Hatred as the Root of Violence, the Trap of Said Nursi
-A Verson Who Was Spared From This Trap
Mustafa ULUSOY
WE LIVE IN a world which is being constructed at the same time it is being destroyed. Symbols are made and symbols are destroyed. Houses are built and houses are destroyed. People are born, people are killed. Bonds are formed, bonds are destroyed. Peace is made, war destroys.
Humanity, having made so much progress in so many different aspects, has failed to show the same degree of success in building a peaceful world. The period after the Age of Reason in the 17th century has been defined as the period of the ‘articulating mind’, that is, the Age of Enlightenment. The 19th century, on the other hand is generally known as the Age of Revolutions. In response to the question ‘What have we been able to achieve in our century, the 20th Century?’ Baumann answers: “In this century we have learned this – Modernity is not merely about increasing production, or faster travel, or becoming more affluent, or living more freely. It is also about speedier and more effective killing and scientifically planned and implemented massacre”.
It is interesting to note that though oppression and massacre is not new and has existed throughout history, oppression has been on the increase in recent years. Such a short period of time as this century of modernity has not been able to eliminate hatred and aggression, which have roots thousands of years old. On the contrary, modernity has produced and nourished aggession. “Military historian Quincy Wright has calculated that in Europe, war has increased on the following scale, taking into account not only its duration but also the size of the fighting forces, the proportion of combatants to the general population and the number of casualties: 18 in the 12th, 24 in the 13th, 60 in the 14th, 100 in the 15th, 180 in the 16th, 500 in the 17th, 370 in the 18th, 120 in the 19th, and 3080 in the 20th century until 1945.”
Though the Second World War with the terrifying destruction it brought about carried with it hopes of extinguishing humanity’s love for war, it was followed by 160 armed struggles in various regions of the world in the years from 1945 to 1990. Moreover the participants were countries not necessarily identified as being despotic. From its foundation until the year 1965, the total number of years in which the US army or navy troops have not been actively involved in any part of the world is a mere 20 years.
Though wars are a manifestation of destruction, destruction is not particular to war nor is it limited to it. Destruction and violence are an infringement, in other words the totality of a being is interrrupted. A woman raped, an unloved child, Palestinians who have had their land usurped by the Israeli government, ghetto inhabitants subject to the ugly terror of police, workers under capitalist production who have become alienated from their own manpower, forests subject to acid rain; all of these have had their conditions of existence violated. There is aggression in some of these examples but only as a means. But in all of them is a violation directed towards the integrity of their existence. “The Absolutely Wise One, the Truly Just One, the All-Compelling and Glorious One, established justice, not only for men and jinn, but for all creatures” that is, He bestowed the right of existence and the right of life on everything” . For this reason, the notion of violence necessitates ontological understanding; there are beings in this world who have their own requirements and integrity, that is, creatures who have their own specific rights . The infringement of these rights is violence.
The attraction of destruction lies in its ease and in the ‘desire for power’ it awakens in people. This feeling allows narcissistic egos especially to experience the pleasure of possessing power and strength. “Destruction is easy, the weak person is destructive” . “They appear to have extraordinary power for destruction is easy” . For instance, a person holding a match in their hand and carrying the desire for destruction becomes obsessed with an alleged power. The self burns with desire at the thought of the destruction it can cause with fire and the thought that things will never be the same as before. This desire for strength and power first of all ignites and burns the self. The simplicity of destruction and the feeling of power it awakens provides an important insight into understanding the tendency towards destruction and violence of unbelievers. I will discuss this in more detail later..
Amongst all living creatures man is the only creature that destroys for the sake of destruction . Man is a creature capable of cruelty and ignorance. A Polish survivor of a concentration camp expresses his shock at the degree to which man can oppress: “they could kill people and be quite normal while doing so”. This Polish survivor, in his bewilderment at how easy and comfortably a person can kill another, adds: “I cannot understand this.”
These opposites of behaviour in people and the capacity for both good and evil in humans poses a complex problem for modern psychology. Said Nursi attributes this frightening truth to the fact that man is created in the most perfect of forms and to the multiplicity and variety of the potentialities of man:
“Man has been created on the most excellent of patterns and has been given most comprehensive abilities, he has been cast into an arena of trial and examination in which 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. He has been sent to this world as a miracle of Divine Power, the result of creation, and a wonder of Divine art before whom have been opened two roads leading either to infinite ascent or infinite descent.” The potentialities and subtle faculties of man are not limited like those of animals. These unrestricted faculties and potentialities can turn into wild and violating behaviour if used by narcissistic, inflated, self-loving egos who exist only for themselves and who act according to their own desires and caprice . In other words, behaviour such as creativity, compassion, mercy and order and unlimited destruction which emanate from man are both a result of the broad nature of the capabilities given to man. Just as the restricted nature and capabilities given to animals limit goodness, so too do they limit evil.
Up until this day people have generally employed three methods for dealing with their enemies: to fight them, flee from them, or find a way to love them. None of these methods has succeeded in eliminating hostility from the world. In my opinion it would be naive to expect that all hostility can be completely removed from the face of the earth. However it is possible to form local regions of peace and decrease the amount of conflict. I will now argue the reasons for this.
November 16, 2008
#1
WHY IS A WORLD WITHOUT TENSION LEFT TO THE AFTERLIFE?
This world is a place where opposites are in conflict. Good-evil, beauty-ugliness, benefit-harm, perfection- deficiency, light-darkness, guidance-misguidance, belief-unbelief, obedience-rebellion, light-fire, fear-love – there has always existed and will always exist tension between these opposites.
According to Nursi, the source of the wisdom that allows the earth to permit these opposites to conflict comes from the Law of Contest. Life is an “arena for the contest of life.” With the descent of man down to earth, “since the time of Adam (peace be upon him), two mighty conflicting currents have come down to us. One is that of the people of prophethood, righteousness and belief, who, following the straight path, receive the bounty of happiness in this world and the next.” The “second current” is that group characterised by the verse in Al-Fatiha, that is, the ‘magdubi waladdallin’ (those whose portion is wrath and those who go astray), that group who “deviates from the straight path and through excess and deficiency transforms the intelligence into an instrument of torture amassing pains and casting humanity down to a degree lower than the animals.”
This tension between faith and unbelief is the decree of the Creator and an imperative of the Law of Contest. “The All Powerful One of Glory, Who holds within the grasp of His power the breathing-in and breathing-out of the unbelievers, does not wipe them out with a single command, a single trumpet-blast. With His title of universal Sustainer and Names of All-Wise and Controller, He inaugurates a field of examination and contest” . These words of Nursi underline “the contest between the inspirations and satanic whisperings around the heart to the contest between angels and devils on the bounds of the heavens, they require that law to be all-embracing” as being an imperative of the glorious and beautiful attributes of the Creator and do not limit this struggle to relationships between humans only, but emphasize the struggle within the micro and macro worlds, including that between the angelic inspirations and satanic whisperings in the human heart, to that between the angels and satans in the heavens.
In contrast to the profane understanding of history prevalent in the West which views human history according to conflicts of interest, the Qur’an interprets history as a process of struggle that arises between the prophets and their communities who follow them and those who try to base their lives on principles of obedience versus misguidance to Allah versus groups of people who consider benefit only and who are defined in the Qur’an by concepts such as mustakbir or arrogance (Lokman 31 Verse 7), mutref or oppulence (Zuhruf 43 Verse 23), and tagut or false idolatry (Nahl 16 Verse 36).
As long as the existence of opposites continues on the face of the earth, this situation of contest and struggle will not end. Even if conditions such as local peace, and tranquil and secure lives are brought about (as in the Age of Bliss) there has never been a time where there haven’t been wars, tension or conflict. At the least, mankind is constantly subject to the tension and struggle between the whisperings of Satan and the angelic inspirations in his own heart, and this tension will continue until death – the end of the examination period.
The fruits that arise as a result of this conflict of opposites will diverge in the eternal world into heaven and hell, and this separation will be complete on the Day of Judgement. “The branches and results, which are opposites of those two elements will continue into eternity; they will become concentrated and separate from one another. Then they will be manifested in the form of Paradise and Hell.” This is a possible reason for why Heaven is going to be a place full of security, peace and well being. Because everything that prevents peace and happiness will have been discharged into hell. I would now like to focus on the possible psychodynamics of the behaviours and conditions that prevent security and peace.
November 16, 2008
#2
UNBELIEF AS A SOURCE OF AGGRESSION AND VIOLENCE
Nursi distinguishes between sceptical and absolute faith. Even absolute unbelievers benefit from the Qur’an’s mercy. By transforming their unbelief into a form of scepticism, he says, they can attain to a state where they can be hopeful about an eternal life, indicating that they can thereby partially obtain some pleasure out of life. – Another differentiation Nursi makes is about unbelief which has two forms – that of non-acceptance and that of denial. Nursi considers non-acceptance to be indifference whereas denial is a state of unbelief , judgemen and acceptence of non-existence. The path of denial is a path that opens the door leading not just to the rejection of faith but to its opposite whereas non-acceptance corresponds to doubtful or sceptical unbelief.
What I am proposing in this article is that the tension between faith and unbelief is an understandable tension, but that the transformation of this tension into violence, aggression, oppression and crime appears as a requirement of “absolute unbelief” which leads to the opposite of faith. Violence and oppression are inherent characteristics, and in fact requirements, of absolute unbelief.
The fact that Muslims have resorted to violence throughout human history does not mean that violence is particular to faith. Faith or unbelief take root in a person’s heart. This is then reflected in all mental processes and behaviour. However, not all states and characteristics of unbelievers possess the traits of unbelief. On the other hand by stating that “in believers may be found diseases of the heart. They too, like the people of misguidance, can give unnecessary importance to unimportant things. However they realize their fault quickly, repent and do not persist,” Nursi does not absolve believers of being absolutely free of fault.
A Muslim’s use of violence and the basic causes for this tendency towards violence, is a consequence born of not following a faith-based path in trying to resolve their traumatic experiences in the way desired by the Creator as indicated in the Qur’an. This state is recorded in the person’s personal history as a state of unbelief, an evil, a foul state and behaviour and this behaviour will be taken to account in this world and/or in the hereafter. The state of being taken to account is not peculiar to the people of disbelief but is rather every person’s responsibility. The attempt to show that the behaviour of Muslims throughout the world who have become embroiled in violence and been the cause of the death of innocent people is actually an inherent part of faith and of Islam is to be ignorant of the true nature of faith and unbelief.
Violence and oppression is an inherent characteristic of absolute unbelief, however unbelievers may possess good qualities and even though faith harbours absolute goodness and beauty yet people who have faith established in their hearts can still experience states in which their heart is diseased. This may appear to be contradictory but it does not alter the fact that violence is an inherent aspect of unbelief. I would like to emphasize the theory I am attempting to put forward in this study, namely that the source of aggression and violence is absolute unbelief – and not the people of unbelief – and I am implying that faith and unbelief are put into practice by people in varying degrees and not as absolutes. I would like this difference to be kept in mind when reading the remaining part of this study.
I will now show why violence and aggression are particular to unbelief and why they reflect a state of unbelief. Before moving onto the concept of hatred, I will discuss a less severe emotion, that of rage. In attempting to understand the psychodynamics of hatred I will be borrowing heavily from Otto Kernberg’s studies on this topic.
November 16, 2008
#3
Rage:
The basic affect that characterizes the activation of aggression is rage. Irritation is a mild aggressive affect that signals that the reactions of rage are not very far away and its chronic form is irritability. Anger is a more intense affect than irritation and is usually more differentiated in its cognitive content and in the nature of the object relationship that is activated.
Research carried out on infants has documented the early appearance of rage as an affect. Its primordial function is to eliminate a source of pain or irritation. In this sense rage seems not to be used so much for destruction but rather for the preservation of life. A later developmental function of rage is as a last resort to restore the feeling of autonomy. A violent assertion of will functions to restore an internal state of narcissistic balance.
November 16, 2008
#4
The relationship between aggression and hatred:
Hatred is a complex aggressive affect. Hatred is the most common motive for destroying another object. Hatred is a basic affect that causes a person to be destructive. Whereas rage reactions are acute and the cognitive aspects of anger and rage may vary easily, the cognitive aspect of hatred is chronic and stable. It is a complex affect that can overshadow other universally present aggressive affects such as envy or disgust and become the major aspect of the aggressive drive.
Hatred is not always pathological. As a response to an objective, real danger of physical or psychological destruction or a threat to the survival of oneself and one’s loved ones, hatred becomes a normal extension of rage designed to eliminate that danger. However, when it is a chronic characteriological tendency, hatred always reflects the psychopathology of aggression. I will be focussing on the hatred which has become a fundamental trait of a person and that hatred which has become so prevalent as to be considered characteriological and hatred as the root of aggression.
The primary aim of one consumed by hatred is to destroy its object, a specific object of unconscious fantasy, and the conscious derivatives of this object: at its depths the object is both needed and desired. Yet its destruction is also equally needed and desired. To understand hatred it is crucial to keep this paradox in mind.
Hatred in its most extreme form demands a) the physical elimination of the object, as in murder for instance or b) radically devaluing the object as an act of destruction or elimination may be another manifestation of hatred c) sometimes the destruction of hatred may become generalized and take the form of a symbolic destruction of all objects. For instance a good indication of the destruction of hatred is the destruction of all relationships with other people who are considered significant.
Sometimes hatred is expressed in suicide. The self is identified with the hated object and the only way to destroy this object is to annihilate the self.
A less severe degree of hatred is expressed in sadistic tendencies and wishes. The person has a desire to make the object suffer in some way and is accompanied by a sense of profound conscious or unconscious enjoyment of that suffering. Sadism may take the form of a sexual perversion in which there is actual physical harm of the object, or it may be part of the malignant narcissism syndrome, sadomasochistic personality structure. In contrast to the earlier, more encompassing form of hatred, sadism is characterized by the wish not to eliminate the object but to maintain the relationship with the hated object, a relationship between a sadistic agent and a paralyzed victim. The desire to inflict pain and pleasure in doing so are central here.
A still milder form of hatred manifests as the desire to dominate the object, a search for power over it that may include sadistic components but in which attacks on the object tend to be limited by submission of the object. In this way the person’s freedom and autonomy are reconfirmed. More frequent manifestations of this milder level of hatred include the assertion of hierarchical superiority and ‘territoriality’ in social interactions and the aggressive aspects of regressive small- and large-groups processes.
Other forms of hatred include that of rationalized identification with a harsh and punishing superego, aggressive assertion of idiosyncratic but well-rationalized systems of morality, justified indignation, and primitive levels of commitment to vindictive ideologies. This degree of hatred forms a bridge with the revered function of brave and aggressive assertion in the service of commitment to ideals and ethical systems.
The chronicity, stability, and characteriological anchoring of hatred is equalled by the desire to inflict pain upon the object, characteriological – and sometimes sexual – sadism, and cruelty
Primitive hatred can also manifest as an attempt to ruin the potential for a satisfying human relationship and for learning something of value in that human interaction. Underlying this need to destroy reality and communication in close relationships is envy of the object. This is particularly true for an object not dominated from within by similar hatred.
November 16, 2008
#5
The relationship between envy and hatred:
Envy of a good object was first identified as a significant characteristic of patients with severe narcissistic psychopathology by Melanie Klein. Klein defines envy as an angry affect that arises due to the belief that a desired object is in the possession of somebody else and that it is giving them and not us pleasure. An envious person will feel pain when they see an object of their desire in the possession of another, and will try to take it from them, or ruin or taint it. Pleasurable and happy scenes give them pain. Only another’s misery can give them pleasure. This is why all attempts to satisfy an envious person are futile. Because their envy arises from within themselves and thus they will always find an object to envy.
Klein emphasizes the psychological reasons for envy being correctly considered as one of the seven great sins. The extract from Chaucer’s The Parson’s Tale is interesting: “Envy is undoubtedly the greatest sin; because all of the other sins transgress against one virtue only whereas envy is opposed to all virtues and goodness.”
Otto Kernberg writes that envy felt for an object and hatred blend together in some way. He emphasizes that underlying primitive hatred which arises especially as an attempt to destroy the potential for a gratifying human relationship and for learning something of value in that human interaction is conscious or unconscious envy for an object.
Max Scheler emphasizes that if a person is unhappy only that another person is in possession of something good then this feeling can encourage the person to work for, buy, force or steal to obtain that possession, whereas envy arises when the person is unable to do so and feels powerless. If the desired values are such that they are unobtainable and beyond compare then envy can lead to a concept especially preferred by Scheler, which is resentment.
Lying beneath envy of an object and the need to destroy and spoil anything good that might come from it lies identification with the originally hated – and needed – object. Envy may be considered to be both the source of a primitive form of hatred and a complication of the hatred that derives from the fixation to trauma. At the surface, hatred of the envied object is usually rationalized as fear of the object’s destructive potential.
November 16, 2008
#6
The relationship between hatred and unbelief: The envy of unbelief towards faith
In the Qur’an the emotion of hatred is used only for unbelievers. Because there are deep bonds and a deep parallel between the psychodynamics of unbelief and the dynamics of hatred.
“Unbelief is an evil, a destruction.” Unbelief renders the universe meaningless. It negates all of the attributes that are manifest in all of creation. Nursi considers this action of making everything meaningless a violation, an infringement of limits, an evil and a crime. Unbelief severs the bonds that connect man to both himself and to all other creation. Unbelief is such indifference that it causes hostility even among brothers. And it plants the seeds of a type of alienation in all objects. And it makes everything appear to be an enemy to everything else.” Because faith establishes genuine brotherhood and connection amongst all beings “there is no hostility, spite or brutality in the soul of a believer. There is a type of brotherhood even with one’s greatest enemy.” “In the soul of the unbeliever, however, is greed and hostility.” “Unbelief extinguishes the soul and heart and leaves them in darkness.” This dark state is the basis for the formation of hatred in the souls of unbelievers. Due to meaninglessness this state of darkness prevents a person from feeling their own existence and that of the universe. It is a state that perceives existence as nothingness. This perception gives birth to an internal feeling of emptiness.
Taking various Qur’anic verses as a point of support, Nursi states that “the enmity of unbelievers towards Muslims and the people of the Qur’an is an imperative of unbelief. Because unbelief opposes faith.” He thus identifies that the enmity of unbelievers towards believers and the Qur’an is necessitated by unbelief. For this reason he emphasises that any love shown towards unbelievers, for whom it is impossible to experience familiarity with or to love, will be to no avail, and underlines the fact that it is futile to expect love back or hope for help from them.
Unbelief also destroys the relationship one has with oneself. “Should unbelief, which consists of the severance of the relation, enter man’s being, then all those meaningful inscriptions of the Divine Names are plunged into darkness and become illegible.” The outlook of unbelief leads to one’s perception of oneself as worthless, meaningless and non-existent. Unbelief awakens in man a profound feeling of emptiness. This feeling of emptiness is the primary cause of resentment, anger, aggression, destruction, greed and envy. Arno Gruen considers this self-hatred to be the source of destructive behaviour in humans. It is an interesting finding that what narcissistic people most hate is their own existence. Unbelief firstly destroys the connection one has with oneself. The perception of one’s existence as meaningless, empty and futile transforms one’s existence into a prison from which there is no escape. The constriction of unbelievers into this prison leads primarily to resentment and hatred of themselves. This state of hatred empties their insides and leads to emptiness. One who perceives himself as non existent thus becomes an enemy to existence and to goodness.
The psychodynamics of Satan can be of help in understanding the psychodynamics of the enmity of unbelief towards faith. The words of Satan, namely that he will “… take of Thy servants a portion marked off and mislead them and create in them false desires…” are interesting. Why does Satan want to mislead people? Isn’t it enough for him that he does not obey Allah’s commands? In my opinion, as I have argued elsewhere , this is entirely related to the psychology of unbelief.
The moment Satan became proud and refused the command of his Lord to bow down to Adam, he lost everything. At that point, he was devoid of everything. Creatures obtain their prosperity by obeying the commands of their Lord. Existence itself is a situation that has come about as a result of His command. Satan rebelled against this truth of his existence and persisted in his rebellion. The existence of Satan came about with the command of his Lord. Satan has no existence of his own. If beings do not come into existence by themselves then the One Who determines what is best and preferable for them is their Creator. Satan rebelled against the necessity of obeying His command – that man was created superior and finer – and he persisted in this rebellion. This persistance is significant. This persistance left him deprived of his Lords mercy.
The state of deprivation of his Lords mercy was a state of absolute deprivation for Satan and this state consumed him. There was nothing positive that he felt inside him. Just at that point Satan began to be filled with envy. This was the envy of having lost everything. His insides were eaten away. He was thenceforth an enemy to all existence. He became an enemy to all states in which the mercy of his Lord was manifest and he envied all of those states. With his envy he burned with the desire to destroy, annihilate, sully, and ruin all states in which this mercy was manifest. Satan burned inside. From that point on he wanted to destroy goodness, mercy, beauty and compassion. This selfish desire was related to his being deprived of all of these.
While Satan persisted in what left him devoid of his Lords mercy, Adam and Eve were in Heaven, subject to the infinite variety of mercy there. This situation was unacceptable to Satan. The lives of Adam and Eve (peace be upon them) enveloped in mercy was a source of torture for him. He could not tolerate the existence of a creature he considered himself superior to, because he was created out of fire whereas Adam was created out of dust, living within the riches of a Master of Mercy in Heaven and he envied. Moreover Adam and Eve who were subject to this endless mercy would be subject to this mercy eternally. Whereas for him there would be endless destitution in hell. This situation was a grave source of pain and hatred for Satan. Envy and hatred gnawed away at Satan. He wanted to take away from man, annihilate and destroy a bounty, a form of existence that he did not possess and which was not bestowed upon him.
Satans first attempt was successful. He played with the lives of the two people he envied. From that point onwards he determined a path for himself. He turned his envy and hatred, pronounced in the case of Adam and Eve (peace be upon them) into an action directed towards all of humanity. Satan does not want any person to be subject to mercy, compassion, benefit, beauty or goodness. Satan does not want anyone to have a good relationship with their Creator. The hatred and envy within him makes him think that ‘if my relationship with my Creator is tainted then others must have a bad relationship with their Creator as well’. He is jealous of everyone. He does not want people to be loved by their Creator or to receive bounties from Him. Deprived of eternity Satan envies the bestowal of eternity on people called to eternity and puts effort into preventing this from happening. He does not want people to love their Creator. He feels envy when people feel gratitude for and thank their Creator for what He has bestowed upon them. He is now an enemy to all goodness. The hatred and envy within him wishes to destroy and ruin all goodness. But all goodness comes about as a result of the connection and relationship with man’s Creator. Satan on the other hand, makes it his aim to sever all bonds people have with their Creator.
The source of envy, that is, the emptiness felt due to the expulsion from the Lord’s mercy, and the destructiveness of this emptiness is not particular to Satan. It is a characteristic of and extension of the state of unbelief that results from reaching a state of contest with the Creator. This is why everything good and beautiful in life is a source of envy for people who have become embroiled in this state of unbelief. Underlying the enmity of unbelief towards faith and the ennmity towards whatever is connected to it, and towards goodness and beauty, is an internal state of nothingness. The weakest envy is at the same time the worst type of envy. This is why the strongest source of resentment is the existential envy directed towards another’s mere nature. Envy constantly whispers: “I can forgive you for everything but I can never forgive you for what makes you you – for what you have that I don’t and for not being you. Scheler states that underlying this type of envy is opposition to the other’s mere existence because he feels the that the other’s existence as is, is a constriction, a condemnation and an intolerable abasement. This corresponds to the opposition by Satan to the existence of a being superior to him and to the existential envy directed by unbelief towards something more valuable, ie faith and all states of belief.
November 16, 2008
#7
Hatred as a form of attachment and the trap of hatred
The most important characteristic of intense hatred is the existence of an intense desire to maintain a bond with the object of a person’s hate. People who have undergone trauma and have not effectively resolved this trauma become deeply obsessed with the people who have violated them. They feel intense hatred for the one who subjected them to the trauma but at the same time become obsessed with them and try to prolong their attachment through their hatred. Attachment to the enemy or oppressor gives birth universally to the belief that the only way to be a victim is to become a tyrant. The ability of people who have not effectively resolved their traumatic experiences to in time become the cruelest of people is a consequence of this attachment. With his statement that “the oppressed are at one and the same time themselves and the oppressor whose consciousness they have internalized” Paulo Friere underlines the danger of the oppressed internalizing their oppressors.
This psychodynamic is also applicable in the hatred shown towards the believers by the unbelievers even where there is no concrete threat or danger. The essence of hatred is “hatred of the frustrated object but it is also hatred of the loved and needed object from whom love was expected and from whom frustration is unavoidable.” . This feeling of hatred corresponds exactly to what Nursi states about why unbelievers feel resentment towards the Creator, harbour enmity towards Him and reject Him, namely, that it is due to “the deep wounds caused by eternal separation from an Absolute Beauty that he loves and whose value he appreciates” The anger felt towards the Creator by Satan and the playthings of Satan, people who have become embroiled in states of unbelief, arises from their need for the Creator and their need to be loved by Him on the one hand and on the other, their narcissistic attitude which causes them to choose to live, not according to how He wants, but according to their own desires and whims. Satan and those who follow him are people who have been expelled from His Mercy. However they are in absolute need of His Mercy. But their desire to attain to this mercy that they are in such need of in their own way – and not that prescribed by the Creator – and their deprivation of this mercy leads to their feeling anger, resentment and extreme hatred towards the Creator, and those who believe in Him and want to live according to His wishes, and to any symbols that remind them of Him.
“Since the misguidance of those unfortunates arises from love of this world and obstinacy, they do not keep to themselves but infringe upon others. In a hostile way they wish to dry up the source of and destroy the truths of and close the door and path to the religion they know and to which their forefathers were dedicated “ . These words of Nursi nicely summarise the basis of the anger of the people of misguidance as being:
1) Love of this world: attachment to this world in the absence of the Creator results in hurt. On the one hand there is an attachment to this world to the degree of love, and on the other, the knowledge that man is in constant threat of being abandoned by the world and will one day abandon it himself. The inability to solve this dilemma results in existence being viewed in this way and in hatred. On the other hand there is 2) obstinacy, that is, a narcissistic self that instead of the perception of absolute weakness and nothingness it persists in its narcissistic attitude. This narcissistic attitude of unbelievers towards their Creator is also directed towards the people of faith. The existence of the people of faith in this world unsettles the people of disbelief. This unsettled state results in transgression.
If we expand this second aspect of obstinacy, the absolute powerless state in which unbelievers have been created intrudes in their desire to be strong and to obtain their objects of desire and results in their narcissism being hurt. “Since man and jinn are capable of infinite evil and exertion, they are infinitely obdurate and rebellious.” The Qur’an challenges this obstinacy and tyranny in the following manner: “O ye assembly of jinn and men! If it be ye can pass beyond the zones of the heavens and the earth, pass ye! Not without authority will ye be able to pass.” Nobody can pass beyond the limits of His dominion. Just as man cannot escape from the location of this universe that He established, he also cannot escape the conditions determined by Him.
For example nobody can live without drinking water or without breathing. The imprisonment of a person within the conditions determined by the Creator awakens in man the feeling of powerlessness. This challenge results in grave narcissistic pain for Satan and the people of unbelief who possess narcissistic egos . This situation overlaps with another side of hatred which is that “hatred is before anything else directed towards an obstructing object.”
The words of Nursi “Because their misguidance arises from science and philosophy which has given them an extraordinary arrogance and strange pharaoism and grandiosity and their souls have become so spoilt that they look upon the rays of Divine laws which administer the universe and those true principles in the realm of man as being unsuitable for their base passions and appetites, and they want to find them {God forbid! God forbid! } twisted, wrong and deficient” provide important clues to the spiritual state of unbelievers.
While this helpless state is felt by believers and is adopted and accepted by them, it is rejected and is in fact rebelled against by Satan and the people of disbelief. This is the reason why Satan and the people of disbelief are caught between experiencing absolute need for Him, and desire to be taken into account and given importance by Him on the one hand and rebelling against Him on the other. The inability to escape His dominion is another source of anger and hatred for the unbelievers.
Faith renders a person friend to both himself and the universe. “In the view of a believer, all beings are the friendly servants, amicable officials, and agreeable books of his Most Generous Lord and All Compassionate Owner.” It is expected that the people of faith should have an inherent richness. This inherent richness makes them content. Instead of envy, believers are filled with gratitude. By definition the people of belief are not expected to be transgressors. However, even if a believer does not transgress for no reason, he may have to face being violated by an unbeliever and is thus left to face the problem of effectively resolving the trauma he experiences. The Qur’an encourages believers, when they are subject to ‘lagw’, that is, evil, to respond with ‘karam’ or kindness. That is, it encourages “the elimination in the best manner of the enmity shown towards them” . If this doesn’t work then it advises that “ one parts from them in the best way” . However, if the enemy still attempts to violate their limits and threatens the life of the believer then jihad in the commonly understood meaning may be resorted to.
If the people of belief do not effectively resolve the violations carried out against them by the people of disbelief and skip the step of ‘responding with kindness’ or parting from them in a good way, as indicated by Karabasoglu, they can become susceptible to living in a way that deviates to oppression and injustice and take as their first step material jihad which should be the last resort. If the people of faith do not reach an understanding that links the calamities they experience at the hands of unbelievers to their Creator; in other words if they do not resolve their traumatic experiences, they are faced with the risk of becoming fixated on their trauma and fighting the weakness their trauma causes them to undergo and responding to hatred with hatred. This then can lead the people of belief to fall into the trap of hatred. “Because the trap of hatred is to become strongly attached to one’s enemy.” The novelist Hermann Hess is of the same opinion: “When we hate another person we actually hate the image of that person that we have internalised within us. Something that is not inside of us cannot make us angry.” Hatred should not be the manner in which the people of belief resolve the violations and traumatic experiences they undergo at the hands of people of disbelief. Because the hatred that arises as a result of not effectively resolving these traumas will at the same time bind the people of belief to the people of disbelief. This is the most important trap of hatred. It is my opinion that the resorting to violence by some believers in the world [today] is a result of not being able to effectively resolve the oppression, injustice and violence they have become subject to and thus hatred – a characteristic of the peopleof belief – has been internalized, and by responding to hatred with hatred they have fallen into the trap of hatred. As a person who was subject to similar oppression, the manner in which Said Nursi arrived at a solution and the meaning he gave to his experiences and his attitude in resolving these traumatic experiences can provide a model for us. I will now discuss this.
November 16, 2008
#8
Protection from the destructive hatred
and envy of unbelief towards faith:
The Said Nursi Model
In my opinion there are two clear characteristics of the behavioural pattern of Said Nursi:
1. Said Nursi rejected violence
2. Said Nursi was an activist
Nursi as a person who confronted his helplessness in the face of a violence:
The traumas and calamities experienced in a person’s life are in one way ontological traumas. Ontologically the person experiences a blow in his ability to feel his right to existence in the world and the right to his own particular needs and sense of security and integrity.
Every ontological blow awakens in a person the feeling of helplessness. Within this helplessness is an ontological posture. That is, a person’s helplessness in this world is an internal part and characteristic of their ontology. And it is how this weakness and helplessness are perceived that determine the effect the trauma has on the person. The resolution of the trauma must be carried out on the basis of this helplessness.
There are two ways people generally respond to helplessness:
a) to reject their helplessness
b) to accept their helplessness.
If the state and feeling of helplessness is perceived as a weakness and especially a deficiency on the part of the person, then the person will attempt to reject their helplessness.
The person who sees their helpless state as part of being human and as an ontological requirement of humanity however, is able to confront his helplessness. The person can see his weakness and helplessness in the universe and if they accept the limits felt as a result of this helplessness, they can surpass the feeling of insignificance and unimportance and rid themselves of primal and destructive hatred. The opposite awakens in people feelings of hatred and destructiveness. As I have tried to explain in the section entitled “Hatred as a form of attachment and the trap of hatred”, by rejecting a person’s ontological helplessness and powerlessness, absolute unbelief causes one to drown in hatred. One becomes full of hatred especially towards the Absolute Being who they try to reject but yet feel an absolute need for.
In my opinion the most prominent quality of Said Nursi in his response to his traumatic experiences (eg. exile, imprisonment, surveillance, pursuit, raids and court trials) is his confrontation with his ontological feeling of helplessness. He used his traumatic experiences and the consequent feelings of helplessness, nothingness, and powerlessness as a means of forming a stronger bond and connection with his Creator. If the helplessness experienced as a result of trauma is not resolved with the Creator in mind then a person will try to eliminate this feeling of helplessness by taking control and dominating and try to become stronger in order to dominate. Every theory that follows this path leads to the use of violence for a person and their progress. It is my opinion that at the basis of the non-violence of Said Nursi lies this acceptance of his ontological helplessness.
In stating that “the concealed aggression of the irreligious has taken on a most ugly form” Said Nursi emphasises the treatment he has been subject to as being “tyrannical aggression against the unfortunate people of belief and against religion” This expression, which is taken from Six Questions, begins with the verse: “No reason have we why we should not put our trust in Allah. Indeed He has guided us to the ways we follow. We shall certainly bear with patience all the hurt you may cause us. For those who put their trust should put their trust in Allah” and finishes with the verse “Men said to them: ‘A great army is gathering against you’; and frightened them; but it only increased their faith, they said: ‘For us God suffices, and He is the Best Disposer of Affairs’ ” He announces to his Creator the helplessness he feels due to the trauma. He takes comfort in the existence of an Absolute Being. He escapes the trap of hatred because he doesn’t attempt to eliminate his ontological helplessness and powerlessness through might and the acquisition of power. “Another time when my life was being shaken by severe conditions” he focused not on the struggles and the pain but on the aspect that looked towards the Ever-Living and Subsistent One. In saying that “if one aspect of life looks to me, one hundred aspects look to the Ever-Living Granter of Life. If one of its results concern me, a thousand of its results pertain to my Creator” he relates every stage of his life to Him and doesn’t become fixated with the calamities he faced.
He encounters the question “How do you endure the dificulties and troubles with which you are faced?” . When a person spoke “insulting and contemptuous words” about him, his pain was removed because if those words concerned his person and soul then they were a motivation for him to train his soul and so he forgave the man. He adds “If the man’s insults were directed towards my belief and my attribute of being servant of the Qur’an, it does not concern me. I refer him to the Qur’ans Owner, Who employs me. He is Mighty, He is Wise” and he ends the subject by expressing that he consulted the verse “Soon will you remember what I say to you (now) my (own) affair I commit to Allah. For Allah (ever) watches over His servants” In fact, in the words “I thought of the incident as not having happened. But unfortunately it was later understood that the Qur’an had not forgiven him…” he expresses his sadness at a calamity that afflicted that person. In this respect, Nursi is like the character in the analogy in the Verse Yasin who according to accounts is accepted as being Habib’i Neccar who followed the messengers. Or he is like Cain who at the point of being murdered by his brother Abel, said “If thou dost stretch thy hand against me to slay me it is not for me to stretch my hand against you to slay you, for I fear Allah the Cherisher of the Worlds” -
Joe Kovel claims that non-violence is possible if one accepts that they will have to experience pain. A person who adopts non-violence accepts that they will feel pain and will take on this responsibility and will try to pay penance. An act purified from violence is at the same time an act directed towards the sacred. With the statement “my life is a dominical missive” every state of existence for Nursi is a means of experiencing the manifestation of His Names and he makes his helplessness the greatest vehicle for achieving this. For Nursi every state which is in service to Him is acceptable and is adopted. Even pain has meaning as does the helplessness that arises as a result of not being able to do anything in the face of all that happened to him; the determination of the limits imposed upon man in this universe serves to help understand man’s existential position.
Non-violence is not passiveness or pacifism nor does it lead to the elimination of life. Said Nursi was an activist who did not resort to violence, in other words, he was a non-violent activist. As a consequence of his understanding of justice summarized in the following quote “If I join the opposition for the purpose of force and to provoke an incident, there would be the possibility of committing thousands sins in order to obtain a doubtful goal. Many people will be afflicted by disaster on account of one. So saying that in conscience I could not accept committing sins and causing the innocent to commit sins due to a one or two in ten possibility.” Nursi turned away from violence-based activism. The words “I have bound everything to reliance on God” indicate a reliance that is not passiveness towards the violation against him but rather a state of resolving his traumatic experiences. I will now focus on this aspect of his activism.
Said Nursi as activist: Ontological activism and the Risale-i Nur as a form of activism
Nursi’s primary and most important action is a type of activism I call “ontological activism”. Every state of existence is a state of action. As I attempted to explain above, when he was subject to violation and the feeling of helplessness he experienced in other situations, he adopted the state of being “a mirror to the power, strength, wealth and mercy of the Creator of Life”. This “ontological activism” of Nursi determined the form of all of his other activism.
After “ontological activism” the most important act of Nursi’s is the Risale-i Nur. As the “result of my life, means of my happiness and my natural duty” the Risale-i Nur with which he connected with his own existence was an action that was the focus of every circumstance of his life. Nursi states “Despite my faults, I have dedicated my life to this nation’s happiness and the saving of its religious belief. Saying, let my head too be sacrificed for a truth, that is, the truth of the Qur’an, for which millions of heroic heads have been sacrificed, I worked with the Risale-i Nur. Through Divine assistance, I persisted in the face of all the cruel torments. I did not withdraw.” and thereby demonstrates his activism in the service of the truths of the Qur’an.
Without breaking the connection with his “ontological activism” Nursi’s focus on service to belief freed him from the mental preoccupation with others’ violation and the unconscious internalisation of this violation that would result from this preoccupation and from the addictive effect of any such internalisation. “Since in their madnesss they do not condenscend to and become interested in our lofty affairs, then why should we curiously pursue their trivial matters and damage our sacred duty.” In saying so he kept himself distant from all type of mental preoccupation opposed to his ontological activism and not just from the violations carried out and took refuge in the verse “if you follow right guidance no hurt can come to you from those who stray” and lived according to a plan of action in the form of “spending all of our strength and curiosity on this sacred service. We should know that everything but Him is futile and we must not waste our time on anything else” and “I take no notice of the wrongs and tyranny perpetrated against my person and give them no importance. I say ‘they are not worth worrying about’ and I do not interfere in the world”
Nursi, who lived keeping one of the most important features of the Risale-i Nur – compassion – in balance, determined his attitude in response to what was done to him clearly as “We do not violate. If we are violated against we respond with light. Our situation is one of luminous defence” ; he underlined the fact that what was done to him would not go unrecompensed by his Creator.
His greatest act in this world was not to respond with hatred to the oppression carried out against him, and to avoid falling into the trap of hatred and the spiritual state particular to the people of disbelief; to not participate in the unbelievers’ world, and to maintain his distance from the oppression to which they were addicted and into which they wished to draw him into, which consisted of misguided ways such as oppression, injustice, violence and imposition. He turned his outlook towards the afterlife and he struggled for the Quranic truths.