FOLLOW US:

Books and Documents
Ijtihad, Rethinking Islam (08 Feb 2012 NewAgeIslam.Com)
JNU Introduces Indian Muslims to Turkish Islamist philosopher Bediuzzaman Said Nursi’s Views on Multiculturalism

A Special Report by Juhi Shahin, NewAgeIslam.com

Islam and its holy book Qur’an are a basis for a multicultural society. This was the refrain at JNU's international conference on "Living in Peace and Harmony in a Multicultural World" on Feb 1-2, 2012. Bediuzzaman Said Nursi’s collection of books called Risala’i Nur was the inspiration behind the refrain and the conference itself. The conference was organized by Centre of Arabic and African Studies, JNU in collaboration with Istanbul Foundation for Science and Culture, Turkey.

Nursi was a Turkish theologian and philosopher who lived through a very tumultuous period in the history of that region. Nursi was born in 1877 in eastern Turkey and died in 1960. He was a witness to the end of the Ottoman Empire and the early years of the Turkish republic. His thought arising in a period of major changes gives clues about living in a multicultural world through an Islamic perspective. Scholars at the conference compared the philosophy of Nursi with the likes of Muhammad Abduh, Rashid Rida, Jamaluddin Afghani and Indian modernists like Syed Ahmad Khan, Muhammad Iqbal, Shibli Nomani and Maulana Abu ala Maududi.

Arif Mohammad Khan, former Union Minister, inaugurated the conference and said that the various colours of skin and languages of people are signs of Allah, and asked whether we will then fight the signs of Allah? Another interesting point he made was that declaring people kafir (or unbelievers) amounted to shirk (ascribing partners to God). Since it is clear in the Qur’an that God is the judge of belief, and whoever wants to share this power with God, is a mushirk.

Prof. Mujeebur Rahman of the Centre of Arabic and African Studies at JNU who was the convener of the conference said that Nursi was known for his dynamic interpretation of the Qur'an with a strong focus on the individual and his/her faith and knowledge. Nursi was also strongly against violence and conflict, and instead advocated dialogue for finding solutions to problems.

The various papers at the conference emphasized Nursi's appeal in today's world as we grapple with new forces of globalization and living in an increasingly inter-connected world. Nursi derived his inspiration from his religion and the Qur'an to give a message that would appeal to everyone. According to Bilal Kuspinar, from McGill University, Nursi's emphasis on faith and knowledge led to a spirituality through which "Nursi not only establishes and maintains a genuine and sound relation with his Creator, but also forms and develops what we may call a holistic understanding and a conscientious and compassionate perception of the universe as a whole, as well as all the beings that exist therein." Kuspinar explained that what Nursi meant by social conscientiousness was not mutual tolerance, but co-operative interaction within the community as well as with other communities. Irfan Omar from Marquette University also emphasized this social approach based on mutual respect which leads to a sustainable inter-faith dialogue.

Colin Turner of Durham University asserted that for Nursi, “Islam does not necessarily need a dedicated ‘religious state’” but in order to really flourish Islam needs a more individual strengthening of belief. Unlike the other modernists of his time-period which advocated a ‘political Islam’ with the religion playing a more active role in shaping polity, Nursi wanted a separation of state and religion. He imagined a secular and multicultural society, but that did not mean that individuals could not be encouraged by their religion to create such a society. In fact, if we all individually work on strengthening our belief through either devotion or knowledge instead of preaching to others, we can build a peaceful multicultural society.

---

For readers to get better acquainted with Bediuzzaman Said Nursi’s views on a variety of issues of topical interest, particularly for those who live in multicultural, multi-religious societies like India, New Age Islam is reproducing below excerpts from Turkish scholar Sukran Vahide’s book on Bediuzzaman Said Nursi's Life and thoughts. The Damascus Sermon seems to encapsulate Sid Nursi’s views that are most relevant to us in the 21st century, grappling as we are today with groups within us who are aggressively propagating Muslims exclusivism and Islam-supremacism.

Bediuzzaman Said Nursi’s Damascus Sermon

By Sukran Vahide

 (Author of Islam In Modern Turkey)

Also: The Author of the Risele-i Nur Bediuzzaman Said Nursi,

Pages: 96-105, Sozler Publication

In the autumn of 1910, Bediuzzaman moved south and until the following spring, made "a winter Jourey through the Arab lands," continuing "to give lessons on constitutionalism." 20 He visited Damascus in early 1911, where he stayed as a guest in the Salahiya district. It was during this stay that, on the insistence of the Damascus ulema, he gave his famous Damascus Sermon in the Umayyad Mosque. Bediuzzaman's fame must have been considerable, for close on ten thousand people, including one hundred ulema, packed into the historic building to listen to him.21 The text of the sermon was afterwards printed twice in one week.

If one considers the backwardness of the Islamic world at that time in relation to the West and its resulting subjection to the European Powers, and the accompanying feelings of hopelessness and helplessness on the part of the educated Muslims in particular, it is not difficult to see why Bediuzzaman's message of hope and certain predictions supported by argument of the future supremacy of the Qur'an and Islamic civilization met with the enthusiastic response that they did. The Sermon is in the form of "Six Words" taken from "the pharmacy of the Qur'an", which constitute the cure or medicine for the "six dire sicknesses" which Bediuzzaman had diagnosed as having arrested the development of the Islamic world. He described it as follows:

"In the conditions of the present time in these lands, I have learnt a lesson in the school of mankind's social life and I have realized that what has allowed Europeans to fly towards the future on progress while it arrested us and kept us, in respect of material development, in the Middle Ages are six dire sicknesses. The sicknesses are these:

"Firstly, the coming to life and rise of despair and hopelessness in social life. Secondly, the death of trutltfulness in social and political life. Thirdly, love of enmity. Fourthly, not knowing the luminous bonds that bind the believers to one another. Fifthly, despotism, which spreads like various contagious diseases. And sixthly, restricting endeavour to what is personally beneficial.”22

Bediuzzaman had started by quoting the verse: Do not despair of God's mercy23 , and the Hadith: "I came to perfect good moral qualities", which provide the theme of the six Words of which the Sermon is composed. The First Word is Hope, and we shall describe it in some detail for in it Bediuzzaman sets forth the reasons for his optimism concerning the future of the Islamic world. It consists of "one and a half preliminary arguments" to support his "firm conviction" that "the future shall be Islam's, and Islam's alone. and the truths of the Qur'an and belief shall be sovereign." The premises of his arguments are that "the truths of Islam are able to progress both materially, and in moral and non-material matters, and possess a perfect capacity to do so."24  The first aspect is progress in moral and non-material matters, and contains five or six main points.

Quoting the Commander-in-Chief of the Japanese army, who in 1905 had defeated Russia at war, Bediuzzaman begins by making this point:

"History shows that the Muslims increased in civilization and progressed in relation to the strength of the truths of Islam; that is, to the degree that they acted in accordance with that strength. And history also shows that they fell into savagery and decline, and disaster and defeat amidst utter confusion to the degree of their weakness in adhering to the truths of Islam.' Bediuzzaman then points out:

"As for other religions, it is quite to the contrary. That is to say, history shows that just as they increased in civilization and progressed in relation to their weakness in adhering to their religions and bigotry, so were they also subject to decline and revolution to the degree of their strength in adhering to them."

Thus, in contradistinction to other religions, Islam has the capacity to progress, it contains within it everything necessary to achieve true civilization. And it is significant that this acute observation was made not only by a non-Muslim, but a Japanese. For the Japanese were held up by many supporters of constitutionalism as an example to be followed in their taking only science and technology from the West in their drive for progress and civilization while retaining their own culture and morality. Following this, Bediuzzaman continues his argument by stating that history presents no evidence for any Muslims having embraced other religions on the strength of reason, whereas as a result of "reasoned argument and certain proofs, the , followers of other religions are "gradually drawing close to and entering Islam." Bediuzzaman then lays this challenge before the believers:

"If we were to display through our actions the perfections of the moral qualities of Islam and the truths of belief, without doubt, the followers of other religions would enter Islam in whole communities; rather, some entire regions and states, even, on the globe of the earth would take refuge in Islam."

Next, Bediuzzaman describes modem man's search for true religion. He says that developments in science together with the terrible wars and events of this century have aroused in man a desire to seek the truth. Man has been awakened by these, and has understood "the true nature of humanity and his own comprehensive disposition." He has thus realized his need for religion, for "the only point of support for impotent mankind in the face of the innumerable disasters and the external and Internal enemies that plague them, ; and the only point from which they may seek help and assistance in the face of the innumerable needs with which they are afflicted and their desires which stretch to eternity despite their utter want and poverty is in recognizing the world's Maker, in faith, and in believing and affirming the Hereafter. There is no other help for awakened mankind apart from this." And he goes on to say that, like a human being, countries and states have also now be n to realize "this intense need of mankind."

For the next stage in his argument, Bediuzzaman points out that the Qur'an repeatedly "refers man to his reason", telling him to use his intelligence, and ponder over and take lessons from his own life and the events of past ages. And so, after advising his listeners to heed these warnings of the Qur’an too, Bediuzzaman makes the conclusion that the Qur'an will prevail in the future:

"We Muslims, who are students of the Qur’an, follow proof; we approach the truths of belief through reason, thought, and our hearts. We do not abandon proof in favour of blind obedience and imitation of the clergy like some adherents of other religions. Therefore, in the future, when reason, science and technology prevail, that will surely be the time that the Qur'an will gain ascendancy, which relies on rational proofs and invites the reason to confirm its pronouncements."

To complete this First Aspect, Bediuzzaman describes "eight serious obstacles" which "prevented the truths of Islam completely conquering the past", but which are now dispersing, and follows this with quoting the testimony to the truth of Islam of two `enemies' by way of proof of his argument.

Before describing the obstacles, Bediuzzaman says that "the veils which eclipse the sun of Islam... and prevent it illuminating mankind have begun to disperse." The sings of dawn were appearing then, in 1911. He later added that the true dawn began in 1371, that is, 1951, when a number of Islamic countries were gaining their independenee.25 Or even if that was the false dawn, the true dawn would break in forty to fifty years' time. He was absolutely insistent on it. The obstacles were as follows:

The first three obstacles were "the Europeans' ignorance, their barbarity at that time, and their bigotry in their religion. These three obstacles have been destroyed by the virtues of knowledge and civilization, and they have begun to disperse."

The fourth and the fifth were "the domination and arbitrary power of the clergy and religious leaders, and the fact that the Europeans obeyed and followed them blindly. These two obstacles have also started to disappear with the rise among mankind of the idea of freedom and the desire to search for the truth."

The sixth and seventh obstacles were "the despotism that was with us and our immorality and degeneracy that arose from opposing the Seriat... The fact that the separate despotic power residing in a single individual is now declining indicates that the fearful despotism of larger groups in society and of committees will also decline in thirty to forty years time. And the great upsurge in Islamic zeal together with the fact that the ugly results of immorality are becoming apparent show that these two obstacles are about to decline; ratter, that they have begun to do so. God willing, they will completely disappear in the future."

The eighth obstacle was that "since certain positive matters of modern science were imagined to oppose and be contrary to the apparent meanings of the truths of Islam, it prevented, to some extent, their prevailing in the past." That is to say, scientists and philosophers opposed Islam because they did not understand its true meaning, but, "after learning the truth, even the most opinionated philosopher is compelled to submit to it..."

Bediuzzaman concludes the First Aspect of his argument by quoting a few short passages from the 19 th century Scottish philosopher, Thomas Carlyle, and from the famous Prussian, Prince Bismarck (1815-1898). They testify to the truth of Islam and the Qur'an's being the revealed word of God. On the strength of their testimony, Bediuzzaman repeated the prediction he had made previously to Seyh Bahid in Istanbul:

"Europe and America are pregnant with Islam. One day, they will give birth to an Islamic state. Just as the Ottomans were pregnant with Europe and gave birth to a European state." He then concluded:

"O my brothers who are here in the Umayyad Mosque and those who are in the mosque of the world of Islam half a century later! Do the introductory remarks, that is, those made up to here, not point to the conclusion that it is only Islam that will provide true, and moral and spiritual rule in the future, and will urge mankind to happiness in this world and the Hereafter? And that true Christianity, stripping off superstition and corrupted belief, will be transformed into Islam; following the Qur'an, it will unite with Islam?"26

The Second Aspect of Bediuzzaman's argument "offers strong proofs for Islam's material progress and supremacy in the future." These proofs he describes in the form of "five extremely powerful, unbreakable Strengths", which having "blended and fused", "are established in the heart of the Islamic world's `collective personality'." But before describing them he makes the very important and interesting point that the Qur'an instructs man in progress and urges him towards it. By mentioning the miracles of the prophets, he says, "the Qur’an is informing mankind that events similar to those miracles will come into existence in the future through progress and is urging them to achieve them, saying: `Come on, work! Show examples of these miracles! Like the Prophet Solomon (PUH), cover a Journey of two months in a day! Like the Prophet Jesus (PUH), work to discover the cure for the most frightful diseases!.. "', and cites further miracles as examples.

Of the Five Strengths, the first is "reality of Islam", the second is "an intense need, which is the real master of civilization and industry" together with "utter, back-breaking poverty", while the third is "the Freedom which is in accordance with the Seriat'. The fourth Strength is the "courage" or "valour of belief', and the fifth, "the pride of Islam, which proclaims and upholds the Word of God." And, as we have seen, "in this age, proclaiming the Word of God is contingent on material progress."

Bediuzzaman then infers that it was because in the drive for modernization so far pursued in the Ottoman Empire it was not the beneficial aspects of civilization that had been taken but its "evils and iniquities" which had been "imitated", that the empire had been reduced to the state of defeat it was then in. And it was also because the iniquities of civilization had prevailed over its benefits that mankind had suffered the bloody and calamitous wars of this century. "God willing," said Bediuzzaman, "through the strength of Islam in the future, the virtues of civilization will predominate, the face of the earth will be cleansed of filth, and universal peace be secured."

Continuing, he says: "Powerful indications and means" to the future supremacy of Asian civilization are the facts that European civilization is founded on the negative virtues of "lust and passion, rivalry and oppression," rather than virtue and guidance, that its evils have predominated over its virtues, and that "it has been infiltrated by revolutionary societies like a worm-eaten tree."27

And so. Bediuzzaman asks his audience: "How is it that while there are such powerful and unshakable ways and means for the material and moral progress for the believers and people of Islam, and the road to future happiness has been opened up like a railway, you despair and fall into hopelessness in the face of the future and destroy the morale of the Islamic world?... Since the inclination to seek perfection has been included in man's essential nature, ... in the future truth and equity will show the way to a worldly happiness in the world of Islam, God willing, in which there will be atonement for the former errors of mankind.

"Indeed, consider this: time does not run in a straight line so that its beginning and end draw apart from one another. Rather, it moves in a circle like the motion of the globe of the earth. Sometimes it displays the seasons of spring and summer as progress. And sometimes the seasons of storms and winter as decline. Just as every winter is followed by spring and every night by morning, mankind, also, shall have a morning and a spring, God willing. You may expect from Divine Mercy to see true civilization within universal peace brought about through the sun of the truth of Islam.”28

The remaining five `Words' of the Sermon point out how this true civilization will be achieved and the morning and springtime for mankind brought about. They are concerned mainly with morality.

In the Second Word, Bediuzzaman points out some of the destructive results of despair, which he describes as "a most grievous sickness" which "has entered the heart of the world of Islam." He says that it was despair that had destroyed the morale of Muslims, so that the Europeans had been able to dominate them and make them their captives for the preceding four hundred years. And it was despair that had killed their high morality, and caused them to abandon the public good for personal benefit. And despair had even caused them to use "the indifference and despondence of others" as "an excuse for their own laziness," and "to abandon the courageousness of belief, and neglect their Islamic duties." He says that despair "is the quality and pretext of cowards, the base, and the impotent." It cannot be the quality of the Arabs in particular, who are famous for their tenacity. He concludes the Word with a call to the Arabs to give up despair and stand in "true solidarity and concord" with the Turks, and "unfurl the banner of the Qur'an in every part of the world."29

The Third Word is Truthfulness. This, says Bediuzzaman, is the basis and foundation of Islam. Truthfulness and honesty are the principles of Islam's social life. Hypocrisy, flattery and artifice, duplicity and double-dealing are all forms of lying. Unbelief in all its varieties is lying and falsehood, while belief is truthfulness and honesty. For this reason, there is a limitless distance between truth and falsehood. Like fire and light, they should not enter one another. But politics and propaganda have mixed and confused them, and as a result have confused man's achievements.

Bediuzzaman points out that this has happened with the passing of time, and that during the Era of Bliss, that is, the time of the Prophet Muhammed (PBUH), truthfulness and lying were as distant from one another as belief and unbelief. They have gradually drawn closer to each other, and now evil and lying have to some degree taken the stage. Salvation, he told them, is only to be found through honesty. Sometimes in the past lying may have been permissible, but since it was abused, now there are only two ways, not three. "Either truthfulness or silence."30

The Fourth Word is a call to Love and Brotherhood. Bediuzzaman says that "the thing most worthy of love is love, and the quality most deserving of enmity is enmity." For it is love that guarantees man's social life and ensures his happiness, while enmity and hatred have overturned his social life, and more than anything deserve to be loathed and shunned. The awesome evil and destruction of the two World Wars31 show that the time for enmity and hostility is finished, so that enemies, even, so long as they are not aggressive, should not attract the enmity of Muslims. Hell and Divine punishment are enough for them.

As for believers, Bediuzzaman says that sometimes arrogance or self-worship may cause a fellow-believer to be unjustly hostile towards them without realizing it. But this is to slight powerful causes of love, like belief, Islam, nationality, and humanity. If the causes of enmity are personal matters, these are like small stones; to nurture enmity towards a Muslim is a great error; it is like scorning the causes of love, which are as great as a mountain.32

In the Fifth Word, Bediuzzaman is urging the Arabs to take up their positions alongside the Turks as sentries of the sacred citadel of Islamic nationhood. We have already seen how Freedom and constitutionalism were serving and would serve to develop awareness of the sense of lslamic nationhood among Muslims. Here we learn more of why this was vital for the Islamic world. With his knowledge of the modem world and extraordinarily clear vision of the way it would take, Bediuzzaman explained to his listeners that at this time man's actions, either good or bad, very often do not remain with the doer, but have widespread consequences; one sin may become a hundred sins, and one good deed, a thousand good deeds. He explained it in the following way:

"Thus, through the bond of this sacred nationhood, all the people of Islam are like a single tribe. Like the members of a tribe, the groups and peoples of Islam are bound and connected to one another through Islamic brotherhood. They assist one another morally, and, if necessary, materially. It is as if all the groups of Islam are bound to each other with a luminous chain.

"If a member of one tribe commits a crime, all the members of the tribe are guilty in the eyes of another, enemy, tribe. It is as though each member of the tribe had committed the crime so that the enemy becomes the enemy of all of them. That single crime becomes like thousands of crimes. And if a member of the tribe performs a good act which is the cause of pride affecting the heart of the tribe, all its members take pride in it. It is as if each person in the tribe feels proud at having done that good deed.

"Thus, it is because of this fact that at this time, and particularly in forty to fifty years' time, evil and bad deeds will not remain with the perpetrator, rather, they will transgress the rights of millions of Muslims. Numerous examples of this shall be seen in forty to fifty years' time."

Then, after pointing out the damage caused by laziness and indifference, he says that since at this time good deeds also do not remain with the doer but "may be beneficial to millions of believers", "it is not the time to cast oneself on the bed of idleness..."

Bediuzzaman goes on to remind the Arabs of their responsibility as teachers and leaders towards the other, smaller Muslim groups and peoples, a responsibility they were neglecting through laziness. At the same time their good deeds are also great, he says, and predicts that in forty or fifty years' time, the different Arab peoples would "enter upon exalted circumstances... like those of the United States of America", and would be "successful in establishing Islamic rule in half the globe... If some fearful calamity does not soon erupt, the coming generation shall see it, God willing."

However, Bediuzzaman immediately continues: "Beware, my brothers! Do not fancy or imagine that I am urging you with these words to busy yourselves with politics. God forbid! The truth of Islam is above all politics. All politics may serve it, but no politics can make Islam a tool for itself."

And then: "With my faulty understanding, I imagine Islamic society at this time in the form of a factory containing many wheels and machines. Should one wheel fall behind or encroach on another wheel, which is its fellow, the machine's mechanism ceases to function. Thus, the exact time for Islamic unity is beginning. It necessitates not paying attention to one anther’s faults."

That is to say, Bediuzzaman is saying that Islamic supremacy will be won through the material and technological progress achieved through the unity and co-operation of all the different components, that is, the groups and peoples, that make up the Islamic world.

As we saw when looking at Bediuzzaman's Debates with the Kurdish tribes, he considered that the Europeans had taken from the Muslims some of their high moral values and made them the means of their progress, while giving them their own corrupt morals in return. The willingness to sacrifice everything, even one's life, for one's nation was among these. Bediuzzaman says it was "the firmest foundation in their progress." He then points out that through the idea of nationhood, "an individual becomes as valuable as a nation. For a person's value is relative to his endeavour. If a person's endeavour is his nation, that person forms a miniature nation on his own." Whereas, "Because of the heedlessness of some of us and the Europeans' damaging characteristics that we have acquired, and, despite our strong and sacred Islamic nationhood, through everyone saying: `Me! Me!', and considering personal benefits and not the nation's benefits, a thousand men have fallen to become like one man."33

The Sixth Word, or sixth constituent of the cure Bediuzzaman is pre- scribing for the Islamic world is mutual consultation, as enjoined by the verse, "Whose rule is consultation among themselves."34 We have already discussed this "fundamental principle" in some detail; here, Bediuzzaman describes it as "the key to Muslims' happiness in Islamic social life", and stresses its importance as the basis of progress and scientific development, adding that one reason for Asia's backwardness was the failure to practice consultation. He then says it is "the key and discloser of the continent of Asia and its future," and that, "just as individuals should consult one another, so also must nations and continents practise consultation." This is be- cause, as we have also seen, it was Freedom in accordance with the Seriat - which is born of the consultation enjoined by the Seriat - that would liberate lslam from the various forms of tyranny to which it was subjected, and "cast out the evils of dissolute Western civilization."

To conclude, Bediuzzaman explains that it is the sincerity and solidarity that result from consultation which make it the means of life and progress. For, "three men between whom there is true solidarity may benefit the nation as much as a hundred men. Many historical events inform us that as a result of true sincerity, solidarity, and consultation, ten men may perform the work of a thousand men."35

 (20) Munazarat (Ott.edn.), in Asar-i Bediyye,404.

(21) Sahiner, N. 136-7; Tarihce, 81.

(22) Hutbe-i Samiye, 16-17.

(23) Qur'an, 39:53.

(24) Hutbe-i Samiye, 18.

(25) Damascus Sermon.

(26) Hutbe-i Samiye, 19-28.

(27) See Cahpter Nine.

(28) Hutbe-i Samiye, 28-32.

(29) Hutbe-i Samiye, 37-9.

(30) Hutbe-i Samiye, 39-44.

(31) See note 25 of Chapter Five.

(32) Hutbe-i Samiye, 44-6.

(33) Hutbe-i Samiye, 47-51.

(34) Qur'an, 42:38.

(35) Hutbe-i Samiye, 52-4.

Source: http://www.nur.org/treatise/biography/from_Bediuzzamans_life08.htm

URL: http://www.newageislam.com/NewAgeIslamIjtihadRethinkingIslam_1.aspx?ArticleID=6576


TOTAL COMMENTS:-   6
  • This article has generated an interesting conversation. Dr Naseem Ahmed says Kafir “is a name and description and not an abuse.” Even Shakespeare asked, “What’s in a name?” Well, quite a bit, actually. Although we indeed require names to differentiate between groups, names often carry connotations and easily become abuses. That is why so many Muslims name their children Mohammad (or Naseem or Ahmed), but probably nobody names them Abu Lahb or Abu Jahl. There are so many Rams and Lakshmans, but probably no Ravana.

    Kafir denotes not just non-Muslims, as Dr Ahmed claims, but is commonly used to refer to Muslims who supposedly aren’t really Muslim enough for others. It has become a means for sects to excommunicate each other. Sunnis call Shias kafir and vice versa, Deobandis call Barelvis kafir, Wahabis call everyone else kafir, and so on. Obviously, this has little to do with Islam and more to do with its politicization. That is what Arif Mohammad Khan seems to be speaking against – and who can blame him!

    As for who is Bediuzzaman, Dr Ahmed has obviously not heard of him because as Muslims we have become so cut off from each other, not to mention everyone else – primarily because our community has turned so inward looking in recent decades. We have built so many walls around ourselves that we have no clue of who others are. If they are not exactly like us – in the way they look, dress, eat, think or believe – we just call them kafir and move on (since they’re not going to be our neighbours in heaven, why bother!).

    Said Nursi was among the people who helped Islam survive Turkey’s “secularization” under Kemal Ataturk. He did so by trying to bring it in line with rational thinking, and advocating the teaching of modern science along with religion. He did so despite being repeatedly arrested and jailed all through his life. It is because of people like him that Turkey today is often cited as an example of how Islam and democracy can coexist. Whether you agree or disagree with his ideas, you cannot dismiss him as “any Tom, Dick and Harry”, as Dr Ahmed does.

    If Dr Ahmed has still not heard of Said Nursi, he should try to open his eyes and look out of his window. As should we all.


    By Azhar Azimabadi - 2/10/2012 8:42:02 AM
  • Probably this could be an interesting article.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/08/14/we-are-all-hindus-now.html
    By satwa gunam - 2/9/2012 8:49:41 PM
  • Dr. Naseem Ahmed, of all the wisdom spoken by Bediuzzaman, you found it worth commenting only on a non-issue whether one should call another a 'kafir' or not?  Is calling another a great act of merit?  How about espousing the other ideas mentioned above?  Everyone commits sin and when one commits a sin, one is essentially in the camp of kufr.  It is the lot of everyone to fight against kufr in oneself till his/her dying breath.  Only then the balance can be tallied to see if he or she was a kafir or not - and that can be done only by Allah.  So don't get too big for your boots to think you can judge as finely as the Allah.  May Allah Almight grant you enlightment.


    By Salim - 2/9/2012 6:31:14 PM
  • One fails to understand as to why people should believe in something just because they have been told to believe without questioning the authenticity of the claim. The entire debate of believer v/s non-believer is a hoax as no proof is provided by any side. How a few megalomaniacs give themselves the authority of declaring others as inferior as they do not believe in a particular concept for which there is no rationale.


    By Ashok Sharma - 2/9/2012 5:27:27 PM
  • An unbeliever is an unbeliever and there cannot be any justification or defence for it. Kafir is one who hides the truth, it is a name and description and not an abuse, just as Muslims in India are called Malaich or Turkudu, or Mohammedans, Shias, Ahmadis Khojas, Bohras, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Budhists Mahdvis, Agha Khan is. As for Bediuzzman, nobody knows him, or have heard of him, and he is of no acclaim or importance and as such his opinion is personal and of no import. Anyone, any 'Tom Dick and Harry ', any ' Pot or Pan ' can have an opinion; even one with lowest intellect can have his opinion and say. Not a big deal. To are trying very hard to justify your Ideology, and I wish you all the best in your endeavour and pray to Allah Almighty to grant you enlightment. Dr.Naseem Ahmed

    By Dr.Naseem Ahmed - 2/9/2012 3:43:34 PM
  • Unity and cooperation in the Muslim world is a tall order, but Bediuzzaman does offer several nuggets of wisdom.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/9/2012 3:08:30 AM

Compose Your Comments here:

Name
Email (Not to be published)
Comments
Fill the below text
 
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the articles and comments are the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect that of NewAgeIslam.com.