Existence and Man: Nursi and J. P. Sartre

8/6/2019 Existence and Man: Nursi and J. P. Sartre

1/47

Existence and ManA Study of the Views of Said Nursi and J. P.Sartre

brahim ZDEMR


2/47

2

Existence and Man

A Study of the Views of Said Nursi and J. P. Sartre

brahim [email protected]

In the absence of a transcendent Being greater than allbeings men deify themselves. Karl Barth, Germantheologian,

Banalization of Nihilism, 137.

A palace resides in the heart of every atom, but so long asyou dont open it, its door will remain closed to you.

Mawlana Jalal al-Din Rumi.Depriving a person of his ability to use the set of symbolswhich shape his individual approach to God may be a more

distressing blow to him than depriving him of other values.erif Mardin,

Religion and Social Change in Modern Turkey.

I. INTRODUCTION:

Modernity as the Loss of the Sacred and Triumph of the Profane

In this paper, I shall first of all set out briefly the ideas on existence and man of J.

P. Sartre,1 one of the foremost representatives of atheistic existentialism, and then shall

examine Said Nursis ideas on the same subject. This will offer a comparison of the
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


3/47

3

discourses developed by the two thinkers, and at the same time give an idea of what the

Risale-i Nurhas to offer the people of the present, engaged as they are in a search for

new interpretations.

At the start of a new century people are re-asking an old question: what is the

meaning of man and existence? Is there any particular meaning in being human? Does it

have any value? What is it that makes life worth living? The reason I say an old

question is that throughout history people have asked about the origin of the universe

and mans place in it, and have sought the answers in various fables, legends, religions

and philosophies. Most of these have been provided by religions and philosophies. The

influence of the explanations of the revealed/divine religions is well-known. But mans

intellect has never ceased both to internalize or understand these, and to think up

explanations independently of them. The reason for this may well be the

meaninglessness and impossibility of living in an unknown, incomprehensible, strange,

and meaningless world.

However, the new scientific story/explanations, which, first appearing in the 17th

century and becoming firmly established in the 18th and 19th centuries, put forward the

modern worldview,2 challenged and tried to supersede all existent explanations. In his

work on Nietsche, Heidegger, the inspiration of existentialism and forerunner of the

postmodern thinkers, described the era known as modern, as the fact of man being the

centre and measure of all things.3 This is also the process of mans self-deification and

his rebellion against the sacred that has affected all of modern times and continues to do

so. In his classic work on modernity, M. Berman says about this phenomenon that still

shapes our lives: A vital experience shared by people in every corner of todays world;

in other words, an experimental method related to space and time, myself and others,

and the possibilities and difficulties of life. (...)

To be modern is to find ourselves in an environment that promises adventure,

power, fun, development, and the possibility to change ourselves and the world; but on

the other hand, it is an environment that threatens to annihilate everything we have,

everything we know, and everything we are. Modern environments and experiences pass

beyond all boundaries, geographical and ethnic, class and national, religious and

ideological; modernity may be said to have united humanity in this sense. But this is a

paradoxical unity; the unity of division; it constantly draws us into the whirlpool of being

torn apart and put together again, of conflict contradictions, of uncertainty and pain.4

The clash between science and religion, so often mentioned in the history of

philosophy and science stems from this character of modernity, which I tried to

summarize above. (It should be recalled that this clash was perceived more by

Christianity and the fathers of modern science.) However, the modern world-view has its

successes, but it has its failures too. For the meaningless of the universe and man is one


4/47

4

of its fundamental principles and this has resulted in spiritual crises in society. The chief

mark of this crisis is mans alienation from hhimself and from nature, resulting from their

loss of meaning, or more correctly, the evaporation of their meaning.5 And the most

evident sign of this loss of meaning is people seeing no purpose in living, and their

rejecting in the name of alternative lifestyles current moral values, even those commonly

accepted in history, and adopting every sort of lifestyle outside these.

There is no place for spiritual and moral values in this new lifestyle, which,

influenced by the positivist science that emerged in the 19th century and developed in

the 20th, grew out of existentialist, nihilist philosophical currents. Science, the sole

guide, took the place of all values characterized as religious, traditiona l or dogmatic.

Neither the universe nor anything in it has any meaning. Man is a complete alien in this

meaningless world. Having only his will, he has been abandoned in this absurd and

hostile world, or more correctly, he has been flung into it. A result of this is that his

position in it is that of an alien. According to Garaudy, the most penetrating description

of mans bewilderment is found in Martin Heideggers (1899-1976) works. Without future

or salvation, human life is lived between empty skies and a disorderly earth. Heidegger

likened the tragic situation of all beings and of man to the situation of a nation and the

people of one of its classes at a time of crisis: Man no longer has before him God to

show him the way, or sound values and truths; the world is incomprehensible to him and

alien. Before him is nothing, non-existence.6 And again, We are only beings who feel

they have been thrown into an unpitying, unfeeling world.7

Thus, there was only man as the single centre of values in an absurd and

meaningless world in which all transcendent and moral underpinning, and the existence

and efficacy of values were rejected. With their basic premise that being precedes

essence, nihilist, humanist, and atheist existentialists challenged religion and every sort

of spiritual/metaphysical value, saying that the cosmos was meaningless and conformed

to no logical order or plan; that it had not been brought into existence or set in order by

an omnipotent, beneficent god or Creator, there was no necessity in anything, everything

was contingent, reality had no meaning, order, or explanation; all order, meaning and

explanations were the products of human intelligence, and reality was incomprehensible.

Since this was so it could not be reduced to a system. Moral values had no existence

outside mans mind, and that there was no objective moral order; ethics and values had

been created by man.8

Nevertheless, the answer should be found to a question important from our point

of view: what is the influence today of those ideas, which were so widespread last

century? According to Griffin, atheistic existentialist ideas were influential on the great

majority of people in North America and Europe, and also in other places (if one thinks

how the West affected this country and its culture.) For those people, the world and all it


5/47

5

contains, including man, ceased to hhave any meaning. Consequently, most people

believe they live in a meaningless, absurd world that has no metaphysical dimension.

Responsible for the spread of this idea were the existentialist ideas of circles associated

with art, literature, philosophy, and theology even. This understanding, which tried to

explain nature and man by stripping them of every sort of spiritual and metaphysical

aspect, is today relinquishing its place to postmodern attitudes.

A philosophical approach underlying the above was existentialist nihilism, itself a

result of the idea propounded by F. Nietzsche (d. 1900) that God is dead.9 The

existentialist nihilists denied God and all spiritual values more stealthily than many

contemporary sicknesses that attack mans physical being, sapping his spirit, morals, and

inner world, and leaving him bereft of spiritual and moral values. To put it another way,

these European currents were the cause of a serious erosion of morality and spirituality

in other countries; their moral values were swept away by the flood.10 Thus, what Hegel

(1770-1831) called the worlds spirit was manifested as Europeanization; countries

throughout the world looked to Europe and attempted to reorder themselves accordingly.

With the Enlightenment idea of linear development, this Eurocentrism defined the

other for Western man and legitimized his right to rule them.11

As far as the Islamic world was concerned, after the Wests colonialist and

imperialist occupation, which began in the second half of the 19th century, the attempt

was made to instil these philosophical ideas nurtured by the West in the Muslims minds

and spirits. While seizing all the physical wealth and resources of these countries, the

imperialist forces challenged with these ideas the Muslims traditional religious and moral

values, and induced the younger generations to oppose their own traditions.

To put it another way, the Western world-view destroyed the Muslims traditional

maps and compasses, and the new maps the West gave them on the one hand broke

them off from their own roots and traditions, or at least caused them tto clash with them,

and on the other, led to the emergence of many contemporary Islamic movements. What

is striking and significant from our point of view, illustrating graphically Nursis mission

and originality, was that he was fully aware of the profound effect -like contagiousdisesases- of contemporary materialist, nihilist existentialist and positivist philosophical

currents on society and on the way Muslims perceived themselves and the world, and

their destructive influence:

The world is undergoing a terrible spiritual crisis. A disastrous sickness, a plague,

a pestilence, has arisen in Western society, the spiritual foundations of which have been

shaken, and is gradually spreading worldwide. What solutions has Islamic society to offer

for this contagious disease? The Wests rotten, putrifying, false formulas? Or the ever-

fresh principles of its own beliefs? I see the heads of the great to be sunk in

heedlessness. The rotten pillars of unbelief cannot support the citadel of belief. It is


6/47

6

because of this that I concentrate all my efforts on belief.12

Said Nursi did not concern himself with those who did not (or could not)

understand his vision and what they said. He did not take them seriously. However, he

was fully aware of the dangers modernity posed to mankind. It is understood from the

following that this awareness was of such a degree that it caused him to forget his own

personal suffering, pain, and distress:

The only thing that distresses me are the dangers facing Islam. Formerly, the

dangers came from outside and they were easily withstood. But now they come from

within. The worm is gnawing the trunk and to resist it is difficult. Im frightened that the

social structure will not be able to withstand it, for it does not perceive the enemy; it

supposes to be its friend its greatest enemy, that is severing its arteries and drinking its

blood. If society has become so blind, the citadel of belief is in danger. This then is my

only trouble, that causes me distress. I do not have the time to think even of the

difficulties and hardships I myself suffer. If only they could be increased a thousandfold

and the future of the citadel of belief could be safe.13

Here, Nursi is describing this approach and his alarm at the danger it poses for the

younger generations of Muslims. He is describing too, emotionally and eloquently, his

own mission:

They say to me: Why do you fight against this and that? I am not aware of it.

There is a terrible conflagration before me the flames of which are touching the skies. My

sons are burning in it, my faith has caught fire and is burning. I am racing to extinguish

the fire, to save belief. If someone wants to hold me up on the way and I trip on him,

what importance has it? Is such a petty incident of any importance? Narrow ideas,

narrow views! I have sacrificed my life in the hereafter even to save the communitys

religious belief. I have no longing for Paradise nor fear of Hell. Let not one but a

thousand Saids be sacrificed for the sake of the twenty-five million [Turkeys population

at that time] strong Turkish ccommunity. I would not want Paradise if the Quran

remained without listeners on the earth. It would be a prison for me. I would be happy to

burn in the flames of Hell to see that my nations belief was firm. For while my body was

burning, my heart would rejoice.14

A further striking point is that although the Muslims were successful in liberating

their countries and lands from Western imperialism, the same cannot be said about their

intellectual dimensions. To put it another way, the Muslim countries won their political

independence, but due to the profound influence of philosophical thought on the way

their societies perceived themselves, they did not win their cultural and intellectual

independence in the same way. The current secularism of the Muslim countries today and

their Western-type intellectuals furnish the best proof of this. Also true is the fact that


7/47

7

the conflict and tension between the West and the other experienced in the past, today

is experienced in another way. This was conceptualized by S. Huntingdon as The Clash

of Civilizations.15 Thus, clashes today are between states and individuals belonging to

different civilizations, rather than between different countries and states. In fact, such

clashes are seen to be continuing fiercely between groups who live in the same country

yet claim to belong to different civilizations. The clashes and tensions in certain Muslim

countries between pro-West and anti-West, and secular and anti-secular discourses are

an indication of this. Pointing out the power and influence of Western civilization, Colin

Turner asserts that the concept of the West has changed and lost the meaning we

understand:

Another reason why our approach to the West has made little headway is that we

have misunderstood the West. The West is not only a geographical entity, it is also a

metaphor. Geographically, the West was the first place to witness a mass revolt against

the Divine. Modern Western civilization is the first of which we have knowledge that does

not have some formal structure of religious belief at its heart. The West is thus a

metaphor for the setting of the sun of religious belief; a metaphor for the eclipse of God.

And since this eclipse is no longer confined to the geographical West, one may say that

wherever the truths of belief have been discarded, there is the West.16

Long previously Said Nursi drew attention to the appearance of a new era of

conflict, which he described in terms of the worm is gnawing at the body, after that of

civil wars and strife, in which the conflict would be experienced in peoples own egos andspirits.17 A basic reason for the emergence of the Islamic rrevival movements of the

second half of the 19th century and 20th century, was not only to oppose the Western

imperialist forces, but also to combat contemporary Western thought, on which this force

leaned and which it nourished, and to develop an Islamic discourse.18 As an original

contemporary Muslim scholar and leader, Said Nursi dedicated his life to this mission.

1. The Importance of Sartre and Nursi

Existentialism in its various forms has been one of the philosophical movements

most influential in both the West and Muslim countries in recent times. Its

representatives included believers in God like Kierkegaard (1813-1855), Jaspers (1883-

1969), and Marcel (1884-1973), as well as atheists like Heidegger, Sartre, and Camus

(1913-1960). It is clear from this that although there was no complete agreement as to

what existentialism was or was not, its atheistic and nihilist varieties were more

influential in the 20th century. This influence continues at the present time in different

form. Conscious of this, John F. Whealons opinion was that no thinking man or woman


8/47

8

can develop a philosophy of life without confronting the problems raised by

existentialism. He said, furthermore: So long as one does not come to terms with the

problem of absurdity, propounded by contemporary existentialism, it is not possible to

put forward a satisfactory discourse.19

Thus, without mentioning its name, Said Nursi provided Quranic answers to some

of the fundamental questions posed by the contemporary philosophical discourse, from

the point of view of religion in general and Islam in particular.20 He tried to explain the

meaning the Quranic message expresses for man in the here and now, taking as his

aim the guidance of todays Muslims with a brand new lesson of the Quran. Bearing in

mind the interest shown the Risale-i Nur internationally, one can say his reply bears a

universal character. As erif Mardin discerns with the sensitivity of a sociologist, Said

Nursi was not only addressing the local villagers and Muslims of Turkey of that time with

the ideas he set forth in the gardens and orchards of Barla and heights of Cam Mountain,

but all Muslims and all mankind.

Another reason for my drawing comparisons between Said Nursi and an

existentialist philosopher is my opinion that Nursi may be included in the category of

existentialist thinkers in Islamic thought. These thinkers differed from the essentialist

Peripatetic philosophers who followed the Aristotelian line, and criticized them.21

II. SARTRES UNDERSTANDING OF BEING AND MAN

It was no coincidence that Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) rose to prominence as a

philosopher in the 1940s. This was a time that as Said Nursi (1877-1960) predicted,

mankind experienced great change and people intensied their search for religion and

truth. The collapse of the liberal paradigm with the First World War caused many people

to lose their belief in history, religion, and all values; starving, destitute, homeless people

who had lost their families, or who were wounded and lost, and without hope of the

future, came face to face with the human situation in the harshest and most acute way.

It has to be said that Sartres atheistic existentialist ideas, which emerged in the

above-mentioned context, have been more influential this century (20th). According to

B. Kaufmann, well known for his studies of the subject, existentialism gained prominence

internationally through Sartres works.22 His philosophy was to a large extent influenced

by such philosophers as F. Nietzsche, M. Heidegger, G. W. Hegel, and E. Husserl.

Whether he took ideas from them wholly, or interpreted them partially, he made a new

synthesis of them, and constructed atheist existentialist philosophy on them.23 There are

several reasons for this, the most important of which are: firstly: Sartre was writing in

Europe at a time people had been saved both from the Second World War and from


9/47

9

repression. Secondly: contrarily to the classical philosophical tradition, he expressed

even the most philosophical of his ideas in novels, essays, plays, and other literary

means, so reaching millions of readers. A further reason was Sartres ideas on free love,

which completely disregarded societys moral norms, and his indisputable atheism.24 In

order to understand Sartres nihilist existentialist ideas and their consequences forhumanity, one first has to understand his conceptualization of existence, and his

understanding of man, the result of this.

According to Plato, one of the greatest philosophers of the Western philosophical

tradition, the world of ideas is true existence. The world we see and experience through

our five senses is only a shadow of the world of ideas. This view had a profound influence

on the whole history of philosophy, including Muslim philosophers. The philosopher A. N.

Whitehead (1861-1947) said that Western philosophy was a mere footnote to Platos

works. J. P. Sartres views on being and man are nothing more than discussion of thisancient subject from a different viewpoint. Sartre made a twofold division of being into

being for itself, which we might call consciousness, and being in itself. That is, the

being we know through our senses, the object of experiment and observation.

However, what had prime importance for Sartre was being for itself, that is,

man. For in his 660-page work Being and Non-Being, he allots only six pages to being in

itself, and the rest to the former. And the purpose of those six pages was to act as an

introduction to being for itself. In other words, Sartre found the idea on which to base

his philosophy in this being for itself. We may now examine these concepts more

closely:

1. Being in itself

In Being and Non-Being, Sartre defines being in itself as whatever being is.25

It is therefore exactly the opposite of being for itself. Being in itself is the world of

objects/things; it is whatever is. It is therefore nothing else. Things are not in need of

anything for their existence. They are infinite and meaningless. Moreover, being in

itself has no meaning. There being no god or creator, everything simply exists without

any purpose or meaning. According to Sartre, therefore, we have no right to ask where

they (things) come from and why they are here. By reducing what exists to a series of

appearances that make it visible, modern thought (phenomenology) made a significant

advance... This new contradiction, the contradiction between the finite and the infinite, or

rather between the infinite within the finite, replaced the dilemma of being and bringing

into being.26 Garaudy says that this forms the centre of Sartres proof. According to

Sartre, it is a question of finding a transcendental reality, but this is not God; it is the


10/47

10

world.27

The meaninglessness and absurdity of being is expressed best in Sartres novel,

Nausea. This was his first novel, and reflects the world-views of his masters Husserl and

Heidegger.28 The novels central theme, in reality a philosophical manifesto, is that now

the world has no purpose it expresses nothing at all.29 The author puts the following

words in the hero, Roquentins mouth:

We were a mass of existents bored and fed up with ourselves. There was not the

slightest reason for any of us being there. Each being felt within himself a vague and

confused anxiety greater than the others. Being extra; this was the only relationship I

could form with the trees, the railings, the pebbles.30

Such a view can result only in bewilderment and anger. Everything is so

meaningless and existants are so unnecessary that they complain at their existence.

There is no necessary Being to put them there, to show them their place within a totality

of cause and meaning, that is to say, nothing to create them; there could be no God.

Nothing has anything before it or to come after. The thing in itself is only there. One

cannot ask where they all came from or how they are there, the world is nothings place.

There is no meaning in it.31 As repeated in Nausea, being is purposeless and

absurd.32 Having summarized briefly Sartres ideas on being, we can move on to his

understanding of man, which is relevant to the subject of this paper.

2. Being for itself: Man

As mentioned above, Sartres understanding of man, which he defines as being in

itself, results from his view of existence. Rejecting the idea of a creative God, Sartre

states that like the being in itself, man does not have a pre-created nature that is fixed

and the same as all other humans. He is being for itself, which Sartre defines as

consciousness. In his view, all beings other than man, according to the Hegelian theory

of opposites, belong to another group of beings: being in itself. While studying being foritself, we shall look at being for itself as consciousness, that being in itself as non-being.

According to Sartre, basically being for itself is consciousness, and in this

consciousness it is always the consciousness of something. Consciousness considers

everything outside itself that it encounters as being in itself. Being in itself is the exact

opposite of consciousness and being can only be known through consciousness. Man may

always be aware of his own consciousness, but this is the consciousness of something

permanent. Nevertheless, this something is different to consciousness and is outside it.

For this reason consciousness always distinguishes between itself and things other thanit. It never sees them as the same as itself.33 Sartre uses the symbol of a mirror in order


11/47

11

to illustrate the concept of consciousness. A mirror only contains something when it

reflects something. On its own, it has neither contents or meaning.34 Similarly, on i ts

own consciousness contains nothing, so the things it reflects are always other than itself

and outside of it.35 In short, consciousness has no essence and no contents. It is nothing

other than existence. Thus, things and consciousness are interdependent. Without

consciousness, things are meaningless chaos. And the existence of consciousness without

things is inconceivable. For consciousness is apparent only when it reflects things.

According to this, man does not have a nature/essence that was pre-determined

and is universal in the sense that it applies to all human beings. Consequently, it is a

question of the human situation, rather than human nature. Thus, all the qualities and

attributes posited universally for man by religions and metaphysical traditions were

rejected by Sartre. As a result, man had no nature he had to comply with or follow, or to

develop by adhering to particular ethical teachings. One of Sartres main theses relatedto man crops up here: Man determines himself, that is, he becomes man, through his

own projects/actions related to the future. In Maurice Cranstons words:

Man can never be in a specific and final situation; he is bound to always choose,

make decisions, re-enact old projects and put forward new ones. This function comes to

an end only with death.36

Thus, the meaning of Sartres famous saying being comes before essence

becomes clear: man is a being without essence (nature or inborn character). To possess

such an essence would be entirely contradictory to mans power to change/fulfil himself

in unlimited fashion. The thing he wants is to be human.37 A further meaning of this

understanding is its rejection of all values that would guide man and illuminate his path.

Man is completely alone in an absurd and meaningless world. His sole attribute, if there

is such a thing, is his being doomed to be free.

Sartre goes even further and proposes that it is mans duty to become as God.

Because, In Sartres works, the complete freedom arising from the non-existence of God

has left man free in his actions, and since as demanded by atheism, there is no outside

cause to direct his behaviour or any sanction by which to correct it, the individual has

taken on himself the whole burden and quite simply cast himself into aloneness.38

Sartre expresses this as follows:

Everything happened as though I was bound to be responsible for it. It wasnt

that I had been abandoned in life, alone and tossed around like a chip of wood on water,

but as though I was tied to a world for which I alone was responsible and the

responsibility of which I couldnt escape from even for a moment. Wwhatever I did I still

had to take it on myself, and suicide was just a way of life of another world like this

one.39


12/47

12

The noteworthy point here is that having rejected Gods existence, the rejection of

both the createdness of the world and its having order and meaning, and of man having

a nature, essence, and meaning. Accordingly, mans only attribute is his being free.

Indeed, this is not an attribute, it is something he is condemned to be. As Roger Reneaux

says: To exist truly is to be conscious, but to be free in a more profound sense. In fact, our being in the world constitutes freedom. Man is not free to be free; he is

condemned to be free.40 According to Sartre, freedom is the mortar of our

existence.41 So what is this? Reneaux summarizes Sartres view of freedom like this:

He does not reduce it to will and thinking like the psychologists. For he prefers to debate

and act reasonably rather than following inducements and passions.42 Sartres idea of

being comes first and necessitates essence, which he took from Heidegger, crops up

again here. And as a result of this, man appears in the world as a mirror reflecting his

own choices, projects, and existence.In other words, freedom is to do and to matureby doing and not to do anything else.44

3. Some Consequences of Existentialist Atheism

The reason I have offered a brief discussion of these ideas of Sartre is that, with

their view of existence as absurd and meaningless, existential atheism and nihilism are

still influential today in various ways. Whether one is aware of it or not, to see all the

things we come across in everyday life, the trees, birds, mountains, forests, seas, lakes,

earth, sun, stars, and planets, in short everything, to be unnecessary, meaningless, and

absurd, results from an understanding like the above. To deny or ignore the

transcendent and sacred dimension of nature, and look on it as just a thing which

formed itself and is just there, holding no meaning, produces various results in daily life.

Such a view does not necessarily have to be as destructive as existentialist nihilism, but

it leads to the loss of religious sensitivity and understanding, and of moral values, and to

degeneration and the alienation of a person from himself and from nature. David Ray

Griffin insists that the existentialist view of the world as absurd and meaningless

underlies many of the problems facing modern man.

Griffin sets out this subject most eloquently when investigating the ideas at the

heart of modernity. He asserts that the universes absurdity/meaningless is one of the

chief marks of existential philosophy. He asks: if as such existential thinkers as Martin

Heidegger, Jean-Paul Sartre, Albert Camus, and even Franz Kafka (d. 1924) proposed,

the universe has no importance whatsoever and everything consists only of

absurdity/meaninglessness, what possible reason is there for people to live? Why should

they live in such a world? According to Griffin, because people are not offered the


13/47

13

slightest motive for living, they turn to violence, drink, and drugs as a way of life, or

become regular attenders of mental hospitals, or else commit suicide. Where there is no

meaning, death offers new possibilities. He says that it is interesting to consider alcohol

and drug abuse in modern societies from this point of view, as well as suicide.44 In the

face of this view of existentialist philosophy of the universe, which posits that (things)

cause themselves and in addition are absurd and meaningless, Nursi exclaims in

astonishment:

Glory be to God! Although all the beings in the universe from the smallest

particles to the sun show that the Creator has choice, each with its own appointed

individuality, order, wisdom, and measure, this blind philosophy refused to see it.45

It is for this reason that the Risale-i Nurcontinuously describes how everything

from atoms to the stars, and from the mosquitos digestive stystem to the solar system,

is orderly, meaningful, and harmonious, and created. In conclusion, a world in which

everything is in order, including man, cannot the product of chance. Mans most

important function is to Take for [his] object of love and worship One Who possesses

infinite perfection and a beauty that is infinitely sacred, exalted, transcendent, faultless,

flawless and unfading. ... His beauty and perfection are indicated and pointed to by all

the fairness, beauty, virtue and perfection of all lovable and loved objects in the

cosmos.46 This subject is touched on again and again in the Risale-i Nurs many

comparisons of belief and unbelief. Rather than discussing a single philosophical view, he

describes the chief aspects of belief in God as an absolute transcendent being, and those

who deny Him or do not accept Him, or more than that, who try to prove His non-

existence like Sartre. He does not make do with merely clarifying their stands, but

describes in detail the consequences for mankind of both these approaches.47 In order to

explain this further, I shall examine Said Nursis views on existence and man.

III. SAID NURSIS VIEWS ON EXISTENCE AND MAN

The main difference between Said Nursi and Sartre stems from their views of

existence. As a contemporary follower of the Islamic tradition and an o riginal Quranic

commentator, Nursi lays emphasis on the wholeness of existence and its metaphysical

dimension.48 While according to the phenomenology that Sartre employed

methodologically, phenomena consist of the direct data of experience, and the only

reality is the phenomena of the field of existence that we can perceive. There is no

invisible, unknowable being outside the sphere of contingency that the brain cannot

grasp or perceive directly.49 Sartre said that one cannot speak of any sort of being

outside of phenomena, and he rejected every sort of metaphysical substance. He


14/47

14

asserted that ontology is not a universal way of explaining things but an extensive

method of describing existence, as we saw above.50

It is not only the phenomenological method that rejects the metaphysical

dimension of existence and stripping the universe of its sacred aspects, shows it to be a

mass of lifeless meaningless things; Positivist science and the materialist philosophy

traditions follow a line close to this method.51 This is where Nursis originality becomes

apparent. A remark made about Iqbal may be applied to him too: He came to us as a

Saviour and restored to life the dead.52 Under the guidance of the Quran, Nursi also

showed the universe to be living, with all its beings in harmonious and meaningful order,

recognizing their Creator and glorifying Him, and thus all being brothers to one another.

He conjured up in the minds of his readers the picture of a universe that like them was a

believer and living and meaningful. He as though raised to life everything in the

universe. The Risale-i Nur challenged the tension and cleavage modernity had created

between man and nature, and the resulting problem of alienation of man from nature

and himself.53 If today people from very different backgrounds and countries are reading

the Risale-i Nurand trying to understand it, it is because of this. The following passage,

written by the English Muslim Colin Turner, provides a very good example of it:

Thanks to the Risale-i Nur, I was now able to see that previously, God had been

something that I hadbrought in to complete the occasion, an unknown factor placed

almost arbitrarily at the beginning of creation to avoid the impossibility of infinite

regression. He had been the First Cause, the Prime Mover, a veritable God of thegaps. He had been rather a constitutional monarch of the English variety, who must be

treated with the utmost respect but not allowed to interfere in the affairs of everyday life.

Inspired by the verse La ilaha illa Allah, the Risale-i Nurshows that the signs of

God, these mirrors of His names and attibutes, are revealed to us constantly in new and

ever-changing forms and configurations, eliciting acknowledgement, acceptance,

submission, love and worship. The Risale-i Nurshowed that there is a distinct process

involved in being Muslim in the true sense of the word: contemplation to knowledge,

knowledge to affirmation, affirmation to belief or conviction, and from conviction to

submission. ... Thus I can say that I had been a Muslim but not a believer; that which I

had assumed was belief was in reality nothing more than the inability to deny.

Bediuzzaman was not responsible for introducing me to Islam - which anyone could have

done - but for introducing me to belief. Belief through investigation, not through

imitation.54

Despite this property of the Risale-i Nur, Said Nursi makes no direct references to

either existentialism or phenomenology. Due to his method, with one or two exceptions,

he does not relate the philosophers propositions. Thus, rather than being a philosopher,which he anyway made no claim to be, he was a Quranic commentator and a propagator


15/47

15

of the Quran. The below passage, which refers to Ghazzali, is equally applicable to Nursi:

It is certain that by profession he was not a philosopher. He was a naturally

religious sage. He used reason, knowledge, and the Sharia as natural means of reaching

his goal. However this does not prevent us pointing out that throughout his intellectual

journey, his exemplary, fine mind both assisted philosophy and was assisted by it.55

Nursis main concern is with the results for humanity in general and Muslims in

particular of the existential viewpoint, which I tried to summarize above. It is because of

this that he frequently makes comparisons of the sacred wisdom of the All -Wise Quran

and the wisdom of philosophy. Utilizing the Quranic method and illustrating his views by

means of parabolic stories, he shows as follows the profound differences between the

Quranic viewpoint and that of philosophy (phenomenology):

One time, a renowned Ruler who was both religious and a fine craftsman wanted

to write the All-Wise Quran in a script worthy of the sacredness in its meaning and the

miraculousness in its words, so that its marvel-displaying stature would be arrayed in

wondrous apparel. The artist-King therefore wrote the Quran in a truly wonderful

fashion. He used all his precious jewels in its writing. In order to indicate the great

variety of its truths, he wrote some of its embodied letters in diamonds and emeralds,

and some in rubies and agate, and other sorts in brilliants and coral, while others he

inscribed with silver and gold. He adorned and decorated it in such a way that everyone,

those who knew how to read and those who did not, were full of admiration and

astonishment when they beheld it. Especially in the view of the people of truth, since the

outer beauty was an indication of the brilliant beauty and striking adornment in its

meaning, it became a truly precious antique.

Then the Ruler showed the artistically wrought and bejewelled Quran to a

European philosopher and to a Muslim scholar. In order to test them and for reward, he

commanded them: Each of you write a work about the wisdom and purposes of this!

First the philosopher, then the scholar composed a book about it. However, the

philosophers book discussed only the decorations of the letters and their relationships

and conditions, and the properties of the jewels, and described them. It did not touch on

their meaning at all, for the European had no knowledge of the Arabic script. He did not

even know that the embellished Quran was a book, a written piece, expressing a

meaning. He rather looked on it as an ornamented antique. He did not know any Arabic,

but he was a very good engineer, and he described things very aptly, and he was a

skilful chemist, and an ingenious jeweller. So this man wrote his work according to those

crafts.

As for the Muslim scholar, when he looked at the Quran, he understood that it


16/47

16

was the Perspicuous Book, the All-Wise Quran. This truth-loving person neither attached

importance to the external adornments, nor busied himself with the ornamented letters.

He became preoccupied with something that was a million times higher, more elevated,

more subtle, more noble, more beneficial, and more comprehensive than the matters

with which the other man had busied himself. For discussing the sacred truths and lights

of the mysteries beneath the veil of the decorations, he wrote a truly fine commentary.

Then the two of them took their works and presented them to the Illustrious

Ruler. The Ruler first took the philosophers work. He looked at it and saw that the self-

centred and nature-worshipping man had worked very hard, but had written nothing of

true wisdom. He had understood nothing of its meaning. Indeed, he had confused it and

been disrespectful towards it, and ill-mannered even. For supposing that source of truths,

the Quran, to be meaningless decoration, he had insulted it as being valueless in regard

to meaning. So the Wise Ruler hit him over the head with his work and expelled him from

his presence.

Then he looked at the work of the other, the truth-loving, scrupulous scholar,

and saw that it was an extremely fine and beneficial commentary, a most wise

composition full of guidance. Congratulations! May God bless you!, he said. Thus,

wisdom is this and they call those who possess it knowledgeable and wise. As for the

other man, he was a craftsman who had exceeded his mark. Then in reward for the

scholars work, he commanded that in return for each letter ten gold pieces should be

given him from his inexhaustible treasury.56

The truth alluded to by the parable he explains like this:

The ornamented Quran is this artistically fashioned universe, and the Ruler is the

Pre-Eternal All-Wise One. As for the two men, one -the European- represents philosophy

and its philosophers, and the other, the Quran and its students.

Yes, the All-Wise Quran is a most elevated expounder, a most eloquenttranslator of the Mighty Quran of the Universe. It is the Criterion which instructs man

and the jinn concerning the signs of creation inscribed by the pen of power on the pages

of the universe and on the leaves of time. It regards beings, each of which is a

meaningful letter, as bearing the meaning of another, that is, it looks at them on account

of their Maker. It says, How beautifully they have been made! How exquisitely they point

to their Makers beauty!, thus showing the universes true beauty. But the philosophy

they call natural philosophy or science has plunged into the decorations of the letters of

beings and into their relationships, and has become bewildered; it has confused the way

of reality. While the letters of this mighty book should be looked at as bearing the


17/47

17

meaning of another, that is, on account of God, they have not done this; they have

looked at beings as signifying themselves. That is, they have looked at beings on account

of beings, and have discussed them in that way. Instead of saying, How beautifully they

have been made, they say How beautiful they are, and have made them ugly. In doing

this they have insulted the universe, and made it complain about them. Indeed,

philosophy without religion is a sophistry divorced from reality and an insult to the

universe.57

This long quote broadly illustrates Nursis understanding both of existence and of

man. Primarily, the universe and everything in it is created by God. The essential being is

God, the Transcendent. However, he does not deny the reality of the external world like

some of the Sufis. On the contrary, he states that all the beings of the external world are

reflections, manifestations, and signs of the Absolute, Transcendent Being, so they have

a reality. For Nursi, the universe, which Sartre defined as being in itself, is something

completely different; he lays it before us as a book, the great book of being. What is

more, he takes us from the change, continuation, order, beauty, and harmony that we

observe in the universe, to the Absolute Being:

Since things exist and they are full of art, they surely have a maker. As is

decisively proved in the Twenty-Second Word, if everything is not one persons, then

each thing becomes as difficult and problematical as all things. Since someone made the

earth and the heavens and created them, for sure that most wise and skilful Being would

not leave to others living beings, which are the fruits, results, and aims of the heavens

and the earth, and spoil his work. Making it futile and without purpose, He would not

hand over to others all His wise works; He would not give their thanks and worship to

others.

If you want knowledge of reality and true wisdom, gain knowledge of Almighty

God. For the realities of beings are rays of the divine name of Truth and the

manifestations of His names and attributes. The reality of all things, whether physical,

non-physical, essential, non-essential, and the reality of all human beings, is based on a

name and relies on Its reality. Things are not merely insignificant forms without

reality.58

The chief purpose of all the beings in the universe, which Sartre called being in

itself, is to show the essential Being, Who is transcendent. According to Nursi, beings

perform the function of being mirrors:

If you look at the aspect of things that is turned towards the divine names and

the hereafter you will see that each seed, a miracle of power, has an aim as vast as a

tree. Each flower, which is like a word of divine wisdom, has meanings as numerous as


18/47

18

the flowers on a tree, and each fruit, a wonder of Gods workmanship and a poem

dictated by His mercy, has wise purposes as numerous as the fruits of a tree. As for the

fruit serving us as sustenance, it is merely one out of those many thousand wise

purposes; it fulfils its purpose, expresses its meanings, and dies, being buried in our

stomach. Since these transient beings yield eternal fruits in another place, leave there

permanent forms of themselves, and express there everlasting meanings; since they

engage in ceaseless glorification of the Maker; and since man becomes man by

perceiving these aspects of things that are oriented to the hereafter, thus finding his way

to eternity by means of the transient...59

Nursi later explains with examples how the universe and beings act as

mirrors to the divine names, emphasizing that this viewpoint is Quranic:

Understand therefore that the reality of beings is based on and relies on the

divine names; rather, that their true realities are the manifestations of those names; and

that everything mentions and glorifies its Maker with numerous tongues in numerous

ways. And understand one meaning of the verse: And there is not a single thing but

extols His glory and praise.60 Say, Glory be to Him Who is hidden in the intensity of His

manifestation. And understand one reason why phrases like the following are repeatedly

mentioned at the end of the Qurans verses: And He is the Mighty, the Wise. * And He is

the Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. * And He is All-Knowing, All-Powerful.61

If you are unable to read the names in a flower and cannot see them clearly, look

at Paradise, study the spring, watch the face of the earth. You will be able to read clearly

the names written there, for they are the huge flowers of mercy. You will be able to see

and understand their impresses and manifestations.62

As is seen here, according to Nursi, from top to bottom the universe is fruitful

with aims and purposes, charged with duties from particles to the sun, and subjugated to

the divine commands, implicitly emphasizing the following point: man is not aimless and

purposeless. It is not possible that in a world as full of meaning as a book or a work of

art, he should be without meaning and aim.

1. The Significative Meaning of Things, and their Nominal Meaning

Here, one of the key concepts of Said Nursis understanding of existence, perhaps

the most important, should be explained. This is the significative meaning of things

(mana-y harfi) and the nominal meaning (mana-y ismi). In Bediuzzamans view, the

main reason the Quran speaks of nature and the universe is indirect. That is, it does not

speak of it in order to describe it as modern science does; it does so with a view tospeaking of God, the Creator and Owner of all things. For since the universe was created


19/47

19

by Him, everything in it points to Him and is like a missive from Him.

These concepts, which were used also by the great figures of Sufism,63 are to be

seen also in Nursis early works. While he looked on his early works as seeds and

nurseries of the Risale-i Nur, in the period he called that of the New Said, he reused

these concepts, but in a most lively and effective manner. If we take a look at all his

early works, in the introduction to Mesnevi-yi Nuriye, which was written in Arabic and

later translated into Turkish, we see he draws attention to this question as follows:

In my forty years of life and thirty years of study, I have learnt only four words

and four phrases. They will be explained later in detail, and here mentioned only briefly.

What is meant by the words is the significative meaning of things (mana-y harfi), the

nominal meaning of things (mana-y ismi), intention (niyet) and point of view (nazar).

They are as follows:

All things other than God [the universe] should be looked at as having a

significative meaning (mana-y harfi), and on His account. It is mistaken to look at them

as signifying only themselves (mana-y ismi) and on account of causes.

Yes, everything has two aspects; one looks to the Creator and the other to

creatures. The aspect that looks to creatures should be [seen] as a veil which shows the

aspect looking to its Creator beneath, like a lace veil or a transparent piece of glass. In

which case, when one looks at bounties, the Bestower of bounties should come to mind,

and when looking at the art [in creatures], their Fashioner, and when looks at causes,

the Truly Effective Agent should occur to one. (...) If one looks at material things on

account of causes, it is ignorance, whereas if one looks on account of God, it is

knowledge of God.64

On understanding the logical structure underlying this concept, one may grasp the

foundation on which the whole Risale-i Nurproject is constructed.65 Another point is that

this viewpoint and logic immediately attracted the attention of the first Risale-i Nur

students. The answer he gave to one of these, Refet Bey, in Barla, where the Risale-i

Nurwas first written, also indicates his view of nature:

As for discussion ofmana-y harfiand mana-y ismi, they are explained at the

beginnings of the all the grammar books. There is also adequate discussion of them in

the treatises called Szler(The Words) and Mektubat(Letters). Further discussion would

be superfluous for an intelligent and attentive person like yourself. When you look in the

mirror, if you look at the glass, you see it intentionally, and Refet strikes the eyes

secondarily and indirectly. But if you look at the mirror in order to see your blessed face,

you would see lovable Refet intentionally, and would declare: Blessed be God, the Best

of Creators! The glass would strike the eye secondarily and indirectly. Thus, in the first

case, the glass is mana-y ismi, and Refet is mana-y harfi, while in the second case, the


20/47

20

glass is mana-y harfi, that is, it is not looked at for itself, it is looked at for another

meaning, which is the reflection. The reflection is mana-y ismi; that is, it indicates a

meaning in itself, which in a way is included in the definition of ism. And the mirror

indicates a meaning other than itself, which is a definition of harf. According to the

Quranic view, all the beings of the universe are letters (hurf); according to mana-yharfi, they express the meaning of another. That is to say, they make known [the divine]

names and attributes. For the most part, soulless philosophy looks in accordance with

mana-y ismi, and gets stuck in the mire of nature.66

The answer Nursi gave to another question is also important in connection with

the above subject. It concerns the reason Nursi headed all his letters with verse 44 of

Sura al-Isra. It is both interesting and gives some important clues about the Risale-i

Nurs method:

You ask the reason for all my letters being headed with And there is nothing but

it glorifies Him with praise. The reason is this: this was the first door opened to me from

the sacred treasuries of the All-Wise Quran. Of the elevated Quranic truths, it was the

truth of this verse that first became clear to me and it is this truth which pervades most

parts of the Risale-i Nur.67

A letter written in a book indicates itself in only one way, but it indicates its

writer and describes the one who inscribed it in many ways. Similarly, if all the words

inscribed in embodied form in the book of the universe show themselves to their own

extent, they show their Maker in numerous way, both singly and all together, and display

His names. Each is quite simply an ode written to sing the praises of its Maker through its

attributes, forms, and embroideries.68

I said above that seeing the universe as a book and reading it is more vital and

effective in the works of the New Said. One of the best examples of this is in the Thirtieth

Flash, which is about the divine names:

... the greatest manifestation of the divine name of Sapient has made the

universe like a book in every page of which hundreds of books have been written, and in

every line of which hundreds of pages have been included, and in every word of which

are hundreds of lines, and in each letter of which are a hundred words, and in every

point of which is found a short index of the book. The books pages and lines down to the

very points show its Inscriber and Writer with such clarity that that book of the universe

testifies to and proves the existence and unity of its Scribe to a degree far greater than it

shows its own existence. For if a single letter shows its own existence to the extent of a

letter, it shows its Scribe to the extent of a line.

Yes, one page of this mighty book is the face of the earth. (...) A single line of

the page is a garden. We see that written on this line are well-composed odes to the


21/47

21

number of flowers, trees, and animals, together, one within the other, without error. One

word of the line is a tree which has opened its blossom and put forth its leaves in order

to produce its fruit. This word consists of meaningful passages lauding and praising the

All-Glorious Sapient One to the number of orderly, well-proportioned, adorned leaves,

flowers, and fruits. It is as though like all trees, this tree is a well-composed ode singing

the praises of its Inscriber. (...)

... in all its blossoms and fruits is a balance. The balance is within an order, and

the order is within an ordering and balancing which is being constantly renewed. The

ordering and balancing is within an art and adornment, and the adornment and art are

within meaningful scents and wise tastes. Thus, each flower points to the All-Glorious

Sapient One to the number of the trees blossoms.

And in the tree, which is a word, the point of a seed in a fruit, which is like a

letter, is a small coffer containing the index and programme of the whole tree. And so on.

To continue the same analogy, through the manifestation of the name of Sapient and

Wise, all the lines and pages of the book of the universe -and not only its lines, but all its

words, letters, and points- have been made as miracles so that even if all causes should

gather together, they could not make the like of a single point, nor could they dispute it.

Yes, since each of the creational signs of this mighty Quran of the universe displays

miracles to the number of points and letters of those signs...69

As is seen here, Nursi calls the universe the mighty Quran of the universe, and

he repeats it in many places. As was mentioned above, this approach in his early works

acted as the nucleus of the collection of works he later called the Risale-i Nur. Another

important point is that this viewpoint is Quranic, that is, it is derived directly from the

Quran; and it corroborates the line followed by Ghazzali, Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi, and

Mawlana Jalal al-Din Rumi.70 To put it another way, some of the points discussed in his

early works, were restated, in erif Mardins words, in a mytho-poetic style that

addressed everyone.71 The aim of all these is to explain the relationship between the

universe and God, and eencourage the individual to form close relations with Him, based

on this. According to Nursi, the way man can rise to the highest degrees of affirming

divine unity, is to look with the eye of wisdom at the lines of successive events inscribed

by the Pre-Eternal Inscriber on the broad dimensions of the pages of the world, and

ponder over their reality.72

Seeing the universe as a missive from a transcendent being (the sublime

assembly), and reading it and drawing conclusions from it, forms the greater part of Said

Nursis endeavours. It is also puts forward what the Quran seeks from the individual:

Due to the source of assistance and point of support in his heart, mans

conscience does not forget the Maker. Even if his mind ceases to work, his conscience


22/47

22

does not; it is preoccupied with two important duties. It is like this: if one refers to his

conscience, [he will see that] like the physical heart conveys life to all the parts of the

body, knowledge of the Maker, the source of life of the heart, spreads life to all mans

various desires and inclinations which arise from his unlimited abilities and potentialities;

it affords them pleasure and value and expands and extends them.73

Another conclusion is that Knowledge of the Maker is [mans] only point of

support in the face of the thousands of misfortunes and troubles that afflict him

successively in this tumultuous life with its strife and clamour. Powerful belief is thus the

foundation of a strong self; the pyschological state it generates is the force by which a

person may organize his life and withstand every sort of hardship.

It may be said that Said Nursis project was the reestablishment of belief in God

and the other truths of belief. The answer he gave to criticism of this is striking; it both

describes the true nature of belief, and draws the parameters of the relationship between

man, the universe, and God, which should result from such belief:

Now too in Istanbul, with a still more sinister intention, some hypocrites of

anarchist persuasion who have fallen prey to utter unbelief wish cunningly to deprive

everyone of the truths of the faith that are contained in the Risale-i Nur and are as

essential to man as bread and water. They say: Every nation and every individual knows

God; we have no great need for new instruction in this matter.

To know God, however, means to have certain belief in His dominicality

encompassing all beings, and in all things, particular and universal, from the atoms to

the stars, being in the grasp of His power, action, and will; it means believing in the

truths of the sacred words, There is nogod but God, and assenting to them with ones

heart. For simply to say, God exists, and then to divide His sovereignty among causes

and Nature and attribute it to them; to recognize causes as sources of authority, as if -

God forbid- they were partners to God; to fail to perceive His will and knowledge as

present with all things; to refuse to recognize His strict commands, and to reject His

attributes, and the messengers and prophets He has sent - this has nothing to do with

the reality of belief in God. The person who does all this, then says God exists, does so

only in order to find some relief from the torment he suffers in the world after his

unbelief has made it a hell for him. Not to deny is one thing; to believe is something

completely different. No being endowed with consciousness, in the whole universe, can

indeed deny the All-Glorious Creator to Whom every particle of existence bears witness.

Or if he does make such a denial, he will be rebuffed by all of creation, and hence

become silent and diffident.

But believing in Him is, as the Quran of Mighty Stature informs us, to assent in

ones heart to the Creator with all of His attributes and names, supported by the


23/47

23

testimony of the whole universe; to recognize the messengers He has sent and the

commands He has promulgated; and to make sincere repentance and feel genuine regret

for every sin and act of disobedience. Conversely, to commit every kind of sin, and then

never to seek pardon for it or concern oneself with it, is a sure sign of the absence of any

element of faith.74

The opposite situation is represented by philosophy, which Said Nursi battled

against throughout his life. As was pointed out previously, these are the materialist-

mechanistic and existential nihilist viewpoints, which deny God and every sort of

metaphysical value.

2. Nursis Understanding of Man

The natural result of the differences in Sartres and Nursis views of existence is

that their views of man are also different. Sartres saying existence precedes essence

sums up best his understanding of man. Rejecting the idea of a creative God, he

necessarily rejected the idea of man possessing an essence (nature) that pre-existed

him. Just like being in itself, mans being pre-dates every sort of essence. For since

there is no God and man has no pre-determined/created essence, he has to create

everything qualifiable himself; there is no value or transcendental being he has to comply

with. Man has to create all values himself and define their course. And while doing this he

is all alone. In fact, what makes man man is his ability to form this essence. ... in this

way man is saved from being defined by an essence that preceded all individuality and is

the same for all mankind, and is made a being with the ability to some way create

himself.75 This is the point Sartre deifies man, in Nursis words, where the ego

becomes like the pharaoh, usurping Gods place.76

In keeping with the understanding of existence we attempted to delineate above,

Said Nursi believes that the universe and man are created by a transcendent, creative

God: ... these beings have elevated positions and important duties; they are dominical

missives, divine mirrors, and divine officials.77

According to Nursi, man has been created on the most excellent ofpatterns and

has been given most comprehensive abilities. That is, the Creator has given him a pre -

existent essence.78 However, this is not an obstacle to mans freedom and his self-

fulfilment, as Sartre supposed. If he grasps the possibilities offered him in both the

universe and in his own essence and makes the correct choices, he may rise or fall to

stations, ranks, and degrees from the lowest of the low to the highest of the high, from

the earth to the Divine Throne, and from minute particles to the sun in the arena of trial

and examination into which he has been cast.79 It is because of this that man also has


24/47

24

been sent to this world as a miracle of divine power, the result of creation, and a wonder

of divine art. Thus, mans duty is not to create his own values and deify himself, but

discovering the perfect order/possibilities in the universe and in himself, to consciously

comply with the universal values, which have their basis in the Absolute, Transcendent

Being, and in this way to ascribe meaning to the universe and to his own life.

Nursi explains with the example of a seed that man has a pre-existent essence

and nature and that it is his duty to bring it out with his free will from the potential to

the actual.80 Once again it is seen from this how interdependent are the views of the

world and of man:

Indeed, man resembles a seed. This seed has been given significant immaterial

members by divine power and a subtle, valuable programme by divine determining, so

that it may work beneath the ground, and emerging from that narrow world, enter the

broad world of the air, and asking its Creator with the tongue of its disposition to be a

tree, find a perfection worthy of it. If, due to bad temperament, the seed uses the

immaterial members given it in attracting certain harmful substances under the ground,

in a short time it will rot and decay in that narrow place without benefit. But if the seed

conforms to the creational command of, God is the Splitter of the seed-grain and date-

stone(6:95) and employs well those immaterial members, it will emerge from that

narrow world, and through becoming a large fruit-bearing tree, its tiny particular reality

and its spirit will take on the form of an extensive universal reality.

Similarly, significant members and valuable programmes have been deposited in

mans nature by divine power and determining. If man uses those immaterial members

on the desires of his soul and on minor pleasures under the soil of worldly life in the

narrow confines of this earthly world, he will decay and decompose in the midst of

difficulties in a brief life in a constricted place like the rotted seed, and load the

responsibility on his unfortunate spirit, then depart from this world.81

In another place, he describes the nature of the things of the physical world and

mans nature, and their relationship:

All these fruits and the seeds within them are miracles of dominical wisdom,

wonders of divine art, gifts of divine mercy, material proofs of divine unity, bearers of the

good news that divine favours will be granted in the hereafter.

Just as they are all truthful witnesses to His all-embracing power and knowledge

...

Furthermore, just as the fruits and seeds are mirrors professing divine unity, so

they are the visible signs of divine determining (kader) and embodied tokens of divine

power. Through these words, divine determining and power intimate the following: The

many branches and twigs of this tree appeared from a single seed and demonstrate the


25/47

25

unity of the trees Artist in creating it and giving it form. (...)

In the same way, man, who is the fruit of the tree of the universe, is the purpose

of its creation and existence and the aim of the creation of beings. While his heart, which

is the seed of the fruit, is a most brillian t and comprehensive mirror to the universes

Maker.82

Only if man actualizes these abilities within the framework of Islams values will

his situation be different. If, nurturing this seed of the potentialities entrusted to him in

his creation with the water of Islam and light of belief under the soil of worship, and

obeying the Quranic commands, he directs these immaterial members towards their true

purposes, then his situation will be completely different; he will both advance on the way

of being a perfect man, and a luminous, blessed fruit of the tree of creation.

Another noteworthy point here is the symbolic use of three of the four elements,

water, light, and earth, in connection with mans spiritual advancement and maturation,

and the function with which man is charged. In any event, man has to actively build his

personality and self, and strive to be a perfect man.83

A further point is that by nature man is connected to and in need of most of tthe

varieties of beings in the universe. As a result his needs spread through every part of

the world, and his desires extend to eternity.84 Here, Nursi is using a psychological

approach, and is investigating mans being either happy or unhappy in connection with

the human situation. This plays a part in whether or not he is happy, and is a

fundamental characteristic distinguishing him from the animals and other beings. For

man then, who is created in this way (Heidegger and Sartre would say flung into the

world), the only true object of worship will be one in whose hand are the reins of all

things, with whom are the treasuries of all things, who sees all things, and is present

everywhere, who is beyond space, exempt from impotence, free of fault, and far above

all defect; an All-Powerful One of Glory, an All-Compassionate One of Beauty, an All-Wise

One of Perfection.85 For it is only one possessing infinite power and knowledge who can

answer all mans infinite needs. In which case, it is only He Who is fit to be worshipped.

3. Mans Nature and I

When making a comparison of Sartre and Nursi another question to consider is

that of the I or ego, for this concept or the way the I perceives and constructs itself,

constitutes an important part of their systems. The I or ego has held an importan t place

in Western philosophy since Descartes laid the foundations of modern philosophy. While

in the Islamic tradition, the concept goes back to Bayazid Bistami (d. 848) and Hallaj al-Mansur (d. 922).86


26/47

26

When Descartes wanted to construct his system on unshakeable foundations, he

did so on the thinking I, that is, the I or ego. He doubted everything, but because he

doubted was not doubtful, and finally made his famous statement, I think; therefore I

am. Since Descartes, the I or consciousness, as the subject who knows himself, has

been accorded a very important place in philosophy. For with these words, Descartes was

also introducing body-spirit dualism into philosophical debates as though it were

something unsolvable. It may be said that at base the debates of philosophers both

atheist and theist have centred on the body-spirit question. The results of this dualism in

science is another, lengthy, matter.87

Sartre too, when setting out his views on being in itself, posited

consciousness, that is, the I, as the being who knows itself as opposed to the former,

and is aware of itself.88 Said Nursi addresses the question of the I or ego in the

Thirtieth Word. However, the I as Nursi describes it, is what human consciousness, or toput it another way what man is, in relation to God, the Absolute Being. It is of the

greatest importance to understand the Is true nature from this point of view.89 For

whether a person is a believer or unbeliever depends on his attitude to the I and how he

understands it. What is more:

Just as the I is the key to the divine names, which are hidden treasures, so is it

the key to the locked talisman of creation; it is a problem-solving riddle, a wondrous

talisman. When its nature is known, both the I itself, that strange riddle, that amazing

talisman, is disclosed, and it discloses the talisman of the universe and the treasures of

the Necessary World.

What is noteworthy here is that Nursi describes both the essence (mahiyet) of the

I, and what it is. Firstly, inessence, the I is created by God and entrusted to man.

Then, having established this, it becomes the I that distinguishes one person from

another, making him what he is, original or otherwise. While the former aspect is given,

and in Descartes words knowledge of it is obvious, the existence of the latter aspect is

tied to man. That is, it is mans moving towards the Absolute Being through his own

limited powers and faculties as a result of understanding himself. That is, in this second

sense, the Is existence is functional; it is a means and measure for knowing the

Essential Being. Nevertheless, this is not a simple matter as is supposed, but one of the

most complex in the history of philosophy.

As in the Descartes example, he was aware of his own consciousness (the I) aas

the clearest fact, then realizing his own limited nature deduced Gods existence as a

perfect, transcendent Being. Then from Gods existence he established the existence of

the outside world.90

However, after Descartes, his successors bifurcated into two. Some veered into


27/47

27

the metaphysical world from the I, and others, basing the I on the body, became

entirely engulfed in materialism, like Sartre and his thesis of existence precedes

essence. The debate still continues. As was mentioned above, in Nursis view, this

supreme importance of the Is formation and shaping is because it governs whether or

not a person is a believer:

The key to the world is in the hand of man and is attached to his self. For while

being apparently open, the doors of the universe are in fact closed. God Almighty has

given to man by way of a Trust, such a key, called the I, that it opens all the doors of

the world; He has given him an enigmatic I with which he may discover the hidden

treasures of the Creator of the universe. But the I is also an extremely complicated

riddle and a talisman that is difficult to solve. When its true nature and the purpose of its

creation are known, as it is itself solved, so will be the universe.91

According to Nursi, the All-Wise Creator gave man his I as a trust. As was stated

above, the Trust mentioned in the Quran, which the heavens, earth, and mountains

refused to undertake because they were daunted by it, is related to the I. It is due to

this that mankinds history has been shaped in accordance with how the I has been

understood. The striking point here is the resemblance between Nursis understanding of

the I and the Islamic tradition on the one hand, particularly, the Sufistic understanding,

and that of Descartes, according to whom the I does not have an independent reality;

it is something whose existence is dependent on another and whose chief function is to

show that true existence.92 In other words, the Is existence is relative. It is rela tive in

the face of the Absolute Beings expressing and showing Himself; its existence is not of

itself. In Nursis words:

The All-Wise Maker gave to man as a Trust an I which comprises indications and

samples that show and cause to recognize the truths of the attributes and functions of

His dominicality, so that the I might be a unit of measurement and the attributes of

dominicality and functions of Divinity might be known. However, it is not necessary for a

unit of measurement to have actual existence; like hypothetical lines in geometry, a unit

of measurement may be formed by hypothesis and supposition. It is not necessary for its

actual existence to be established by concrete knowledge and proofs.93

In explaining why knowledge of Gods attributes and names is tied to the I, Nursi

follows logic similar to Descartes, basing his argument on Gods being ppre-eternal, post-

eternal, and absolute, and mans being limited. He says that an Absolute Being cannot be

known, and that something hypothetical or imaginary is necessary so that He may be

known:

Since an absolute and all-encompassing thing has no limits or end, neither may a

shape be given to it, nor may a form be conferred on it, nor may it be determined; what


28/47

28

its quiddity is may not be comprehended. For example, an endless light without darkness

may not be known or perceived. But if a line of real or imaginary darkness is drawn, then

it becomes known. Thus, since God Almightys attributes like knowledge and power, and

names like All-Wise and All-Compassionate are all-encompassing, limitless, and without

like, they may not be determined, and what they are may not be known or perceived.

Therefore, since they do not have limits or an actual end, it is necessary to draw a

hypothetical and imaginary limit. The I does this. It imagines in itself a fictitious

dominicality, ownership, power, and knowledge: it draws a line. By doing this it places an

imaginary limit on the all-encompassing attributes, saying, Up to here, mine, after that,

His; it makes a division. With the tiny units of measurement in itself, it slowly

understands the true nature of the attributes.94

Nursi gives an example of this, and pointing out the things man owns(!),

investigates who the true owner is. The crux of the matter is this concept of ownership.

Who do I belong to, and who does the world about me belong to?95 This is the starting

point of mans perception of himself and things outside of himself. According to Nursi,

... with its imagined dominicality over what it owns, the I may understand the

dominicality of its Creator over contingent creation. And with its apparent ownership, it

may understand the true ownership of its Creator, saying: Like I am the owner of this

house, so too is the Creator the owner of the universe.And with its partial knowledge, it

may understand His knowledge, and with its small amount of acquired art, it may

understand the originative art of the Glorious Maker. For example, the I says: As Imade this house and arranged it, so someone must have made the universe and

arranged it, and so on.96

Nursi says that Thousands of mysterious states, attributes, and perceptions

which make known and show to a degree all the divine attributes and functions are

contained within the I. Once again, his pos ition is the reverse of the existentialist view,

which rejects the idea that man has an essence and nature that pre-existed him. On the

contrary, the I is mirror-like, and, like a unit of measurement and tool for discovery, it

has an indicative meaning; having no meaning in itself, it shows the meaning of others.

It is a conscious strand from the thick rope of the human being, a fine thread from the

raiment of the essence of humanity, it is an Alif from the book of the character of

mankind, and it has two faces.

Nursi explains these two faces of the I with the concepts of the significative

meaning of things (mana-y harfi) and their nominal meaning (mana-y ismi). These were

discussed above. However, in this context, the real nature of the I is indicative; it

shows the meaning of things other than itself. Its dominicality is imaginary. Its existence


29/47

29

is so weak and insubstantial that in itself it cannot bear or support anything at all.

Rather, it is a sort of scale or measure, like a thermometer or barometer, that indicates

the degrees and amounts of things; it is a measure that makes known the absolute, all-

encompassing and limitless attributes of the Necessary Being.97

Nursi says that one who knows his own self in this way, and realizes and acts

according to it, is included in the good news of, Truly he succeeds who purifies it.(91:9)

He truly carries out the Trust, and through the telescope of his I, he sees what the

universe is and what duties it is performing. When he obtains information about the

universe, he sees that his I confirms it. This knowledge will remain as light and wisdom

for him, and will not be transformed into darkness and futility. When the I fulfils its duty

in this way, it abandons its imaginary dominicality and supposed ownership, which are

the units of measurement, and it says: His is the sovereignty and to Him is due all

praise; His is the judgement and to Him will you all be brought back. It achieves trueworship. It attains the rank of the Most Excellent of Patterns.98

In Nursis view, this is the Is true aim and its face that makes man into a true

human being. All the revealed religions see man as the free addressee of the Absolute

Being. And the aim of religion is raise man to the level of the perfect man through his

own free consciousness, thus realizing the potentialities lodged in his nature by God.

However, if, forgetting the wisdom of its creation and abandoning the duty of its nature,

the I views itself solely in the light of its nominal and apparent meaning, if it believes

that it owns itself, then it betrays the Trust, and it comes under the category of, And hefails who corrupts its.(91:11) It was of this aspect of the Trust, therefore, which gives

rise to all ascribing of partners to God, evil, and misguidance, that the heavens, earth,

and mountains were terrified; they were frightened of associating hypothetical partners

with God.

4. The Relationship Between the Universe, the Unbeliever, and the

Believer

According to Said Nursi, the universe and all it contains does not only point to

God; it is also a question of it having relationships with those who either recognize Him

or do not recognize Him, and either loving them or loathing them. He says that all the

beings in the universe are concerned with how men perceive them and act towards them.

Quoting verse 8 of Sura al-Mulk, he says that the universe and elements become angry

with the people of misguidance. This is because, in the Quranic context, all beings are

charged with elevated duties, and are divine officials, so while they are performing these

functions and glorifying their Sustainer, to deny and disbelieve in them casts them down


30/47

30

from this high rank, showing them to be lifeless, transitory, meaningless creatures.

The Wise Quran states in miraculous fashion that the universe grows angry at

the evil of the people of misguidance, and the universal elements becomes wrathful, and

all beings, furious. In awesome fashion it depicts the storm visited on the people of Noah

and the assaults of the heavens and earth, the anger of the element air at the denial of

the Ad and Thamud peoples, and the fury of the sea and element water at the people of

Pharaoh, and the rage of the element earth at Qarun, and in accordance with the verse,

Almost bursting with fury,(67:8) the vehemence and anger of Hell at the people of

unbelief in the hereafter, and the rage of the other beings at the unbelievers and people

of misguidance; in miraculous fashion it restrains the people of misguidance and

rebellion.99

When expounding verse 29 of Sura al-Dukhan, The heavens and the earth wept

not over them, which refers to the people of misguidance, Nursi is again drawing

attention to this dimension of the man-universe relationship:

The explicit meaning of the verse is that the heavens and the earth do not weep

when the people of misguidance die. The implied meaning is that the heavens and the

earth do weep when the people of belief depart this world. For the people of

misguidance, through their denial of the duties and functions of the heavens and earth,

their ignorance of their meaning, their rejection of their value, their refusal to recognize

their Maker, are in fact actin

Documents

Existence and Man: Nursi and J. P. Sartre