be opposed by pen and sword, there of course could be no possibility of real dialogue among them. Similarly, if he believed that the teachings of the three “heavenly” religions, as he called them, were so different and contradictory that no meaningful encounter was possible, if he considered the earlier religions as being wholly corrupt and devoid of any holiness, truth, and goodness, he could not be said to advocate a dialogue of religions. However, as I hope to show in this paper, Nursi does regard the other religions as possessing elements of holiness, truth, and goodness, which are the bases for a real conversation and cooperation among the followers of all three religions. In this paper I am limiting myself to Said Nursi’s views about the possibility of dialogue with Christians and Jews. In the Risale-i Nur, Nursi was not writing a theoretical treatise on whether Muslims should be involved in dialogue with Buddhists, Hindus and the followers of other religions; the Risale is written as practical information and advice aimed at forming devout Muslims and answering the questions of the day. The non-Muslims encountered by the students of the Risale-i Nur were Jews and Christians, so it is the relationship of Muslims to these that is addressed.
2. The universality of worship of God The followers of other religions worship God, each in their own way. The fact that not only does the inanimate world worship the one God by performing its various natural functions, but also that the various religious groups seek to do God’s will as they understand it, is an argument, according to Nursi, for the existence of the One God. If there is “a kind of” real worship found among the followers of the various religions, it follows that there is a kind of spirituality and holiness present in them. Nursi explains: The involvement of each group of men in a mode of worship dictated by their innate dispositions, the species of worship engaged in by other animate beings, as well as inanimate beings, through the performance of their essential functions, the way in which all material and immaterial bounties and gifts in the cosmos become means inciting men to worship and thanks, to praise and gratitude; the fashion in which all the manifestations of the unseen and epiphanies of the spirit, revelation and inspiration, unanimously proclaim the exclusive fitness of one God to receive worship – all of this in most evidential fashion, proves the reality and dominance of a single and absolute Divinity.1 In noting “the fashion in which all the manifestations of the unseen and epiphanies of the spirit, revelation and inspiration unanimously proclaim the exclusive fitness of one God to receive worship,”2 Nursi invites Muslims to explore the ways in which the One God might be active also in other religions. Such theological investigations could form the basis of an “Islamic theology of religions.”
3. Common values and teachings Nursi holds that the points of commonality held among the followers of the Heavenly Religions are an argument in favor of the truth of those jointly-shared teachings. In this way, the beliefs of the various religions reinforce and confirm one another. In the Risale-i Nur, he speaks of a “general belief” (itikad-ı umumî) made up of those elements of faith shared by Jews, Christians, and Muslims and argues that this general belief must come from the revelation of one and the same God. An example of this general belief is the common acceptance of spiritual beings by the followers of all three religions. Regarding the reality of angels and spiritual beings, Nursi notes: Have you not seen and heard that all the scholars of the revealed religions throughout the ages from the time of Adam until now have agreed on the existence of angels and the reality of spiritual beings? The different groups of mankind [Jews, Christians, Muslims] have concurred in having seen and conversed with angels; in their narrations concerning them, it is as though they were discussing and narrating events about one another. Do you think that if not a single angel had ever been seen, and the existence of one or more not established through observation and their existence clearly perceived, that it would have been possible for such agreement and consensus to continue persistently and unanimously, based on observation, in such an affirmative and positive manner?3 Nursi goes on to point out that the source of these common beliefs can only come from God. The very agreement among Jews, Christians, and Muslims on specific articles of faith is itself an argument in favor of the revealed nature of these truths. Could all three religions be wrong on points on which they all agree? In this insight of Nursi’s, can we not see a valid purpose of interreligious dialogue, one of confirming one another’s faith by recognizing the elements professed by all three religions? Nursi makes his point as follows: Is it possible that a baseless delusion should persist and become permanent in all the beliefs of mankind throughout all the revolutions it has undergone? And is it possible that the basis of the assertion of these scholars of the religions, of this mighty consensus, should not bear a certain intuition and empirical certainty? And is it at all possible that that the intuition and empirical certainty which result from innumerable signs, and those signs which have been observed on numerous occasions, and those numerous observations should not all, without doubt or hesitation, be founded on necessary principles? In which case, the cause and the basis of the assertion of the universal belief held by these scholars are the necessary and categorical principles resulting from the great number of times the angels and spirit beings have been observed and seen, all of which demonstrates the strength of the consensus.4
4. The possibility of friendship On the basis that there are genuine elements of holiness and goodness in the other religions, Nursi holds that it is proper for Muslims to befriend and love their neighbors of the Peoples of the Book. Challenged that this was against the teaching of the Qur’an, Nursi showed that the Qur’an presumes that Muslims can love Christians and Jews, and gives as example that of a Muslim man married to a woman from one of these communities. “Of course he should love her,”5 states Nursi. Nursi lived according to his word and admits that he had Christian friends, even in the most tragic of circumstances. When Nursi visited Van after the destruction of the city in the Russian invasion, he wept without distinction for both the Christian and Muslim victims, who had been his “friends and acquaintances.” “Most of the people of those houses had been my friends and acquaintances. The majority of them had died in the migrations – may God have mercy on them, or had done into wretched exile. Apart from the Armenian quarter, all the Muslim houses of Van had been leveled.”6
5. The two sides of Europe If Nursi accepts that there are elements of goodness and truth in the earlier heavenly religions, and that Muslims can have friends with those of the other communities, what is it in modern life that should drive Muslims and People of the Book into dialogue and cooperation? Nursi acknowledges that modern civilization is not all bad. He states that there are many good qualities to be found in modern Western civilization that derive “from the guidance of the Qur’an, especially, and from the preceding revealed religions.”7
However, in Nursi’s view, these positive virtues that are beneficial for humankind are outweighed by a number of negative values that modern civilization has adopted from non-religious and anti-religious philosophies. He says that European civilization has two sides. One current has worked to establish justice and to develop scientific thought for the benefit of society. In this it has been inspired by the teachings of true Christianity. The second current, rejecting Europe’s Christian heritage, has pursued various atheistic and materialistic philosophies to produce a selfish, impoverished, self-destructive civilization. Since the divine and humane values beneficial to humanity are taught not only by the Qur’an, but also by “the preceding revealed religions,” such values form the basis for dialogue and cooperation between the followers of the “revealed religions” of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Taking Nursi’s lead in the Risale-i Nur, one can conclude that dialogue among Jews, Christians, and Muslims is both a legitimate activity and an important tool for the religions to carry out their reason for existence in today’s world.
6. Dialogue on societal values In proposing constructive relations between the followers of the revealed religions, Nursi is not content to state a general principle; instead, he gives concrete examples of societal values on which dialogue is needed. Noting that many of the standards taught by the heavenly religions challenge the assumptions of modern societies, he tries to point out specific contrasts between divinely revealed values and those devised by human caprice. According to Nursi, there is a need for the various adherents to religious faith today to share their views and insights on these and similar topics, so that together they can offer to secular society the wisdom contained in revealed truth.
In suggesting that there be a correspondence and cooperation among the followers of the “heavenly religions,” Nursi was proposing, long before other religious leaders were speaking about interfaith dialogue, a platform on which interreligious encounter needs to take place. Dialogue among the true followers of the various religions should focus on questions of the values by which societies are to be guided.
force vs. truth, 1. Force vs. truth. According to Nursi, there is an innate tendency in modern societies for people to resort to force to obtain what they want and to make their will prevail over their opponents. This willingness to regard human life as expendable and to consider it acceptable to force others to accept one’s beliefs and preferences is what is often called a “culture of violence.” A basic characteristic of such societies is aggression. One does not have to be a very acute observer of modern life to recognize that a culture of violence is an apt description of many of the attitudes that lie behind personal, national, and geopolitical decisions today. To the endemic acceptance of the use of force to attain one’s objectives, Nursi counters with the Qur’anic emphasis on “truth.” According to Nursi, the Qur’an takes truth as its starting point. Rather than trying to force others to follow one’s point of view, the Qur’an invites people to engage in a study of the truth. People are invited to “consider, reflect together” on the truth of reality, and the Qur’an specifically invites the Jews and Christians -- “People of the Book” -- to “come together on a common word.” Since this divine value of truth over against the use of force is taught not only by the Qur’an but also by the “preceding revealed religions,” it follows that alternatives to violence and the use of force would appear to be fruitful areas for dialogue among the spiritual children of Abraham. Nursi is aware of the sad facts of history that the followers of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, while professing to worship and obey the God of love and compassion, have often resorted to violence and use of force to impose their will on others. What Nursi is calling for is, in light of the present tendency, both in international relations and in the microcosms of societal and family life, to accept and perpetuate a culture of violence, that the believers of all three revealed religions should engage in a dialogue of truth regarding the way that God wants people to live and act and together seek realistic alternatives to the use of force to achieve one’s aims. 2. Self-interest vs. serving God. A second characteristic of modern societies is what Nursi describes as people using personal benefit or self-interest as the ultimate goal of their actions. This is what can be called a “what’s in it for me?” mentality. Personal benefit dictates and directs what people do. I have the right to do what I want and no one has a right to stop me. In its most selfish expression it can lead to an individualistic social and political philosophy that holds: “If I want to amass wealth, to lead a wholly selfish existence, and to ignore the suffering of others, that is my inalienable right, which cannot be restricted or limited either by government legislation or by the moral teaching of the religions.” In the business world, this attitude is expressed as a single-minded focus on “the bottom line,” a concern with maximizing profit without attention to the human cost and negative results. Nursi is correct in understanding the characteristic of self-interest as a product of Enlightenment philosophy, particularly with its emphasis on self-fulfillment. From learned tomes to popular novels, songs, and films, self-fulfillment has been promoted and encouraged as both the goal of human striving and the measure of social achievement. This is succinctly expressed in the publisher’s introduction to a work by Alan Gewirth. “Cultures around the world have regarded self-fulfillment as the ultimate goal of human striving and as the fundamental test of the goodness of a human life. The ideal has also been criticized, however, as egotistical or as so value-neutral that it fails to distinguish between, for example, self-fulfilled sinners and self-fulfilled saints.”10 It is precisely this distinction between “self-fulfilled sinners” and “self-fulfilled saints” that, according to Nursi, needs to be addressed. In what does true self-fulfillment consist? What should humans be striving for? What should be the motivation that propels and directs one’s activities? To self-interest or personal benefit Nursi opposes the attainment of virtue; as motivation for acts great or small, he proposes that everything be done for “God’s pleasure.” This is a basic distinction and, depending on which set of values is accepted and followed in practice, will profoundly influence the shape and character of society. When a person studies, works, marries, and raises children, does he do this for purposes of fulfilling himself and making his life a satisfying whole, or because he wants to act according to God’s will, to do something pleasing for God? So long as the activity in which a person is engaged continues to appear worthwhile and pleasing, there is no problem in regard to which set of motivations are being followed. However, when one’s work or relationship or marriage becomes tedious or burdensome, the choices one makes concerning the future will be determined largely by how one regards the competing claims of self-fulfillment and moral obligation. 3. Conflict vs. solidarity. A third characteristic of modern societies is that of conflict as a natural and inevitable trait of social relations. Whether this is expressed as society being governed by “the law of the jungle,” with a “dog eat dog” mentality of aggressive domination being accepted as unavoidable in commercial and political relations, or whether society is regarded as being inescapably subject to a recurrence of class warfare and alienation due to the conflict of interest in a capitalist system, conflict is held by many to be normal and necessary element of human life. The late Samuel Huntington’s thesis of a “clash of civilizations” was held up by many as a paradigm of international relations that provided an acceptable base for foreign policy decisions. From the point of view of the Qur’an and “the earlier revelations,” Nursi challenges this understanding of conflict as both inevitable and acceptable. To it he opposes the “principle of mutual assistance.” The way that God intends that people live on earth is by supporting and helping one another, bearing one another’s burdens, and lifting the yoke of oppression from the shoulders of those who are mistreated and oppressed. Certainly, anyone with even a passing knowledge of the teaching of the Jewish prophets, of Jesus, and of Muhammad will find a consistent call for people to have an effective concern for others, particularly for the troubled and the vulnerable. The religions do not teach that “man is enemy to man,” but that God has created people as brothers and sisters whose lives will be judged on the way they obeyed God and treated one another. It is a sad fact of history that religious believers have not always acted in accord with the teaching of those sent to them by God, but Nursi’s point remains valid that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all teach that solidarity and mutual assistance are values by which society should be governed, rather than “aggression and thriving on devouring others.”11 4. Nationalism vs. unity. Similarly, Nursi regards the type of racist and nationalist ideologies that caused such warfare and destruction in the 19th and 20th centuries as factors that divide humanity into competing and mutually aggressive adversaries. Judgments about others based solely on their race, ethnic group, religious adherence, or nationality may be a universal feature of modern life, but Nursi holds that these tendencies need to be countered by the bonds of fellowship uniting people of various nations and backgrounds. Near the end of his life, Nursi supported the Baghdad Pact on the grounds that by joining the Pact Turks would not only be united with 400 million brothers and sisters among Muslim peoples, but that the international accord would also gain for Muslim Turks “the friendship of 800 million Christians”12 and be a step toward a much-needed peace and general reconciliation between the two communities of faith. When Bayram Yüksel, one of Nursi’s closest disciples, wanted to go to Korea to take part with the Turkish army as ally of the American forces during the Korean War, Nursi encouraged him, noting that the Americans were “Ahli Kitab” and fighting the atheistic communists. The concern that society be marked by bonds of unity rather than torn asunder by racist attitudes and nationalist ideologies fits in with Nursi’s priorities for modern societies. According to Nursi, the enemies of Muslims are not one or another non-Muslim community but rather the general obstacles to human happiness and solidarity that must be faced together by all religious communities. He identifies the most important of these enemies to human happiness as “ignorance, poverty, and disunity.” That one of the marks of Islamic societies should be unity and fellowship, based on common human bonds, is a key to Nursi’s understanding of the need for interreligious dialogue and cooperation.
7. The task of the religions: offer a transcendent perspective Instead of fostering fellowship and mutual aid among nations, social values are too often oriented toward providing the populace with amusements, distractions, and opportunities for instant gratification. People easily become unfocussed regarding the needs and sufferings of others. The result, as Nursi notes, is “a superficial happiness for 20% of humankind, while casting 80% into distress and poverty.”13 It is here that the teaching of Islam and the previous revelations, according to Nursi, must offer a transcendent perspective. The Sacred Books of Jews, Christians, and Muslims teach that rugged individualism is not the way that God intended people to behave; God’s will is that people must seek and establish bonds of unity and cooperation that go beyond those of strategic alliances and narrow self-interest. In setting forth these dichotomies of force vs. truth, self-interest vs. service of God, conflict vs. solidarity, and nationalism vs. unity, Nursi is offering the followers of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam a platform for dialogue. These are, even today, the issues on which religious adherents must communicate with one another and confront together materialist value systems. In calling for this kind of encounter and cooperation, Nursi was ahead of his time, but his conviction of the importance of this interreligious dialogue is still valid a half-century after his death.
References:
|