[Scholars & politics (2)]
Impartial politics
by Ekrem Dumanlı

This method in a sense was indicative of being independent and completely outside of the state administration. It also represented an attitude that took into consideration the effects contemporary politics would have in the future and that remained distant to politics.

The essence of this stance actually relies on Islam’s most basic references. Religion ensures happiness in both this world and the hereafter above everything else. It invites people to faith, benevolence and morality. To be more direct, a power struggle is not the main purpose of religion; rather religion is about having love for God in a person’s heart. For this reason, religion is not an ideology. Perhaps this is the subject of another article. It suffices to say, however, that real ulema and religious mentors (murshid) never served as tools for personal gain and power struggles yet they always strove to prevent administrations from doing wrong.

The ulema can contribute to politics, offer recommendations and criticize or praise them as long they don’t engage in the idle talk of politics. In fact, they can be the leaders of certain changes with the support of the people who believe in them or they can prevent some mistakes from happening. This is how it has always been and it is how it must always be.

In my previous article I tried to briefly explain the nonpartisan politics of the ulema by mentioning two symbolic figures, Imam-i Rabbani and Imam Abu Hanifa. There may be objections that the atmosphere and administration mentality of the centuries in which the great scholars lived are different from today’s conditions and concepts. It is for this reason that it might be beneficial to focus on one of the most important ulema of our times, Bediüzzaman Said Nursi.

I seek refuge in God from Satan, demons and politics

Said Nursi divides his life into two parts, the “Old Said” and the “New Said.” Some people label the last 10 years of his life (based on a statement in his works) as the “Third Said.” In this first period, we see that Said Nursi was engaged in politics to a certain degree and wanted to serve the nation through politics. However it is important to understand this period properly. During this first period, Said Nursi dedicated his life to the “truths of faith,” which is the purpose of life. In other words, he did not consider himself a politician during that period either. In his own words: “The Old Said got involved in politics a little bit. He exhausted himself in vain, thinking that maybe he could do a service to religion and science through politics” (“The Fourteenth Ray”). There was a reality that startled Said Nursi, who saw politics as a tool to serve religion and science, and that was that much of politics was based on lies and contained the risk of making one a tool of foreign forces without knowing it. Noting that politics based on small calculations contained so much “partiality” that it could present an angel like a devil and a devil like an angel, he said, “I seek refuge in God from Satan, demons and politics.” He subsequently dedicated himself to a new path that would elevate him by “meditating about death.” He became reclusive and isolated himself from worldly affairs.

Even though his decision to avoid entering the political center of gravity in Ankara and his urge to take up a path of self-contemplation kept him distant from world affairs to some degree, it also gave him an opportunity to look at those affairs from a more a wider, loftier position. For example, he said, “The world is going through a spiritual crisis” (“History of My Life”). And he set forth the following mission for himself: “The walls surrounding the Quran are going to be destroyed. The Quran is going to defend itself directly. The Quran is going to be attacked, and its miraculous qualities are going to be its steel armor. And in a way surpassing his ability, someone like me is going to be appointed at this time to reveal sort of its miraculous qualities and I understood that it is I who has been designated” (The Twenty-Eighth Letter”).

Like many Muslim scholars, Said Nursi did not accept offers to become a deputy, nor did he accept the Religious Affairs Directorate’s offer to work as a preacher in eastern provinces. Refusing these offers were part of the stance he adopted, which I mentioned in my previous article. On the one hand, he was aware of the grave consequences that political decisions would have and was working to prevent damage from occurring while on the other hand he adopted an honorable and self-sufficient attitude to avoid becoming a link in the chain that would make the successive mistakes justified. The solution was to take a position that embraced everyone and raise a new generation, whilst protecting the product of this work, which would yield fruit several decades later, from the unfortunate initiatives of adventurers.

Said Nursi’s path is a ‘positive movement’

Using his own terminology, Said Nursi preferred a “positive movement” and rejected violence and rage. His peaceful and prudent stance during the Sheikh Said Rebellion and his embracing and unifying approach in the Kurdish-Turkish clash was not properly understood at the time. It still isn’t fully appreciated today, either. However, there is a very strong link between Said Nursi’s attitude and the source he thrived on. He was a man who said: “There is a massive fire in front of me. Its flames reach the skies. My child is burning inside of it. My faith has caught fire and is burning” (“History of My Life”). He saw politics as a club and service to faith as a “light.” The realities of faith were like a “diamond” while politics were like “broken pieces of glass.” More specifically, his only concern was to get people to know their creator and to become a representative of morality and virtue. That is why he said: “We have two hands. Even if we had a hundred hands, they would be sufficient only for the light. We do not have any other hands with which to hold the club” (“The Sixteenth Flash”). Unfortunately his stance was misunderstood and some circles still don’t put in the effort to understand him.

A Milliyet headline from Dec. 30, 2010, presents a concrete example of the lack of information on this topic. One either has to be prejudiced or ignorant in order to ask a pungent question like, “Was Said Nursi a political figure or not?”, or to say, “It is known that he closely followed politics and adopted a political attitude regarding real life events.” “Old Said” was not involved in politics as we understand it. During the period he calls the “New Said” he didn’t even read the newspaper nor did he allow it to be read around him. He spent his entire time concentrating on faith. He believed that those who ask: “Are we not all Muslims? Why are you constantly talking about the realities of faith?” did not understand the problems of the era. His reference to positivist and materialist ideas was related to his ultimate purpose.

He was never at the center of politics. That is because he was always above politics. He was looking at the events from above (not with a top-down perspective); he was interested in the social reflections of big changes, not in the political debates of every day incidents.

Counseling others to make the right choice, by foreseeing the damage of political decisions and choosing the lesser evil when under difficult conditions, was a natural outcome of impartial politics. Those who don’t fully understand a believer’s view of the world or can’t comprehend hat perspective may not understand an alim’s distant involvement in politics. Engaging in politics to obtain benefits is one thing; offering suggestions and wisdom through politics without expecting the smallest gain is a completely different thing. The former involves the risk of sinking in lies and shams while the other is about fulfilling a responsibility.

Acting as a guide does not mean engaging in politics.

Of course we should respect the well-intentioned efforts of religious people who chose to directly involve themselves in politics. That is a matter of choice. People can and do perform great service that way. After all, the path of politics is of interest to everyone and that interest makes every conscious, smart and wise person liable to take some kind of action. To say “if you’re so interested in politics then come join a political party” is a presumptuous attitude that disregards the civil initiative. Furthermore, this proposition contains an absurd imposition that politics is made for politicians, which is a mentality that detaches both politics and politicians from the public. Everyone follows politics from a certain distance because politics affects everyone to a certain degree.

When men of knowledge and wisdom who keep an eye on political practices serve as guides for other people, it does not mean they are involved in politics. For example, the support Said Nursi extended to the Democrat Party (DP) was not a simple matter of partisanship or “partiality.” The DP’s decision to remove restrictions on the call to prayer and to reduce certain constraints on religious practice ushered in this support. This stance consists of supporting the work put forth by the party; it is not partisanship. Support is conditional and is based on the actions of people with power. The support does not translate into a partisanship that will last forever. That is because the scholar-politics relationship which I have been trying to explain from the beginning gives priority to positive movements and rejects partisanship. Isn’t the performance assessment of democratic and civilian structures based on the same logic?

For scholars it is essential to stay away from the daily distractions of politics and keep away from relationships that are based solely on benefits. In this way scholars can maintain an equal distance to all political formations. However, history shows us that scholars support good administrative practices without expecting any personal benefits and issue warnings when mistakes are made. Being bothered by this scholarly stance and considering it an intervention in politics and making rude remarks to this end is indicative of a lack of knowledge about the Islamic tradition to say the least. That is because there are solid religious references and historical projections behind this balance in question. The key is to analyze the issue, not in the context of today’s pressing agenda but with a more encompassing perspective.