Download Nationalism in the Modern World: From the Viewpoint of Said Nursi

Nationalism in the Modern World: From the
Viewpoint of Said Nursi
By:
Dec 29, 2010
Abstract
This paper is an attempt to study reasons behind Bediuzzaman Said Nursi’s consideration
of Western civilization being based on unjust political system by highlighting ideas of the
thinker on nationalism. It suggests that Said Nursi equalized the negative type of
nationalism, on which the bond between the masses in Western political system is based,
with racialism, the ideology, which, instead of justice, causes enmity, hostility and wars in
a society; and, accordingly, he deemed it as an extremely harmful idea for the entire
mankind. It also proposes that, according to Nursi, the main principle of the Islamic
SharÊÑah is mutual assistance, the mark of which is accord, solidarity and equality. The
last point of the paper suggests that Nursi condemned the divisive influence of nationalistic
currents on the ummah identity of Muslims on one hand, and, on the other, applauded the
positive type of nationalism that serves the ideal of Islam. However, Nursi believed that the
Islamic identity should occupy the highest position in the identity hierarchy of Muslims.
The concept of nationalism, underlying motives behind its appearance and also its influence on
socio-political spheres of the modern world, particularly the Muslim world, are interpreted
differently.<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[1]<!--[endif]--> Hans Kohn, a Hungarian-born
journalist, who became ‘the father’ of later writers on the development of nationalism in the
Muslim world, initiated a theory that Muslim countries were going through a secularization
process similar to that in Europe.<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[2]<!--[endif]--> He noticed that:
“Just as in Eastern Europethe nations without a history had been roused in the nineteenth century
to self-consciousness and the endeavour to play an active part in history, so now the peoples of
the Orient were roused from a period of medieval feudalism and religion to one instinct with the
watchwords of nationalism and middle-class capitalism.”<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[3]<!-[endif]--> On the basis of his observations, Hans Kohn formed a ‘universal sociological theory’
in the study of social change which he saw as signifying the transition from medieval to modern
forms of organization: “religious groupings lose power when confronted with the consciousness
of a common nationality and speech.”<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[4]<!--[endif]--> However,
the British academic and intellectual historian Elie Kedourie, who wrote several very influential
works on the development of nationalism both in Europe and in regions outside the EuropeanChristian cultural area, challenged the idea of considering nationalism as a universal
phenomenon as he said: “far from being a universal phenomenon, nationalism is a product of
European thought in the last 150 years.”<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[5]<!--[endif]--> The
Iranian scholar ÑAlÊ MuÍammad NaqawÊ also defined nationalism as “a creed, a school and a
pseudo-religion which the West created to fill an ideological vacuum” existing in Europe, hence
it was offered to local population “as a new religion and a new god which was welcomed by
thirsty devotees.”<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[6]<!--[endif]-->
Bediuzzaman Said Nursi accepted the fact that the most powerful and widespread wave of
evoking of nationalistic sentiments had greatly advanced in his time.<!--[if !supportFootnotes]->[7]<!--[endif]--> But he, unlike the above mentioned well-known scholars, did not define
nationalism as a genuine product of the modern European thought, but acknowledged the fact
that ideas of nationalism in different shapes did exist throughout human history. In reality,
Bediuzzaman was one of the rare scholars who was able to distinguish negative and positive
aspects of nationalism in the modern world and reconcile sentiments of positive nationalism with
the religious identity.
Types of Nationalism
The words ‘nation’ (millet) and ‘nationhood’ (milliyet) in the writings of Bediuzzaman Said
Nursi were used in accordance with their Arabic meanings. It is well-known that the word millet
was originally used by Muslim scholars to denote a religion and membership of it as a synonym
of the word ummah.<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[8]<!--[endif]--> However, sentiments of
nationalism (milliyetçilik) were divided by Bediuzzaman into two, i.e. the “positive” and
“negative” types.
In SünËhat(published in 1919) Said Nursi stated that the “awakening of nationalism is either
positive, in which case it is aroused through compassion for one’s fellow men, and is the cause
of mutual recognition and assistance; or it is negative, in which case, being aroused by racialist
ambitions, it is the cause of antipathy and mutual hostility. And this Islam rejects.”<!--[if
!supportFootnotes]-->[9]<!--[endif]--> Said Nursi believed that negative nationalism, which
considers a particular race to be superior, or gives priority to race over religion is “inauspicious,
and harmful; it is nourished by devouring others, persists through hostility to others, and is aware
of what it is doing. It is the case of enmity and disturbance.”<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[10]<!-[endif]--> To demonstrate harmfulness of negative nationalism and racialism, Nursi offered
numerous examples from the Qur‘Én and Sunnah as well as lessons from history.
Said Nursi asserted that negative nationalism was not exclusively a recent phenomenon, but it, in
the forms of tribalism or racialism, has existed throughout human history. It was Islam that
abrogated nationalism and tribalism of the pre-Islamic Arabiaand replaced such divisive
tendencies with a holy, positive Islamic fervor.<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[11]<!--[endif]-->
Nursi supported his view by the ÍadÊth of the Prophet (PBUH) who said that in Islam, there is no
difference between an Abyssinian slave and a leader of Quraish, once they have accepted
Islam.<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[12]<!--[endif]-->
Even so, negative nationalism played its disastrous role once again and has caused an untold
harm in the history of Muslims during the Umayyad rule. Due to their combining some ideas of
nationalism with their politics, the Umayyads vexed the world of Islam, and, in addition, drew
many calamities on themselves.<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[13]<!--[endif]--> By planting their
state on tribalism and putting the bonds of nationalism before those of Islam, as Nursi pointed
out, they caused harm in two respects. Firstly, they offended the other nations and frightened
them off. Secondly, since the principles of racialism and nationalism do not follow justice and
right, they imposed tyranny toward other races. Therefore Bediuzzaman concluded that this
negative type of nationalism “flourishes through harming others and is nourished through
devouring others.”<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[14]<!--[endif]-->
But the positive type of nationalism, according to Said Nursi, “arises from an inner need of social
life and is the cause of mutual assistance and solidarity; it ensures a beneficial strength; it is a
means for further strengthening Islamic brotherhood.”<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[15]<!-[endif]--> Nevertheless, this positive type of nationalism is not in the stand of demanding the
superior loyalty of Muslims, but it only occupies inferior position after the religious identity.
Furthermore, sentiments of positive nationalism, according to Said Nursi, must serve Islam, it
must be its citadel and armour; it must not take the place of it. For there is a hundredfold
brotherhood within the brotherhood of Islam which persists in the Intermediate Realm and Word
of Eternity. So however strong national brotherhood is, it may be like a veil to it. But to establish
it in place of Islamic brotherhood, as Nursi asserted, is a foolish crime like replacing the treasure
of diamonds within the citadel with citadel’s stones, and throwing the diamonds away.<!--[if
!supportFootnotes]-->[16]<!--[endif]-->
The main wisdom of humans as being created by God into nations and tribes, according to Said
Nursi, is in favor of “knowing and assisting each other.” Expounding the verse of “O mankind!
We created you from a single [pair] of a male and a female, and made you into nations and
tribes, that you may know each other.” (The Qur‘Én, 49:13) Said Nursi likened the Islamic world
being separated into nations and tribes to an army being separated into ranks. As in the army, the
arrangement of a division is not divided and split up for the purpose of hostile competition, but it
is separated into ranks in order to serve the common aim of those who comprise it. In just the
same way, Islamic society as a whole is a huge army which has been divided into tribes and
groups. But it has a thousand and one aspects of unity as “its groups’ Creator is one and the
same, their Provider is one and the same, their Prophet is one and the same, their qibla is one and
the same, their Book is one and the same, their country is one and the same; all the same, a
thousand things are one and the same.”<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[17]<!--[endif]--> Therefore,
the thinker concluded that being divided into groups and tribes should lead to mutual
acquaintance and assistance, but not to antipathy and mutual hostility. He interpreted the above
mentioned verse of the Qur‘Én accordingly: “I created you as peoples, nations, and tribes, so that
you should know one another and the relations between you in social life, and assist one another;
not so that you should regard each other as strangers, refusing to acknowledge one another, and
nurturing hostility and enmity.”<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[18]<!--[endif]-->
Therefore, Bediuzzaman Said Nursi asserted that the nationhood of Muslims should be based on
their religion, Islam, empowered by positive sentiments of nationalism. He asked fellow
Muslims: “What race is there that has three hundred and fifty million members? And which
racialism can gain for those who subscribe to it so many brothers - and eternal brothers – in place
of Islam? Negative nationalism has caused untold harm in history.”<!--[if !supportFootnotes]->[19]<!--[endif]-->
Looking at the contemporary political events, Bediuzzaman accused ideas of racialism in
disturbing harmony in European society and causing the growth of injustice, enmity and racial
discriminations among nations, which eventually led to an overwhelming war [World War I] in
Europe. He asserted that “the mark of negative nationalism and racialism is ghastly clashes,
disastrous collisions, and their result, annihilation.”<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[20]<!--[endif]->
Consequently, Bediuzzaman argued that considering a particular race to be superior or giving
priority to race over religion is an artificial conception that destroys harmony in society, results
in inequity and injustice. It is, therefore, extremely harmful for mankind.
The next point of the paper deals with the thought of Bediuzzaman on relationship between
justice and ideas of nationalism.
Nationalism and Justice
By elaborating basic foundations and values of Western and Islamic civilizations, Bediuzzaman
noticed several major dissimilarities between their underlying principles. In modern Western
political system the main principle for relations between peoples and communities, as he pointed
out, was nationalism and racialism, which considered a particular race to be superior, or gave
priority to race over religion. In The Twenty-Fifth Word Bediuzzaman stated that:
By reason of its philosophy, present-day civilization accepts ‘force’ as the point of
support in the life of society. It takes as its aim ‘benefits,’ and considers the principle of
its life to be ‘conflict.’ It considers the bond between communities to be ‘racialism and
negative nationalism.’ While its aim is to provide ‘amusements’ for gratifying the
appetites of the soul and increasing man’s needs. However, the mark of force is
aggression.<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[21]<!--[endif]-->
Bediuzzaman further emphasized that a system, in which the bond between masses was based on
negative nationalism or racialism, could not establish equality and justice within its society:
And since the benefits are insufficient to meet all needs, their mark is that everyone
tussles and jostles over them. The mark of conflict is contention, and the mark of
racialism, aggression, since it thrives on devouring others. Thus, it is because of these
principles of civilization that despite all its virtues, it has provided a sort of superficial
happiness for only twenty per cent of mankind and cast eighty per cent into distress and
poverty.<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[22]<!--[endif]-->
But the civilization based on the SharÊÑah of MuÍammad (PBUH), as Bediuzzaman
considered, lays down positive principles in place of the modern civilization’s negative
principles: its point of support is truth instead of force, which is manifest as justice and equity.
Its aims are virtue and God’s pleasure in place of benefit and self-interest, which are manifest as
love and friendly competition. Its means of unity are the bonds of religion, country and class
instead of racialism and nationalism, which are manifest as sincere brotherhood and
reconciliation, and co-operation in only defending against outside aggression. The principle in
life is that of mutual assistance and co-operation instead of conflict, which is manifest as unity
and mutual support. In place of lust is guidance, which is manifest as progress for humanity and
being perfected spiritually. It restricts the passions, and instead of facilitating the base desires of
the carnal soul, it gratifies the high sentiments of the spirit.<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[23]<!-[endif]--> In Letters Nursi again stated that the principle of the Islamic SharÊÑah is mutual
assistance, the mark of which is accord and solidarity.<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[24]<!-[endif]-->
Unity, harmony, accord and solidarity among members make a society able to function justly and
further reinforce it towards progress. On the other hand, disunity, discord and antagonism,
according to Bediuzzaman, no doubt, lead to weakness and, consequently, to the collapse of
civilizations. When Bediuzzaman was examining negative role of nationalism during the time of
Umayyad reign, he observed that racialism and justice were unable to coexist in one society. He
asserted that a ruler of racialist leanings prefers those of the same race, and he cannot act justly
or proceed on justice. Consequently, Bediuzzaman concluded that “the bonds of nationalism may
not be set up in place of the bonds of religion; if they are, there will be no justice; right will
disappear.”<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[25]<!--[endif]--> But what did he mean by ‘justice’?
Ahmed Davutoglu pointed out that the comparison of Bediuzzaman between two civilizations
reflects the normative characteristics of classic Islamic political thought. Based on values like
right, justice, and mutual assistance, this idea is directed more to defining the values necessary
for maintaining social stability and order than to analyzing social change. The idea of the sphere
of justice, which is discussed by Muslim thinkers such as Ibn Khaldun or Tursun Beg and had
become the joint political value of just about all Islamic societies, differs definitively from the
tradition of Western thought, which is based on competition and interclass conflict and is
directed towards an analysis of social change. With this comparison, Bediuzzaman puts forward
the Islamic tradition as a model that could be revivified in the face of the Western civilization
system, which is based on force and conflict.<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[26]<!--[endif]-->
For Bediuzzaman, actual justice should embrace all levels, classes and individuals of the society,
and must bring happiness and security for each of them without any exceptions. In Lemeat he
asserted: “If you want some principles for society: unequal justice is not justice.”<!--[if
!supportFootnotes]-->[27]<!--[endif]--> And, based on this principle, Bediuzzaman condemned
“the most basic law of human politics” accordingly:
“I understood with complete certitude that all the ghastly crimes mankind has perpetrated up to
the present have arisen from the abuses of the most basic ‘fundamental law’ of human politics:
‘individuals may be sacrificed for the good of the nation. Persons may be sacrificed for the wellbeing of the community. Everything may be sacrificed for the country.’ Having no specified
limit, this man-made fundamental law has opened the way to numerous abuses. The two World
Wars resulted from the abuse of this tyrannical fundamental law and overturned a thousand years
of human progress; so too it issued the fatwa for the annihilation of ninety innocents on account
of ten criminals. In the guise of some common good, personal hatred destroyed a town because
of a single criminal. Since the Risale-i Nur has proved this truth in some of its collections and
defence speeches, I refer [readers] to them.
In the face of this tyrannical fundamental law of politics, I found the following fundamental law
of the Qur‘Én of Miraculous Exposition, which comes from the Supreme Throne. They are
expressed by these verses:
No bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another(6:164). If anyone slays a human being –
unless it be [punishment] for murder or for spreading corruption on earth – it shall be as though
he had slain all mankind (5: 32).
That is, these two verses teach that no one can be responsible for another’s crimes. And no
innocent can be sacrificed without his consent, even for the whole humanity. If he sacrifices
himself through his own will and consent, his self-sacrifice is a sort of martyrdom, and is another
matter. [The verses] establish true justice for man.”<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[28]<!--[endif]->
Based on the principle of “Justice without equality is not justice,”<!--[if !supportFootnotes]->[29]<!--[endif]--> Nursi criticized patriotic works performed with the idea of negative racialism
in Turkeyas they may be temporarily beneficial for a small minority of the country while
ignoring the majority who are “in need of a blessed, patriotic hand” too. Then he addressed those
who display excessive patriotism and negative nationalism accordingly: “If you truly love this
nation and are compassionate towards it, be patriotic in such a way that the compassion is
directed towards the majority of its members.”<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[30]<!--[endif]-->
Said Nursi asserted that in the present Muslim world, when the peoples and tribes of Islam are
most in need of one another, and each is more oppressed and more poverty-stricken than the
others, and they are crushed beneath European domination, to regard one another as strangers
due to the idea of nationalism and to consider one another to be enemies, is such a calamity that
it cannot be described.<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[31]<!--[endif]--> According to the scholar,
the only solution, which enables all Muslim nations, including Turks, with eternal and extensive
success, justice, equality and concord, was Islam rather than alien ideas of nationalism or
racialism. He declared:
O my Turkish brother! You watch out in particular! Your nationhood has fused with
Islam and may not be separated from it. If you do separate them, you will be finished! All
your glorious deeds of the past are recorded in the book of Islam’s deeds. Since these
glorious deeds cannot be effaced from the face of the earth by any power, don’t you
efface them from your heart due to the evil suggestions and devices of Satan!<!--[if
!supportFootnotes]-->[32]<!--[endif]-->
But how did the thinker deal with reality of his time that, when he was proclaiming the
above mentioned words,<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[33]<!--[endif]--> ideas of negative
nationalism and racialism were spreading rapidly among Muslim nations, including Turks, and
were believed to be victorious over their religious identity?
Islamic Nationhood and Nationalism
The establishment of the TurkishRepublicin 1923 and its ultra-secular policies resulted in radical
changes in identity consciousness of local population. Within a short period, peoples of the
TurkishRepublic, who thought of themselves simply as Muslims for centuries, began to be
identified by their ethnic differences and as members of the common Turkish nation. Said Nursi,
by witnessing this divisive influence of the nationalistic currents on the religious identity of
Muslims, on the one hand tried to establish harmony and hierarchy between these two identities,
and on the other, applauded national identities that served the ideal of Islam, considering them to
be parts of a unifying Islamic identity.<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[34]<!--[endif]--> The answer
of Said Nursi to a question about religious zeal and national zeal asked of him during the Sultan
Reshad’s Rumelia tour in 1911 summarizes very succinctly his attitude towards the issue as he
said:
With us Muslims, religion and nationhood are united, although there is a theoretical,
apparent and incidental difference between them. Indeed, religion is the life and spirit of
the nation. When they are seen as different and separate from each other, religious zeal
includes both the common people and upper classes. Whereas national zeal is peculiar to
one person out of a hundred, that is, to a person who is ready to sacrifice his personal
benefits for the nation. Since this is the case, religious zeal must be the basis with regard
to the rights of all the people, while national zeal must serve it and to be its fortress.<!-[if !supportFootnotes]-->[35]<!--[endif]-->
He further continued:
Religious zeal and Islamic nationhood have completely fused in the Turks and Arabs, and
may not now be separated. Islamic zeal is a luminous chain which is most strong and
secure and is not born of this world. It is a support that is most firm and certain, and will
not fail. It is an unassailable fortress that cannot be razed.<!--[if !supportFootnotes]->[36]<!--[endif]-->
Consequently, Said Nursi openly opposed the concept that ethnic nationalism was the source of
the superior identity. According to him, the power inherent in the idea of nationalism could be
used in positive fashion at the command of Islamic identity only, which has to be superior. Yet,
this statement of the intellectual refers to the positive type of nationalism only, which should be
the “citadel and armour” of Islamic identity, but “it must not take the place of it.”<!--[if
!supportFootnotes]-->[37]<!--[endif]-->
However, the attitude of Said Nursi towards the subject of negative nationalism is perspicuous
and firm. As have been highlighted previously, he strongly affirmed that positive, sacred Islamic
nationhood does not need any ideas of negative nationalism and racialism.<!--[if
!supportFootnotes]-->[38]<!--[endif]--> Nursi declared that: “Eternal and permanent Islamic
nationalism cannot be bound onto temporary unstable racialism and drafted onto it.”<!--[if
!supportFootnotes]-->[39]<!--[endif]--> Therefore, he repeatedly criticized the government of
Turkeyfor their imitation of that temporary unstable ideology while leaving eternal and
permanent Islamic nationhood and forcing Muslims to adopt national identity.
Bediuzzaman repeatedly insisted that nationhood of Muslims is the only one, Islamic
nationhood; and Muslims, in order to withstand the European domination and divisive influence
of negative nationalist movements, should be united around this common nationhood. Following
the proclamation of the Constitution in 1908, he said:
Since in constitutionalism sovereignty belongs to the nation, the nation’s existence has to
be demonstrated, and our nation is only Islam. For the strongest bond of Arab, Turk,
Kurd, Albanian, Circassian, and Laz, and their firmest nationhood, is nothing other than
Islam. The foundations of an array of states are being laid, due to negligence and strife
incited through the revival of the partisanship and tribalism of the Age of Ignorance,
which died one thousand three hundred years ago. We have seen this.<!--[if
!supportFootnotes]-->[40]<!--[endif]-->
In his famous sermon delivered at the historic Umayyad mosque of Damascusin 1911
Bediuzzaman again called upon Muslim nations to be united around their religious identity.
This sermon was delivered at extremely crucial time for Muslims as well as prospects of ArabTurkish relations. Unity of Muslims was heavily threatened by the prevailing dissatisfaction of
Arabs with the CUP (Committee of Union and Progress) government due to its centralization
policies, securing all privileged positions in officialdom exclusively for Turks, and its antiIslamic spirit, as well as the negative role of an anti-Turkish idiom in the Arab press.<!--[if
!supportFootnotes]-->[41]<!--[endif]--> Said Nursi strongly believed that the crucial situation
arisen in the Middle Eastwas the outcome of the European advocacy of nationalistic ideas among
Muslims in a negative fashion. In his sermon, which was delivered to a gathering of close on ten
thousand, including one hundred scholars,<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[42]<!--[endif]--> he
emphasized “the unifying power of Islamic nationhood in the face of the seeds of enmity that
were being attempted to be sown between the Turks and Arabs.”<!--[if !supportFootnotes]->[43]<!--[endif]--> He said:
Lawful freedom and lawful constitution have demonstrated the sovereignty of our true
nationhood. And the foundation and spirit of our true nationhood is Islam. And in so far
as they have carried the standard of the Ottoman caliphate and Turkish army in the name
of that nationhood, the two true brothers of Arab and Turks, who are like the shell and
citadel of the nationhood of Islam, are the sentries of that sacred citadel.<!--[if
!supportFootnotes]-->[44]<!--[endif]-->
Consequently he inferred:
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 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 !supportFootnotes]-->[45]<!--[endif]-->
The attitude of Bediuzzaman during the Said Revolt in 1925 once more demonstrated that he
considered all Muslims, who belonged to different ethnic groups such as Arab, Berber, Turk or
Kurd, as one united nation. The leader of the revolt Sheikh Said of Palu tried to gain
Bediuzzaman’s support and sent a letter to him, requesting to join the uprising, saying that if he
did so they would be “victorious.” Nursi replied as follows: “The struggle you are embarking on
will cause brother to kill brother and will be fruitless. For the Kurds and Turks are brothers. The
Turkish nation has acted as the standard-bearer of Islam for centuries. It has produced millions of
saints and given millions of martyrs. The sword may not be drawn against the sons of Islam’s
heroic defenders, and I shall not draw mine!”<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[46]<!--[endif]-->
These words of Bediuzzaman Said Nursi perfectly exemplify that, even after the abolition of the
institution of caliphate in 1924 and colonization of almost entire Muslim lands by European
powers, he persisted in considering all Muslim ethnic groups as members of the common united
nationhood, Islam. He put forth an effort to maintain this unity of Muslim nations around the
common ummah identity by words as well as deeds. This position of Bediuzzaman did not
change until the end of his life.
When the Baghdad Pact was signed in February 1955 between Turkeyand Iraq, and was
subsequently joined by Pakistan, Iranand Britain, Nursi sent a letter of congratulation to the
prime minister of Turkey, Menderesand the president, Celal Bayar. In this letter Said Nursi
explained that the greatest danger for the country lied in racialism. It had caused harm to the
Muslim peoples in the past, and currently there were again signs that it was being exploited by
“covert atheists” with the aim of destroying Islamic brotherhood and preventing the Muslim
nations from re-unification. The true nationality or nationhood of both Turks and Arabs, he felt,
was Islam; their ‘Arabness’ and ‘Turkishness’ had fused with Islam. The new alliance (The
Baghdad Pact), as Bediuzzaman pointed out, would repulse the danger of racialism, and besides
gaining for the Turkish nation “four hundred million brothers,” it would also gain for them the
“friendship of eight hundred million Christians.”<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[47]<!--[endif]-->
Consequently, we can suppose that the religious identity for Said Nursi was the uniting force of
the entire Muslim ummah in the face of divisive influence of negative nationalism and racialism
advocated by some European powers. He considered Islamic nationhood to be the basic bond,
which unites different ethnic groups, societies and classes, and establishes social harmony. If
negative nationalism and racialism in the thought Bediuzzaman were the source of inequity,
injustice and enmity among communities, Islamic nationhood was competent to create equality,
justice and harmony not within various ethnic Muslim nations only, but also with other religious
groups, especially the Christians.
Conclusion
The thought of Bediuzzaman Said Nursi completely refutes Hans Kohn’s “universal theory” of
social change. Bediuzzaman did not consider ideas of nationalism to be a characteristic feature in
transition from medieval to modern forms of organization. Nationalism for him was a universal
phenomenon, not particular to specific period or place. It, in the forms of tribalism or racialism,
existed throughout human history.
The main contribution of Bediuzzaman to the subject was his separation of nationalistic
sentiments into two types or levels: positive and negative. Nursi observed that the bond between
the masses in Western political system was based on negative type of nationalism or racialism,
the ideology, which, instead of justice, causes enmity, hostility and wars in a society; and,
accordingly, he deemed it as an extremely harmful idea for the entire mankind, directly leading
to annihilation. But the main principle of Islam, as he pointed out, was mutual assistance, the
mark of which was accord and solidarity. Nursi believed that unity, harmony, accord and
solidarity among members made their society able to function justly and further reinforce it
towards progress. Therefore, Nursi deemed Islam and its principles as eternal and permanent
power, while ideas of negative nationalism and racialism were identified by him as temporary
unstable sickness.
Bediuzzaman also acknowledged the fact that ideas of negative nationalism have been greatly
advanced during his time and were spreading rapidly among Muslim nations who thought of
themselves simply as Muslims for centuries. He believed that nationhood of Muslims should be
based on their religion, Islam, and opposed the idea of ethnicity-centred nationalism. The power
inherent in the idea of positive nationalism could be used in a positive fashion at the command of
an Islamic identity only, which has to be superior.
<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->
<!--[endif]-->
<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[1]<!--[endif]--> On widely accepted definitions of nationalism, see
Stephen K. Carter, Russian Nationalism: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow, (London: Pinter
Publishers, 1990), 3-5; Zeenath Kausar, Islam and Nationalism: An Analysis of the Views of
Azad, Iqbal and Maududi, (Malaysia: A.S. Noordeen, 1994), 34-43; Elie Kedourie, Nationalism,
(UK: Blackwell, 4th edn., 1993); Hans Kohn, Nationalism and Imperialism in the Hither East,
(New York: Howard Fertig, 1969); Anthony D. Smith, Theories of Nationalism, (London:
Duckworth, 2nd edn., 1983).
<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[2]<!--[endif]--> See, A. al-Ahsan, Ummah or Nation? Identity
Crisis in Contemporary Muslim Society, (UK: The Islamic Foundation, 1992),31.
<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[3]<!--[endif]--> Hans Kohn, Nationalism and Imperialism in the
Hither East, 18.
<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[4]<!--[endif]--> Ibid., 229.
<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[5]<!--[endif]--> Elie Kedourie, Nationalism, 68.
<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[6]<!--[endif]--> ÑAlÊ MuÍammad NaqawÊ, Islam and
Nationalism, translated from Iranian by Alaedin Pazargadi (Iran: Islamic Propagation
Organization, 1984), 17-18.
<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[7]<!--[endif]--> See, S. Nursi, Letters, translated from the Turkish
by Şükran Vahide (Istanbul: Sözler, 2001), 380.
<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[8]<!--[endif]--> See, Hüseyin Çelik, “Bediuzzaman Said Nursi and
the Ideal of Islamic Unity,” Nursi Studies,
<http://www.nursistudies.com/englishh/data/95e/huseyincelik95e.htm> (accessed 7 May, 2006).
<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[9]<!--[endif]--> Said Nursi, Sünuhat, quoted in Ahmed Davutoglu,
“Bediuzzaman and the Politics of the Islamic World in the 20th Century,” Nursi Studies,
<http://www.nursistudies.com/englishh/data/95e/ahmeddavutoglu95e.htm> (accessed 7 May,
2006).
<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[10]<!--[endif]--> S.Nursi,Letters, 380.
<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[11]<!--[endif]--> See, Yvonne Yazbeck Haddad, “Ghurbah as
Paradigm for Muslim Life: A Risale-i Nur Worldview,” in Islam at the Crossroads: On the Life
and Thought of Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, edited by Ibrahim Abu-RabiÑ (Albany: State
University of New York Press, 2003), 244.
<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[12]<!--[endif]--> See, BukhÉrÊ, AÍkÉm 4.
<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[13]<!--[endif]--> S. Nursi, Letters, 380-381.
<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[14]<!--[endif]--> S. Nursi, The Words, 745.
<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[15]<!--[endif]--> S. Nursi, Letters, 381.