THE RISALE-I NUR: A REVOLUTION OF BELIEF

            Doznao sam da se za Risale-i Nur (Poslanice Svjetlosti) kaže da su revolucionarne, sa čime se u potpunosti slažem. Međutim, ja ne govorim o revoluciji u političkom smislu riječi; nije o tome riječ u Risale-i Nur, iako sam siguran u slijedeće: da se Bediuzzaman zalagao za nasilno rušenje svih sekularnih vlada, Risale-i Nur bi bile obavezna lektira na svakom univerzitetu na Zapadu, a Bediuzzaman bi bio “domaće ime” na ovom dijelu Planete!         

Dr. Colin TURNER

     Rođen je u Engleskoj u gradu Birmingham 1955. godine. 1975. primio islam. Visoko obrazovanje završio je na Durham univerzitetu gdje trenutno radi kao profesor. Specijalizirao je Arapski i Perzijski jezik. Kasnije je doktorirao je na temu: Politički i vjerski pokreti u Iranu za vrijeme dinastije Safavida (XVI-XVII vijek). Preko deset godina se bavi izučavanjem djela Risale-i Nur. Oxford University Pres 2008. godine objavljuje njegovu knjigu Said Nursi: Makers of Islamic Civilization (Graditelji islamske civilizacije - Said Nursi). Napisao je više referata o Said Nursiju i njegovom djelu Risale-i Nur. Dr. Turner je oženjen i otac troje djece.  

 RISALE-I NUR: REVOLUCIJA VJEROVANJA

Dr. Colin Turner

Doznao sam da se za Risale-i Nur (Poslanice Svjetlosti) kaže da su revolucionarne, sa čime se u potpunosti slažem. Međutim, ja ne govorim o revoluciji u političkom smislu riječi; nije o tome riječ u Risale-i Nur, iako sam siguran u slijedeće: da se Bediuzzaman zalagao za nasilno rušenje svih sekularnih vlada, Risale-i Nur bi bile obavezna lektira na svakom univerzitetu na Zapadu, a Bediuzzaman bi bio “domaće ime” na ovom dijelu Planete! 

Kao nekoga ko je rođen i odrastao u Engleskoj, često su me pitali šta mi Muslimani imamo da ponudimo Zapadu. No, prije nego što o tome nešto kažem, želio bih postaviti jedno pitanje i samom sebi: Jesmo li mi Muslimani zato što vjerujemo u Allaha, ili mi vjerujemo u Allaha zato što smo Muslimani?
To pitanje me okupiralo tokom marširanja ulicama Londona prije desetak godina, kada sam učestvovao na protestima protiv ruske okupacije Afganistana. Formalno sam bio prešao na islam nekoliko godina prije ovog događaja tako da ovo nisu bile moje prve demonstracije. Bilo je zastava i plakata i mnogo vikanja i skandiranja. Uza slogane: «Rusi, napolje!», «Smrt Brežnjevu!» i «Muslimani Afganistana, pobunite se!», mi smo uzvikivali i naše islamske slogane: “Allahu ekber!” i “La ilahe illallah!”
Dok su se demonstracije približavale kraju, prišao mi je neki mladić, koji se predstavio kao neko koga zanima islam, i upitao me: «Oprostite, ali šta znači La ilahe illallah?»
Bez trenutka oklijevanja, odgovorio sam: «Nema drugog Boga osim Allaha.» «Ne tražim od Vas da mi to prevodite», rekao je, «nego Vas pitam šta to doista znači.» Poslije duge i neugodne tišine, došao sam do saznanja da nisam u stanju da mu odgovorim.
Vjerovatno sada mislite: «Kakav je to Musliman koji ne zna stvarno značenje La ilahe illallah ?» Moram reći: Tipičan. Te večeri sam razmišljao o svom neznanju; to što sam bio u većini nije mi nimalo pomoglo već me je samo učinilo još više depresivnim.
No, kako sam ja postao Musliman? Nema sumnje da ste čuli za slijedeću anegdotu o Nasrudin-hodži: Jedan prijatelj je našao Nasrudin-hodžu kako sjedi ispred velike korpe alevih papričica. Oči su mu bile crvene i natečene, krv mu je curila iz desni, a suze su mu tekle iz očiju. Ipak, on je nastavljao da ih jede. “Zašto se mučiš?”upitao ga je prijatelj. “Zato što se, svaki put kad stavim novu papričicu u usta, nadam da će baš ta biti slatka,” odgovorio je Nasrudin-hodža.
I ja sam bio u istoj situaciji. Nijedna ideologija ili alternativni način života koji sam isprobao nije mogla da zadovolji moju unutarnju potrebu za nečim više, nečim za što vrijedi postojati, tim nečim neuhvatljivim što je uvijek tako blizu tebe, ali se nikad ne pojavljuje. Razočaran svakim aspektom svoga života, napustio sam Englesku i bio nekako odvučen prema Bliskom istoku. To nije bio namjeran izbor. I tamo sam našao svoju slatku papričicu.
Islam je, jednostavno, davao takav smisao kakav mi ranije nije davala nijedna religija ili ideologija. Islam je imao svoja pravila vladavine, ekonomoski sistem; imao je pravila koja su pokrivala svaki aspekt života. Bio je egalitaran i okrenut prema svim rasama, narodima i ljudima, čist i jednostavan za razumijevanje. Oh, i imao je Boga, Jednog Boga u koga sam uvijek.... vjerovao.To je bilo to. Izgovorio sam La ilahe illallah i postao član Ummeta. Po prvi put u životu, negdje sam pripadao.
Novi preobraćenici su u pravilu entuzijastični i žele da saznaju što je moguće više o svojoj religiji i to u što kraćem periodu. U narednih nekoliko godina moja biblioteka se ubrzano širila. Bilo je toliko toga za naučiti i toliko knjiga spremnih da poduče. Knjige o historiji islama, ekonomskom sistemu, konceptu vladavine u islamu, bezbroj priručnika o islamskoj jurisprudenciji, i najbolje od svega: knjige o islamu i revoluciji, o tome kako su se Muslimani ujedinili i utemeljili islamske vlade i islamske republike. Kad sam se vratio u Englesku početkom '79. na studij, bio sam spreman predstaviti islam Zapadu.
Ovim sam se knjigama vratio da pronađem odgovor na pitanje šta znači La ilahe illallah. Opet sam bio razočaran: te knjige jesu bile o islamu, ali ne i o Allahu; one su pokrivale svaku moguću oblast - osim one najvažnije. 
Isto pitanje sam postavio i imamu univerzitetske džamije. Izvinio se i otišao. Onda je jedan brat, čuvši moje “drsko” pitanje koje sam postavio imamu, prišao k meni i rekao: «Ja imam tefsir (tumačenje) o La ilahe illallah. Ako želiš, pročitat ćemo ga zajedno.» Zamišljao sam to kao knjigu od deset-dvadeset stranica najviše. Ispostavilo se da je u pitanju pet hiljada stranica, u nekoliko tomova. To su bile Risale-i Nur (Poslanice Svjetlosti) od Ustaza Bediuzzamana, Saida Nursija.
Inicijalno, odbacio sam Risale-i Nur kao mistične knjige. Moj brat je istakao da je ovo reakcija zatvorenog uma. Bez intelektualnog oslonca uzrokovanog prijašnjim pročitanim knjigama, osjećao sam se neuko i izgubljeno.Bio je to potpuno novi jezik, potpuno nova vizija. Moj brat je osjetio moju uznemirenost. Rekao je: «Ne brini! Knjige koje si prije čitao imaju svoje mjesto; one su kora, ali ovo,» reče ubacujući kopiju “Vrhovnog znaka”, «ovo je voće!» Zatim smo počeli da čitamo, ovaj put u ime Allaha, i stvari su polahko počele da dolaze na svoje mjesto.
Svako od nas je rođen u apsolutnom neznanju; želja da spoznamo sebe i svijet oko sebe je urođena. «Ko sam ja? Odakle dolazim? Šta je ovo mjesto na kojem se nalazim? Šta je moja zadaća ovdje? Ko je odgovoran za moje postojanje?» - to su pitanja na koja svako od nas odgovara na svoj način, ili kroz direktno opažanje ili kroz slijepo prihvatanje odgovora sugeriranih od strane drugih. Kako neko živi svoj život, kriteriji po kojima neko postupa na ovom svijetu u potpunosti zavise od prirode tih odgovora. “Vrhovni znak” nije ništa manje nego vodič kroz kosmos, a putnik je onak ko traži odgovore na ova pitanja.
“Vrhovni znak” ne pretpostavlja unaprijed vjerovanje u Boga; radije kreće od stvorenog do Stvoritelja i afirmiše ideju da svako ko iskreno želi odgovor na egzistencijalna pitanja, ko gleda na stvoreni svijet onako kakav on jeste, a ne vidi ga onakvim kakav bi želio i zamišljao da bude, mora neizbježno doći do zaključka koji glasi: La ilahe illallah. Tako će vidjeti red i harmoniju, ljepotu i ravnotežu, pravdu i milost, svetost i velikodušnost; i u isto vrijeme će shvatiti da ovi atributi ne ukazuju na stvorena bića već na Stvarnost u kojoj svi oni, ti atributi, postoje u savršenstvu i apsolutnosti.Vidjet će da je stvoreni svijet knjiga imena, indeks koji teži da nam kaže sve o svome Autoru.
U poslanici “Priroda: uzrok ili posljedica?” Bediuzzaman La ilahe illallah tumači na još dublji način. Pojam koji on ispituje je kauzalitet, kamen - temeljac materijalizma i potporni stub na kojem počiva moderna znanost. Vjera u kauzalitet daje osnovu izjavama kakve su: To je prirodno, Priroda je to stvorila, Desilo se to slučajno, itd. Opravdanim, krajnje uvjerljivim argumentima Bediuzzaman raspršuje mit o kauzalitetu i demonstrira da oni koji se drže ovog uvjerenja ne gledaju kosmos onakvim kakav doista jeste, ili kakvim se čini, već kakvim bi oni željeli da bude.
U Tabiat Risalesi (“Priroda: uzrok ili posljedica?”) Bediuzzaman demonstrira da su sva bića, na svim nivoima, međusobno povezana i međuzavisna, kao koncentrični ili ispresijecani krugovi. On pokazuje da sva bića dobivaju svoju egzistenciju iz ništavila, niotkuda, tokom svojih kratkih života, te da svako biće ima svoju posebnu svrhu, cilj i pozvanje i da se svako ponaša kao ogledalo u kome se predstavljaju razni atributi i bezbroj Imena.
Njihova prolaznost, nemoć i nepredvidljivost, njihova apsolutna zavisnost o drugim faktorima izvan njih samih dokazuje, bez sumnje, da ona ne mogu biti vlasnici toga što se čini da posjeduju, a kamoli da su ona, ta bića, darovala atribute savršenosti ostalim bićima koja su poput njih ili veća od njih. 
Materijalisti, dakako, vide stvari drugačije – kada ne sagledavaju raznovrsnost bića. Oni od nas traže da vjerujemo da je ovaj kosmos, čiji urođeni red i harmoniju ne poriču, ultimativno proizvod slučaja. Proizvod haosa i nereda, čistog slučaja! Zatim traže od nas da vjerujemo da se ovaj kosmos održava mehaničkom igrom (bezbroj) slučajeva, pa ma šta ti slučajevi bili, ni materijalisti ne mogu da sa sigurnošću odgovore na pitanje kako to da su ti slučajevi sami od sebe stvoreni, kako to da, iako su nemoćni, neuki, prolazni i besciljni, nekako uspijevaju, kroz zakone koji se pojavljuju niotkuda, proizvode uredne umjetničke radove, simfonije harmonije i ravnoteže koje vidimo i čujemo svuda oko nas!
Kao i Ibrahim, a.s., u kući idola, Bediuzzaman uništava ove mitove i praznovjerja! Dakle, sve stvari su međusobno povezane! – ponavlja on. Ma šta bilo to što je dalo život sjemenu cvijeta, ono mora biti odgovorno za cvijet sam; dajući im međuzavisnost, šta god da je stvorilo cvjetove, ono mora biti odgovorno za drvo; i s obzirom na činjenicu da su u rodbinskom odnosu, šta god da stvara drvo, mora biti odgovorno i za šumu, itd. Ono što može da stvori samo jedan atom, mora moći stvoriti i cijeli kosmos! To je, svakako, kolosalan zahtjev za uzrok koji je slijep, nemoćan, prolazan, zavisan i bez ikakve svijesti o svojoj svrsi.
Sve više i više znanstvenika počinju da uočavaju da mehanicističke teorije iz prošlosti nisu više održive. Suočeni sa ljepotom, veličinom, redom, harmonijom, simetrijom i svrhom, pokušaji da se objasne kreacije prizivajući ideju slučaja i kauzaliteta postaju sve više neodrživi! Mnogi od njih su tako posramljeni kolapsom svojih starih bogova da su pali u histeriju.
Jedan proslavljeni biolog - a biologija je još uvijek najviše kruta mehanička disciplina –snimljen je kako je rekao: « Smiješno: što više ljepote i harmonije otkrivam u kosmosu, sve više sam ubijeđen u njihovu beznačajnost!» Jadni čovjek! On, izgleda, ne razumije da, ako je sve beznačajno, onda je beznačajan i svaki efekat na nj. Još jedan poznati – ili, da kažem, nepoznati - znanstvenik, također biolog, tvrdi da se postojanje bića u njihovim pojedinačnim oblicima u stanovitoj mjeri može pripisati besciljnom kretanju slijepih, besvjesnih i nemoćnih uzroka! On nije usamljen u ovom razmišljanju, ali je prvi priznati zapadnjački biolog koji takve stavove zastupa otvoreno. Da stvar bude još zanimljivija, on je status znanosti na Zapadu nastojao da pobratimi sa znanošću u Rusiji pod Brežnjevljevim režimom!
Mehanicistička teorija je stroga, svemoguća ortodoksija kojoj se svi znanstvenici, a posebno biolozi, moraju pokloniti ako žele zadržati svoj kredibilitet i svoj posao. I tako su prisiljeni da žive u strašljivoj šaradi uzvikujući kako su joj lojalni, a svoje stvarne stavove drže za sebe u svome privatnome životu. Kada se pojavila jedna knjiga u kojoj se napada teorija kauzaliteta, časopis The New Scientist ju je opisao kao « kandidata za paljenje». Od tada je autor ove knjige postao “autsajder” u znanosti Zapada.
Tako različiti stavovi kao sposobnost za opstanak kauzalnih hipoteza pokazuju da je pridavanje moći stvaranja Prirodi ili prirodnim zakonima bez značaja, neizbježna posljedica objektivnih, naučnih istraživanja. To nije ništa više nego lično mišljenje. Slično tome, poricanje Stvoritelja kosmosa, Koji je postavio očigledne uzroke u njemu kao veo koji pokriva Njegovu ruku i snagu, nije čin razuma nego čin volje. Ukratko, kauzalnost je grubo i vješto oruđe kojim se čovjek miješa u vlasništvo Stvoritelja povrh svega stvorenog u cilju da postavi sebe kao apsolutnog vlasnika i upravljača svega onog što posjeduje i svega onog što on jeste. 
Moj cilj nije bio da rezimiram Risale-i Nur već da pokažem kako su bila daleko otišla moja ranija poimanja Allaha dž.š. prije nego što sam pročitao ovo djelo. Mislio sam da, izgovarajući La ilahe illallah, izgovaram sve što ima da se izgovori o Allahu. Zahvaljujući Risale-i Nur, sada sam u mogućnosti da shvatim da je, prije njihova iščitavanja, Bog za mene bio nešto što sam sebi bio umislio kako bih upotpunio slučaj, onaj nepoznati faktor postavljen uglavno arbitrarno na početku stvaranja da bi se izbjegla nemogućnost beskrajne regresije (hoda unazad). Bog je bio «Prvi Uzrok», «Prvi Pokretač», istiniti «Bog pukotina», poput ustavnog monarha Engleske koji se mora tretirati sa najvišim poštovanjem, ali kome nije dozvoljeno miješanje u događaje iz svakodnevnog života.
Inspirisane sloganom La illahe illallah, Risale-i Nur pokazuju da se znakovi Boga, ta ogledala Njegovih imena i svojstava, nama otkrivaju svakodnevno u novim i uvijek promjenljivim formama i konfiguracijama, izvodeći na vidjelo argumente, naklonost, predeanost, ljubav i pobožnost. Risale-i Nur su pokazale da postoji distinktivan proces uključen u proces postajanja Muslimanom u pravom smislu te riječi: razmišljanje koje vodi znanju, znanje koje vodi afirmaciji, afirmacija koja vodi vjerovanju i uvjerenju, i uvjerenje koje vodi pokornosti: od svakog novog trenutka, svakog novog dana, vidi se obnavljanje svježih aspekata Božanstvene istine, i ovaj proces je konstantan. Vanjsko prakticiranje islama, formalni akti obožavanju su oni koji su u tom smislu statični. Vjerovanje je, međutim, nešto što raste ili opada, zavisno od kontinuiteta procesa koji sam upravo spomenuo. Ali, realnost vjerovanja je nešto što zaslužuje našu najveću pažnju, i iz tog procesa će neminovno slijediti posvjedočenja islama.
Zato mogu reći da sam bio Musliman, ali ne i vjernik; to što sam pretpostavio da je vjerovanje, u stvarnosti, to nije bilo ništa više do nemogućnost da poričem. Bediuzzaman nije odgovaran za moje upoznavanje sa islamom, što je mogao svako da učini, već za moje upoznavanje sa vjerovanjem. Vjerovanje kroz istraživanje, a ne kroz imitaciju.
Vratimo se sada na pitanje: Šta mi Muslimani imamo da ponudimo Zapadu? Odgovor je: Sve i ništa. Mi imamo vjerovanje i islam, što je sve; i imamo naše razumijevanje i tumačenje islama, što, u većini slučajeva, i nije mnogo. 
Kao što je i očigledno iz knjiga koje su me upoznale sa islamom, skoro sve što je bilo napisano o Zapadu u mislima je bilo manje ili više na nivou neke benigne kulturalne razmjene. Skoro neizbježno centralno pitanje vjerovanja bilo je prekriveno ili ignorisano u potpunosti.
U Kur'anu, riječ «Allah» se pojavljuje više od 2500 puta, a riječ «islam» manje od 100 puta. U dobrom dijelu muslimanskog štiva, taj odnos je rigorozno obrnut. U Kur′anu, odnos između imana (vjerovanja) i islama (potčinjenosti Allahu, dž.š.) je 5:1 u korist imana. U naslovima arapskih knjiga do kraja 19. st., islam je neznatno nadmašio iman u shvatljivih 3:2. U šezdesetim, ovaj odnos je skočio na 13:1 i danas je nedvojbeno viši. Zbog toga je bilo neminovno da se Zapad koncentriše na islam kao sistem, kao alternativnu ideologiju prezentiranu skoro u potpunosti bez osvrta na vjerovanje.
Drugi razlog zašto je pristup Zapadu napravio mali zaokret je taj što smo mi pogrešno razumjeli Zapad. Zapad nije samo geopolitički entitet, on je i metafora. Geografski, Zapad je bio prvo područje na kome se odigrao masovni revolt protiv svega što pripada Bogu. Modem civilizacije Zapada bio je prvi za koga smo shvatili da nema neke formalne strukture religijskog vjerovanja u svom srcu. Zapad je kao metafora: zalaženje sunca religijskog vjerovanja; metafora za pomračinu Boga. Otkako ova pomračina nije više ograničena samo na geopolitički Zapad, čovjek može da kaže da, kad god je istina vjerovanja odbačena, tu je Zapad. Na Zapad bi trebalo gledati kao na stanje uma, bolest, nezahvalnost. Glavni uzrok ovoga, kao što Bediuzzaman, Said Nursi naglašava, jeste bolest samoobožavanja, enanijjet (samoisticanje, samohvalisanje, ekstremna sebičnost).
Od početka renesanse čovjek Zapada je bio sam sebi cilj, centar svog, vlastitog univerzuma, osnovni kriterij po kojem živi svoj patetični život. Čovjek je ukrao odjeću od Božijih imena, obukao je i parodirao kao bog. Problem je bio što mu ta odjeća nije pristajala, i nije mu ni mogla pristajati. Ne želeći prihvatiti da je njegova dužnost samo da reflektira Božije atribute u ime Stvoritelja i prema Njegovoj volji, on tvrdi da su ti atributi njegovo vlasništvo i tako potroši životni vijek pokušavajući da ih doda svome imaginarnom posjedu.Tražeći beskonačno od konačnog, on sebe odvlači u svirepo i često ubojito takmičenje sa sebi sličnima. Čovjekove beskrajne želje su uvećane činjenicom da je on ograničen, nemoćan i zavisan; jednog dana, odustane od svega što je zamislio da je njegovo i pada u propast. On pokušava sakriti svoja ograničenja i nedostatke, koji bi trebalo da služe da ga podsjete na njegovu apsolutnu zavisnost i nemoć. Zapadnjački čovjek je oslobođen loših misli o svojoj posljednjoj destinaciji - gušeći svoju urođenu sposobnost da spozna i voli Stvoritelja, da prepozna da nije ništa i da ne može da bilo šta posjeduje.
Sekularno, samoapsorbirajuće društvo Zapada formirano je tako da na svim nivoima zaslijepi i ošamuti: da bi zamaskiralo činjenicu da religija pojedinca nije uspjela da ispuni svoja obećanja te da je sekularno trojstvo «neograničenog progresa, apsolutne slobode i negraničene sreće» postalo beznačajno kao i kršćansko Trojstvo koje se pokazalo nemoćnim stoljećima ranije; da bi prikrilo činjenicu da je ekonomski i naučni progres, koji posjeduje sekularni humanizam kao svoj podrazumijevajući ethos, pretvorio Zapad u duhovnu pustoš, da je opustošio generaciju za generacijom. 
Ipak, tu su oni koji počinju da se bude, da shvataju iluziju sa kojom su živjeli. Ovakvima se bolest od enanijjeta mora objasniti. Nema koristi govoriti onome koji je već obolio od ove bolesti da je islamski ekonomski i pravni sistem najviše egalitaran ili najviše pravedan; ne možete izliječiti čovjeka koji pati od raka dajući mu novi ogrtač. Potrebna je tačna dijagnoza, radikalna operacija i konstantna terapija. Risale-i Nur omogućavaju sve ovo. Vi ste primijetili da sam ja bio odbio da čitam Risale-i Nur misleći da su to mistične rasprave budući da sam i druge čuo koji o njima tako misle. Istina je drugačija: Nema ništa nejasno u konačnom izboru koji Said Nursi stavlja pred nas: vjerovanje ili nevjerovanje, vječna sreća ili vječna bijeda, spas ili propast, raj ili pakao – i na ovom i na onom svijetu. 
Također sam čuo da su Risale-i Nur revolucionarne, i sa ovim se slažem. Ali ja sada govorim o revoluciji u političkom smisli riječi. To se ne spominje u Risale-i Nur, iako sam siguran u slijedeće: da je Bediuzzaman prizivao nasilno zbacivanje svih sekularnih vlada, Risale-i Nur bi bile obavezna lektira na svakom zapadnjačkom univerzitetu, a Bediuzzaman bi bio “domaće ime” na ovom dijelu Planete.
Nakon svega, Zapad ima sofisticiran spot za ekstremizam, posebno kada je začinjen religijom. Šta može biti bolje, ljepše, ukusnije u očima zapadnjačkih medija od slike hiljada ljutih Muslimana u nekom dalekom, nasilničkom gradu koji vrište: «Smrt Americi!» i koji zahtijevaju revoluciju i ponovno upoznavanje sa Šeri'atom?! Zapad više nema problema sa pogrešnim predstavljanjem islama: to mi radimo za njih, a oni to jednostavno snime za svoje potrebe. Sjećam se kada sam gledao demonstracije, deceniju ranije, u mjestu u kojem je Amerika nazvana “velikim šejtanom”. Ono što me šokiralo tada bila je činjenica da možda 70% tih demonstranata nosi levisice i da je svaka cigareta koju su ispušili za vrijeme demontracija bila Marlboro ili Winston. Dok jedna ruka reže ili tvrdi da reže veze sa Zapadom, druga ih još više pričvršćuje.
Ipak, mi još uvijek tvrdimo da je vrijeme za akciju, da smo dovoljno govorili. Ja sam ovu misao pročitao i u Risale-i Nur. Sve je to priča, reći će neko, to nije akcija. Ali - mi nismo govorili, mi smo samo jecali i cviljeli. I zato što nismo govorili, što nismo vodili konverzaciju, što nije razgovarao brat sa bratom, vjernik sa vjernikom, Musliman sa Muslimanom, u ime Allaha, dž.š., jezikom Kur′ana i jezikom knjige stvaranja, onda kada smo reagirali, reagirali smo pogrešno, bez autoriteta, bez discipline, bez istinskog kriterija i okvira diskusije. I ultimativno - bez trajnih rezultata. A Zapad ovo savršeno razumije!
Ne, revolucija koja je marširala ulicama Teherana, Kaira ili Alžira nije ona vrsta revolucije na koju Bediuzzaman poziva. Revolucija koju predočavaju Risale-i Nur je revolucija u mislima, srcu, duši i duhu. To nije islamska revolucija već revolucija vjerovanja. Kao takva, ona funkcioniše na dva nivoa: dizajnirana je da bi vodila Muslimane od vjerovanja pomoću imitiranja do vjerovanja kroz istraživanje, i da vodi one koji ne vjeruju od obožavanja sebe do obožavanja Allaha dž.š. I zato, u očima onih koji kontrolišu Zapad, pozvanje kakvo je ono koje vrše Risale-i Nur je - smrtonosno.
Konačno, rekao bih ovo: Nakon mnogo godina traženja i upoređivanja, mogu da kažem da su Risale-i Nur jedno originalno, obuhvatno islamsko djelo koje vidi kosmos onakvim kakav on uistinu jeste, koje pezentira realnost vjerovanja onakvom kakva ona uistinu jeste, koje interpretira Kur'an onako kako je naš Poslanik, s.a.v.s., to želio, koje dijagnosticira stvarne i veoma opasne bolesti koje napadaju modernog čovjeka i koje nudi lijek. To što čine Risale-i Nur – to je pozvanje koje reflektira svjetlo Kur'ana i koje osvjetljava kosmos, i taj hizmet vjeri i čovječanstvu ne može biti ignorisan. Samo islam stoji između modernog čovjeka i katastrofe, i ja vjerujem da budućnost islama zavisi od Risale-i Nur i onih koji ih slijede i koji su inspirisani njihovim učenjima.



Preveo
Džemaludin Latić



THE RISALE-I NUR: A REVOLUTION OF BELIEF
Dr. Colin Turner
I have also heard the Risale-i Nur described as revolutionary, and with this I agree. But I am not talking about revolution in the political sense of the word. There is no mention of this in the Risale-i Nur, although I am sure that had Bediuzzaman advocated the violent overthrow of all secular governments, the Risale-i Nur would be required reading in every Western university, and Bediuzzaman would be a household name in the West.  
As someone born and raised in Britain, I am often asked what we as Muslims have to offer to the West. But before I answer, I should like to ask a question myself: Are we Muslims because we believe in Allah, or do we believe in Allah because we are Muslims?  
The question occurred to me during a march through the streets of London, over a decade ago, to protest against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. I'd made a formal conversion to Islam several years prior to this, and it wasn't my first demonstration. There were banners and placards and much shouting and chanting. And in between "Russians out," "Death to Breshnev," and "Muslims of Afghanistan rise up," we shouted our own Islamic slogans: Allahu akbar and La ilaha illa Allah.  
 Towards the end of the demonstration I was approached by a young man who introduced himself as someone interested in Islam. "Excuse me," he said, "but what is the meaning of La ilaha illa Allah?"  
 Without a moment's hesitation I answered, "There is no god but Allah." 'Tm not asking you to translate it," he said, 'Tm asking you to tell me what it really means." There was a long awkward silence as it dawned on me that I was unable to answer him.  
You are no doubt thinking, "What kind of Muslim is it that does not know the real meaning of La ilaha illa Allah?" To this I would have to say: a typical one. That evening I pondered my ignorance; being in the majority didn't help, it simply made me more depressed.  
So how did I become a Muslim? You've no doubt heard the anecdote about Nasreddin Hoja. A friend of his called on him one day and found Hoja sitting in front of a large basket of chillies. His eyes were red and swollen, blood dripped from his gums and tears from his eyes. Yet he carried on eating. Why are you torturing yourself, his friend asked. Because, said Nasreddin Hoja, biting into another pepper, I'm hoping one of them will be sweet.  
I had been in the same position myself. No ideology or alternative life-style that I tried could satisfy the inner need for something more, something worth existing for, that elusive something that is always just around the comer but never seems to appear. Disenchanted with every aspect of my life, I left Britain and somehow drifted towards the Middle East. It was not a conscious choice. And it was there that I found the sweet chilli pepper.  
Islam simply made sense, in a way that nothing else ever had. It had roles of government, it had an economic system, it had regulations covering every facet of day-to-day existence. It was egalitarian and addressed to all races, and it was clear and easy to understand. Oh, and it has a God, One God, in whom I had always vaguely believed. That was that. I said La ilaha ilia Allah and I was part of the community. For the first time in my life I belonged.  
New converts are invariably enthusiastic to know as much as possible about their religion in the shortest possible time. In the few years that followed, my library grew rapidly. There was so much to learn, and so many books ready to teach. Books on the history of Islam, the economic system of Islam, the concept of government in Islam; countless manuals of Islamic jurisprudence, and, best of all, books on Islam and revolution, on how Muslims were to rise up and establish Islamic governments, Islamic republics. When I returned to Britain in early '79 to begin a University course, I was ready to introduce Islam to the West.  
It was to these books that I turned for an answer to the question "What is the meaning of La ilaha illa Allah?" Again I was disappointed. The books were about Islam, not about Allah. They covered every subject you could possibly imagine except for the one which really mattered. I put the question to the imam at the University mosque. He made an excuse and left. Then a brother who had overheard my impertinent question to the imam came over and said: "I have a tafsir of La ilaha illa Allah. If you like we could read it together." I imagined that it would be ten or twenty pages at the most. It turned out to have over 5000 pages, in several books. It was, as I'm sure you're aware, the Risale-i Nur by Ustad Bediuzzaman Said Nursi.  
Initially, I dismissed the Risale-i Nut as mysticism. My brother pointed out that this was the reaction of a closed mind. Without the intellectual crutches provided by my old books, I felt ignorant and lost. It was a completely new language, a totally new vision. My brother sensed my unease. He said: "Don't worry. The books you have read before all have their place. They are the skin. But this," he said, tapping a copy of The Supreme Sign, "this is the fruit." So we began to read, this time in the name of Allah, and slowly things began to fall into place.  
Each of us is born in total ignorance; the desire to know ourselves and our world is an innate one. Thus "Who am I? Where did I come from? What is this place in which I find myself? What is my duty here? Who is responsible for bringing me into existence'?" -- these are questions which each of us answers in his own way, either through direct observation or through blind acceptance of the answers suggested by others. And how one lives one's life, the criterion by which one acts in this world, depends totally on the nature of those answers. The Supreme Sign is no less than a guided tour of the cosmos, and the traveler is one who is seeking answers to these questions.  
The Supreme Sign does not presuppose belief in God; rather it travels from the created to the Creator. And it affirms that anyone who sincerely wishes to answer the questions, and who looks upon the created world as it is, and not as he wishes or imagines it to be, must inevitably come to the conclusion La ilaha ilia Allah. For he will see order and harmony, beauty and equilibrium, justice and mercy, dominicality and munificence; and at the same time he will realize that those attributes are pointing not to the created beings themselves but to a Reality in which all of these attributes exist in perfection and absoluteness. He will see that the created world is thus a book of names, an index, which seek to tell about its Owner.  
In Nature, Cause or Effect?, Bediuzzaman takes the interpretation of La ilaha illa Allah even further. The notion that he examines is that of causality, the cornerstone of materialism and the pillar upon which modern science has been constructed. Belief in causality gives rise to statements such as: It is natural; Nature created it; it happened by chance, and so on. With reasoned arguments, Bediuzzaman explodes the myth of causality and demonstrates that those who adhere to-this belief are looking at the cosmos not as it actually is, or how it appears to be, but how they would like to think it is.  
In Tabiat Risalesi [Nature, Cause or Effect?], Bediuzzaman demonstrates that all beings, on all levels, are interrelated, interconnected and interdependent, like concentric or intersecting circles. He shows that beings come into existence as though from nowhere, and, during their brief lives, each with its own particular purpose, goal and mission, act as mirrors in which various attributes, and countless configurations of names, are displayed. Their createdness, transience, impotence and contin-gence, their total dependence on factors other than themselves prove beyond doubt that they cannot be the owners of that which they appear to possess, let alone bestow attributes of perfection on beings that are similar to or greater than themselves.  
The materialists however, see things differently -- they do not see different things. They ask us to believe that this cosmos, whose innate order and harmony they do not deny, is ultimately the work of chance. Of chaos and disorder, of sheer accident. They then ask us to believe that this cosmos is sustained by the mechanistic interplay of causes -- whatever they may be, and not even the materialists know for sure -- causes which are themselves created, impotent, ignorant, transient and purposeless, but which somehow contrive, through laws which appeared out of nowhere, to produce the orderly works of art of symphonies of harmony and equilibrium that we see and hear around us.  
Like Abraham in the house of idols, Bediuzzaman destroys these myths and superstitions. Given that all things are inter-connected, he reiterates, whatever it is that brings existence to the seed of a flower must also be responsible for the flower itself; and given their interdependence, whatever brings into existence the flower must also be responsible for the tree; and given the fact that they are interrelated, whatever brings into existence the tree must 'also be responsible for the forest, and so on. Thus to be able to create a single atom, one must also be able to create the whole cosmos. That is surely a tall order for a cause which is blind, impotent, transient, dependent and devoid of knowledge of our purpose.  
More and more scientists are beginning to realize that the mechanistic theories of old are simply no longer sustainable. Faced with beauty, awesomeness, order, harmony, symmetry and purpose, attempts to explain away creation by evoking the idea of chance and causality are becoming increasingly untenable. Many are so outraged at the imminent collapse of their old gods that they lapse into hysteria:  
One celebrated biologist -- and biology is still the most rigidly mechanistic of disciplines -- is on record as having said "Funnily, the more beauty and harmony I discover in the cosmos, the more convinced I become of its meaninglessness." The poor man seems not to have understood that if everything is meaningless, his own effect to that is equally so. Another famous -- or should I say infamous -- scientist, also a biologist, asserts that the existence of beings, and in particular the phenomenon of form, can in no way be attributed to the random motions of blind, unknowing and impotent causes. He is not alone in his thinking, but he is the first eminent Western biologist to state such beliefs openly. Interestingly enough, he likens the state of the Western scientific fraternity to Russia under Breshnev.  
The mechanistic theory is the rigid, all-powerful orthodoxy to which all scientists - biologists in particular - must bow down if they are to retain their credibility and their jobs. And so they are forced to live a fearful charade, shouting their loyalty in public but whispering their real thoughts in private. When the book in which he attacks causality was published, the magazine The New Scientist described it as a "candidate for burning." Since then, the author of this book has become an outcast, the Salman Rushdie of Western science.  
Such widely differing opinions as to the viability of the causal hypothesis show that the attribution of creative power to Nature or natural laws is by no means .the inevitable corollary of objective, scientific investigation. It is no more than a personal opinion. Similarly, denial of the Creator of the cosmos, who has placed apparent causes there as veils to cover His hand of power, is not an act of reason but an act of will. In short, causality is a crude and cunning device with which man distributes the property of the Creator among the created in order that he might set himself up as absolute owner and ruler of all that he has, and all that he is.  
My aim was not to summarize the Risale-i Nur, but to show how far removed my previous conceptions about Allah were before reading this work. I thought that by saying La ilaha illa Allah, I had said all there was to be said about Allah. Thanks to the Risale-i Nur, I was now able to see that previously, God had been something that I had brought 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 the gaps.' 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 Nut shows that the signs of God, these mirrors of His Names and attributes, are revealed to us constantly in new and ever- changing forms and configurations, eliciting acknowledgment, acceptance, submission, love and worship. The Risale-i Nur showed that there is a distinct process involved in becoming Muslim in the true sense of the word: contemplation to know-ledge, knowledge to affirmation, affirmation to belief or conviction, and from conviction to submission. And since each new moment, each new day, sees the revelation of fresh aspects of Divine truth, this process is a continuous one. The external practices of Islam, the formal acts of worship, are thus in a sense static. Belief, however, is subject to increase or decrease, depending on the continuance of the process I have just mentioned. Thus it is the reality of belief that deserves most of our attention; from there the realities of Islam will follow on inevitably.  
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.  
Let's return now to the question: What do we, as Muslims, have to offer to the West. The answer is: everything and nothing. We have belief and Islam, which is everything; and we have our understanding and interpretation of Islam, which in most cases amounts nothing much at all.  
As is evident from the books which introduced me to Islam, almost everything that has been written with the West in mind has been done more or less on the level of some benign cultural exchange. Almost invariably the central question of belief has been glossed over or ignored completely.  
In the Qur'an, the word 'Allah' appears more than 2500 times, the word 'Islam' less than ten. In a good deal of modern Muslim writing, the ratio is roughly reversed. In the Qur'an, the ratio between iman and islam is 5:1 in favor of iman. In Arabic book titles until the end of the 19th century, islam slightly outnumbers iman in a ratio of 3:2. By the Sixties, this has had jumped to 13:1, and today it is undoubtedly higher. Inevitably, then, the approach to the West has centered on Islam as a system, as an alternative 'ideology', presented almost totally without reference to the realities of belief.  
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 geopolitical entity, it is also a metaphor. Geographically, the West was the first place to witness a mass revolt against the Divine. Modem 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 geopolitical West, one may say that wherever the truths of belief have been discarded, there is the West. Thus the West should be seen as a state of mind, a disease, an aberration. The root cause of this, as Bediuzzaman Said Nursi points out, is the disease of self-worship, of 'ENE' (Ana, the T or ego).  
From the beginning of the Renaissance, man in the West has been his own point of reference, the center of his own universe, the sole criterion by which he lives out his pathetic life. He has stolen the clothes of the Divine Names and has dressed himself in them and paraded as God. The problem is that they do not fit, and cannot fit. Unwilling to accept that his duty is merely to reflect the Divine attributes in the name of the Creator and according to His Will, he claims them as his own property and spends a lifetime trying to add to his imaginary possessions. Seeking the infinite from the finite drags him into a fierce and often murderous competition with his fellow beings. Man's endless desires are heightened by the fact that he is limited, impotent and dependent, and bound one day to give up all that he imagined was his and face annihilation. His limitations and deficiencies, which should serve to remind him of his absolute dependence and impotence, he contrives to conceal. Western man frees from ill thoughts of his ultimate destiny, smothers his innate ability to know and love the Creator, to recognize that man is nothing and can have nothing of his own. ~  
The secular, self-absorbed society of the West is designed on all levels to blind and stupefy. T0 mask the fact that the religion of the self has failed to live up to its promises; that the secular trinity of 'unlimited progress, absolute freedom and unrestricted happiness' is as meaningless as the Christian Trinity discarded centuries ago. To cover up the fact that economic and scientific progress which has secular humanism as its underlying ethos, has turned the West into a spiritual wasteland and ravaged generation after generation. Yet there are those who are beginning to awake, to realize the illusion under which they have been living. It is to these that the disease of ENE must be pointed out. It is no use telling one who is afflicted with this disease that the Islamic economic or judicial system is the most egalitarian or most just. You cannot cure a man suffering from cancer by giving him a new coat. What is needed is a correct diagnosis, radical surgery and constant back-up treatment. The Risale-i Nur provides all of these. You will recall that I dismissed the Risale-i Nur initially as mysticism, and I have also heard others describe it thus. The troth is otherwise, for there is nothing esoteric about the stark choice Said Nursi puts before us: belief or unbelief, eternal felicity or eternal wretchedness, salvation or perdition, heaven or hell -- in this world and the next.  
I have also heard the Risale-i Nur described as revolutionary, and with this I agree. But I am not talking about revolution in the political sense of the word. There is no mention of this in the Risale-i Nut, although I am sure that had Bediuzzaman advocated the violent overthrow of all secular governments, the Risale-i Nur would be required reading in every Western university, and Bediuzzaman would be a household name in the West.  
After all, the West has a soft spot for extremism, especially when flavored with religion. What can be better, more beautiful, more delicious in the eyes of the Western media than the sight of thousands of angry Muslims in some far-off, violent city screaming "Death to America!" and demanding revolution and the re-introduction of the Shari'a? The West no longer has to go to the trouble of misrepresenting Islam: we do it for them, and they simply film it for their own consumption. I remember watching such a demonstration over a decade ago, in a place where America is known as the great Satan. What struck me at the time was the fact that maybe 70% of the crowd were dressed in Levis, and that every cigarette smoked as the demonstration dispersed was either a Marlborough or a Winston. As one hand cuts a or claims to cut a the ties that bind us to the West, the other hand fastens them even tighter.  
Yet still we claim that it is time for action, that we have spoken enough. I've actually heard this said in reference to the Risale-i Nur. It is all talk, someone said, and no action. But we have not talked, we have merely moaned and wailed. And because we have not talked, not conversed, brother to brother, believer to believer, Muslim to Muslim, in the name of Allah, in the language of the Qur'an and in the language of the book of creation, then when we act we set incorrectly, without authority, without discipline, without a true criterion and frame of reference. And ultimately without any lasting result. The West understands this perfectly.  
No, the kind of revolution clamoured for on the streets of Tehran, Cairo or Algiers is not the kind of 'revolution that Bediuzzaman advocates. The kind of revolution envisaged by the Risale-i Nur is a revolution of the mind, of the heart, of the soul and the spirit. It is not an Islamic revolution but a revolution of belief. As such it works on two levels: it is designed to lead Muslims from belief by imitation to belief through investigation, and to lead unbelievers from worship of the self to worship of Allah. And that is why, in the eyes of those who control the West, a work such as the Risale-i Nur is deadly.  
Finally, I would say this: After many years of searching and comparing, I can say that the Risale-i Nur is the only self-contained, comprehensive Islamic work that sees the cosmos as it actually is, presents the reality of belief as it truly is, interprets the Qur'an as our Prophet intended, diagnoses the real and very dangerous diseases that afflict modern man, and offers a cure. A work such as the Risale-i Nur, which reflects the light of the Qur'an and illuminates the cosmos, cannot be ignored. For only Islam stands between modern man and catastrophe, and I believe that the future of Islam depends on the Risale-i Nur and on those who follow and are inspired by its teachings.