37 - The reformer says:

"The child believes that the skies are made of layers of ceilings; the student believes that it is an endless space and that the earth stands on the horns of a water-buffalo. When they learn that the earth is not plain but it rotates in space and how our globe has formed, the geologic lessons, how life began, light and electricity, their iman deteriorates. Those who prepared the curriculum in high schools could not think of uniting experimental knowledge, that is, scientific knowledge, with religious knowledge. Astronomy tells the greatness of Allah better than religious books do. Could science and biology be thought of as different from the religion? As religious feelings in school children slacken, morals, customs and national bonds gradually melt. This situation facilitates for the establishment of new morals and belief, yet, since there is not a leader to establish them, it easily makes them immoral or subjects for any influence. Let us compare incomplete knowledge of a student with the religious and moral knowledge and belief on an uneducated person. The student's thought progresses very slowly and his valuable bonds have melted. As for the uneducated person, he is ignorant but his religious bonds are rather strong. He is willing to die for them.

"If, instead of melted religious bonds, an education based on knowledge and an idea of patriotism are established in the youth, the youth can live on. But they cannot achieve this. In a confused mood, they do not like the morals and customs of their country. They admire Europeans but they cannot get their morals, either. What they learn from Europeans is no more than being imitative."

Here the religion reformer seems to have perceived the facts and to be rather reasonable. But, if due attention is paid, he implies that the lessons taught in high schools harm iman and morals. This is very wrong. Knowledge, whether it is much or less, is not harmful, but it is useful. The harmful thing is to place ignorance and evils into the heads as if they are of knowledge, and to appoint ignorant, immoral people to be teachers. It is not knowledge and science but irreligious, ignorant teachers who harm the religious knowledge and beautiful morals the youngsters have acquired from their mother homes. Such an inefficient, irreligious teacher puts his own irreligious, immoral ideas, lies and slanders secretly amid the scientific facts he teaches. The fresh brains cannot distinguish these lies from science and are deceived by believing them as truth. The pure children who fall into the traps of the enemies of faith and chastity are made to read the papers, magazines and novels of the enemies of Islam and thus their morals are spoilt and iman shaken. In communist countries today the youth is deceived out of their faith in this manner.

It is understood from his writing that this reformer, too, had received pure family education in his family home and later fell into the paw of a vicious teacher hostile to Islam and was inoculated and deceived. When he heard the skies were made of layers of ceilings, he himself might have supposed that they were storied like an apartment house. He imputes his own misunderstanding to Islam, thus attacks Islam through this way, too. Whereas, Islam teaches that the space which they consider endless and which is full of millions of stars each of which is a sun is only the first sky. This first sky, which they suppose to be endless, is but as a drop of ocean beside the second sky. And each of the seven skies is as much bigger than the one it surrounds. Scientists, let alone opposing to this teaching of Islam, admire it. The poor reformer once took it that the earth was on the horns of an ox the like of which he had seen in the shed. If he knew about the group of stars arranged in the shape of an ox as defined in the entry 'thawr' in Qamus, he would not write ill of Allahu ta'ala's Messenger ('alaihi 's-salam) in such a manner now. It is estimated today that when this hadith ash-Sharif was said this constellation was on the extension of a straight line that is imagined to be extending from the sun to the globe. Our Prophet ('alaihi 's-salam) held out his blessed sword and said, "My Allahu ta'ala created my sustenance on the point of my sword." He meant that he fought against unbelievers to make his living on what his share of the booty was. A villager who was listening to him asked, "Where is my world?" He said, "Your world is on the horns of the ox." He meant, "You plough your land with your ox and earn your sustenance." The Arabic word 'dunya' (world) is a noun. One of the infinitives derived from this word is 'adna', which means 'to subsist' as it is defined in Qamus. In those days the ropes of the plough were fastened to the horns of the ox. Because its horns were useful, the Prophet ('alaihi 's-salam) said so. He signified that the villager should plough his field. This hadith might have various meanings, but we should not fall into the calamity of disbelieving or doubting it by interpreting it with our short sight and limited knowledge.

Religion reformers frequently recommend national bonds in place of religious bonds in order to unite and improve individuals. Whereas, the original meaning of the word 'milla' is 'din' (religion), and it has been used later for a community of people born and live on the same land, that is, for 'nation'.

Let's give some details about religion and nation.

Din al-Islam, the religion of Islam, is the belief in Allahu ta'ala, in His Oneness and in all His prophets ('alaihimu 's-salam).

Allah is the Being who creates everything, whose existence has no end or limit and whose state cannot be comprehended through intellect, but whose attributes forming His Divinity and Creativeness only are known. He exist by Himself and is one. Nothing besides Him can exist by itself. He alone is the One who creates and keeps everything in existence.

'He exists by Himself' does not mean 'He has come into existence from Himself.' If it meant so, He would have come into existence later. Whereas, His existence is necessary, and He was never nonexistent. To exist by Himself means that His existence does not need anything. His existence is necessary for the existence of all beings. He has the perfect attributes for creating and keeping everything in such an orderly state. Deficiency, fault or defect cannot exist in Him.

If there were not a single being creating all creatures, everything would come into existence by itself or nothing would exist. It is not reasonable that everything exists by itself; for existing by itself requires to be existent before itself, that is, to have existed always; everything had to be wajib al-wujud (indispensable being). If it were so, it would not come into existing for some time. Whereas, every creature comes into existence after it has been nonexistent, and it later ceases to exist. Then, it is obvious that no creature is wajib al-wujud. Besides, coming into existence by oneself is not easily understandable to reason. Wajib al-wujub has to be single. The Single Being who creates all beings except Himself is necessary. If the existence of the single wajib al-wujud were not necessary for the existence of creatures, we would not accept His existence by Himself, either.

Existence of every creature by itself is so far from being scientific that even the naturalists say, "Nature has made so," or "Natural forces have made it." Thus, without realizing, they explain that creatures do not come into existence by themselves, but there is One Maker. But they refrain from accepting this Maker's Names and Attributes worthy of Him. They adhere to a concept of nature which is without knowledge or will. We do not see any physical or chemical event occur by itself. We say that certainly some force affects an object to start moving or to change its motion or stop moving. To suppose that all creatures have suddenly come into existence in such an order and regularity would be to deny physical and chemical events. Nothing can be as ignorant as disbelieving the One Creator who possesses Knowledge, Power and Will and creates everything from the atom to the 'Arsh out of nothing, and supposing that every event happens by chance, which is a concept incompatible with the laws of physics and chemistry.

It is not reasonable to say that there is not a creator creating these creatures out of nothing or that everything comes into being by itself, for some work must be done to come into existence from nonexistence and, according to laws of physics and chemistry, every work is done by a force. That is, according to scientific point of view, a source of force certainly has to exist beforehand. If the existence of a preceding being were necessary to create every being, beings' creating one another would have to go on continuously from eternal past to eternal future. If the case were so, nothing would exist. Because, beings which have no beginning and all of which have been born from one another mean nonexistence. This can be explained with an example; I have a dollar which I have borrowed from you. And you borrowed it from a friend of yours. And he had borrowed it from someone else. Now, if this succession of lending goes round to all the people in the world, if it does not have a beginning, that is, if it does not begin with the last person on the world who initially possessed it not by borrowing but in some other way, the dollar which I say I have, does not exist. That is, it belongs to nobody, for if we suppose that it belonged to someone, he must have taken it from someone else, who does not exist on the world to give it to him. How can it pass from hand to hand while there is not someone to lend it first? If someone had lent it first, someone else would now posses this dollar. The existence of the dollar indicates that it has been given not from eternity but from someone first. In other words, if such a chain of dependence were supposed to begin from eternity, every being depending upon another being for its existence without reaching a being whose existence did not depend upon another, nothing would exist. As long as the existence of a being needed another, which needed another and another, and thus one needed another endlessly, nothing could be thought of existing; everything which we see exist would have to be nonexistent, for it would also need something else which has to exist before itself, but which in reality does not exist, for it would also needs something else to exist before itself. It is the same with the third, the forth, the fifth... it is always the same.

The existence of Hadrat Adam can easily be understood after this discussion. If Hadrat Adam had not existed and men's fathers had been infinite, there would have been no man on the earth; for, if the number of fathers had been infinite, there would have been neither the first father nor his children, that is, mankind. Since men exist, the first father had to exist.

It is very important to believe in the next world, like believing in Allahu ta'ala. If the next world did not exist, the good deeds which have not been rewarded and the evils and wrongs that have not been punished in this world would never be recompensed, which would be a very great defect for this world which, as we see, has the most delicately artistic and orderly characteristics. While the smallest state or any society has a court of justice, this tremendous world, which we call the Universe, will certainly have a court of justice. The need in the next world for giving men their rights is so important that men of idea in Europe, though they cannot understand the existence of Allahu ta'ala through science, think over morals and accept His existence unanimously. To comprehend the existence of Allahu ta'ala by thinking over morals means that, since it is seen that the conscience, which may always go wrong and cannot control the spiritual responsibilities and is not equally powerful in every person, is not able to protect the morals and since it is also seen that virtues are not appreciated and many an evil are common and cherished despite everything in the world has been created very orderly and beautifully, men's wrongdoings have to be recompensed in the next world.

It is very surprising that Europeans do not comprehend Allah's existence through science, even though scientific knowledge, which discovers the dumbfounding regularity in, relations between and laws concerning all living and lifeless beings from the atom to the 'Arsh, shows Allah's existence obviously. As it is understood that a world called the hereafter is necessary for the retribution of the wrongs done in the world and hence it is thought that these worlds should have a creator, so it is easier to see the orderly, delicate constructions of beings and the well-calculated relations, interactions and laws between them and to believe in Him who creates them. In other words, while the existence of the next world, and hence the existence of Allahu ta'ala creating it, is concluded from the need to recompense the defects and baseness in men's morals, it is surprising that the Creator's existence is not understood by seeing the beauties and regularities in beings. It indicates that men are evil-natured; they acknowledge Allahu ta'ala when they think they need Him, and they pay no attention to Him and ignore His blessings when they think they do not need Him.

The one who creates the beings out of nothing must be one. If there were two creators, for instance, they would not agree on doing something and their wishes would not happen together; if neither wish happened, both of them would be impotent; if what one of them would want happened, the other would be impotent. The impotent cannot be creative. If what they both would want were alike, they would again be impotent, because they would be forced to come to mutual agreement.

When Islam came, people in Arabia had been worshiping idols and statues. Their thoughts were fixed into the existence of many gods. For this reason, Islam laid much emphasis on the evils of polytheism, and Muslims' belief began with kalimat at-tawhid. Men possess religious feelings naturally. For this reason, he who does not believe in Allah is spiritually sick, psychopathic. Such defective people are deprived of a great spiritual support and are in a very deplorable condition. As one of the European men of idea has said, "Piousness is great happiness, but I could not attain this happiness," so Tawfik Fikrat, one of the religion reformers in our country, ridicules Islam and Muslims in his poem "Tarih-i Qadim", but he could not help expressing the need of having iman gushing out from his poetic spirit in his following lines:

"This loneliness is a loneliness like the loneliness in the grave,

To believe! That is the spiritual embrace in that loneliness."

The Onesses of the Creator whose existence is necessary can also be explained in this way: if there were more than one creator, their combination would not be wajib al-wujud (the necessary, indispensable, being), because the existence of a combination needs the existence of each of its parts, and the being whose existence is necessary should not need anything. Then, no combination can be wajib al-wujud. The combination of the parts whose existence is necessary would be neither indispensable (wajib) nor dispensable (mumkin), for the dispensable being would not exist by itself and needs creator. Accepting the existence of this creator distinct from the combination would be contrary to the combination's being wajib, while considering this creator to be in this combination would come to mean that something would create itself, which is impossible. For example, if the combination of two indispensable parts were indispensable, this combination would also be dispensable because it needs the existence of both its parts, which is illogical. If the combination of the two were dispensable, it would have to be nonexistent.

This explanation, that wajib al-wujud (the Necessary Being) cannot be more than one, rebuts the naturalists who say that everything exists by itself and is wajib al-wujud. Whereas, as explained above, let alone that everything exists by itself as a wajib al-wujud, it is impossible even for a creature to be a wajib al-wujud.

The irreligiousness which has been propagated by the progressives imitating Europe up to now has been in the nature of disbelieving Allahu ta'ala. For instance, many have said, "The problem is Allah's existence. If there were Allah, I would immediately believe all the religious knowledge." But recently, seeing the new steps taken in science, especially the observations on the atom, radioactivity, matter and energy hence being unable to deny the existence of Allahu ta'ala, they have begun to speak ill of prophets ('alaihimu's-salam). They have said, "Everybody is free. Worship is not forbidden. Everybody worships his Allah as he wishes. Nothing besides reason can be an intermediary between Allah and man." Whereas, a person who believes in the next world has to believe in prophets, too. It is very illogical to leave the knowledge of blessings and punishments of the next world to reason. Especially the ignorant people can never reason them out. Islam commands to believe in all prophets. Jews and Christians never believe in Muhammad ('alaihi 's-salam), the Prophet of Islam. They speak ill of this exalted Prophet. As for Islam, which was preached by Muhammad ('alaihi 's-salam), it expels those who disbelieve in Musa (Moses) and 'Isa (Jesus) ('alaihimu 's-salam) and utter words humiliating them from Islam. Suppose a ruler assigns a governor to a province and, after this governor rules that province for some time, the ruler assigns a new governor; how does it sound if some people say, "We won't disregard the advice of the former governor! We won't obey the orders which the new governor brought"? While the first governor was the ruler's official, are not the successors his officials? Jews do not accept 'Isa and Muhammad ('alaihimu 's-salam) as prophets. While Musa ('alaihi 's-salam) was Allahu ta'ala's prophet, how was it impossible for them to be His prophets? Christians, even though they see this wrong belief in Jews and disapprove them, are unaware that they themselves do the same mistake and slander Muhammad ('alaihi 's-salam). This wrong belief of Jews and Christians is not based on a scientific observation. It is nothing but being fixed to the old, refusing the new just because of newness, that is, being reactionary.

'Isa ('alaihi 's-salam) was born without a father. His mother Hadrat Mariam took him from Jerusalem to Egypt. After staying there for twelve years, they came back to Jerusalem and settled in the village Nasira. He was revealed to be the Prophet when he was thirty years old. Three years later, Jews wanted to kill him. Allahu ta'ala took him to heaven alive. Yuda Sham'un, a hypocrite who resembled him, was crucified. Because 'Isa ('alaihi 's-salam) was without a father, Christians worship him calling him "Allah's son". If being born without a father took a person out of being human and made him divine, they would have to worship Adam ('alaihi 's-salam) more, because he was created both without father and without mother. Hence, Christians have spoilt their revealed religion and driven it into an illogical state.

Jews disbelieve 'Isa ('alaihi 's-salam) and because he was created without a father regard him illegitimate. Muslims are fair in this respect and, escaping the excessiveness shown by both groups, regard him as Allahu ta'ala's human creature and prophet. Europeans today are very advanced in science and technology, yet remaining attached to an ancient prophet, they are deprived of the greatest improvement and progress. They have not gotten rid of this fanaticism today, either. Not only retrogressive they are in refusing the new religion, but also they have distorted the old one. Forty years after 'Isa's ('alaihi 's-salam) ascent to heaven, the Romans captured and ruined Jerusalem and pillaged and killed or captivated the Jews. There was not any Jew left in Jerusalem. His twelve apostles went to different places. The Injil (the heavenly book revealed to him) got lost. Later new books were written under the name of the Injil. Four of these books spread widely. The Gospel of Barnabas was almost completely true, but those who had been deceived by corrupt gospels destroyed this gospel, a copy of which has been discovered in the twentieth century and reproduced in English in London and Pakistan. The 'Isawi religion, the true religion of 'Isa ('alaihi 's-salam) was driven into a form which he could not recognize if he saw it. Thus, Christianity was born. This retrogression did not stop until the nineteenth century, when many of them became irreligious.

As the prophethood of Musa ('alaihi 's-salam) and 'Isa ('alaihi 's-salam) was evident through miracles, so the prophethood of Muhammad ('alaihi 's-salam) is obvious through miracles. In the time of Musa ('alaihi 's-salam) magic was very much advanced; medicine in the time of 'Isa ('alaihi 's-salam) and poetry and eloquence in the time of Muhammad ('alaihi 's-salam) were very much advanced. Allahu ta'ala bestowed on each of these prophets the miracles in the fields which each umma esteemed. It is written in books clearly and detailedly that Muhammad ('alaihi 's-salam), like 'Isa ('alaihi 's-salam), resuscitated the dead and that the disbelievers of Quraish called Muhammad ('alaihi 's-salam) a magician, as the Pharaoh and his men had called Musa ('alaihi 's-salam) a magician.

Muhammad ('alaihi 's-salam) was ummi, that is, he did not go to any school; he did not read or write, nor did anybody teach him. But he put forth a book, the Qur'an, full of historical, scientific, moral, political and social knowledge. He caused rise of emperors who spread justice all over the world just by following that book. The Qur'an is his greatest miracle. In fact, it is the greatest miracle of all prophets. This miracle was given only to Muhammad ('alaihi 's-salam). Religion reformers should feel embarrassed while saying that, when he was a child yet, he spoke to a priest for a few minutes on a journey to Damascus and acquired all his knowledge from that priest. There cannot be another slander as unsound and funny as this one. The masterpieces of eloquence that had been chosen from among thousands of poems and had been hanging on the walls of the Kaba for many years and that had made each of their writers a genius, a hero, were torn down and their writers submitted themselves to the ayats that could never be the result of few minutes' conversation with a priest! Today, there is no need to attempt again to understand the eloquence of the Qur'an. This Divine Book, when Arabic was on its summit, had the most efficient specialists in Arabic language sign under its superiority. Among the specialists in Arabic literature contemporary with Muhammad ('alaihi 's-salam), there was next to no one who did not see and believe the divine superiority in the eloquence of the Qur'an.

He did not appropriate such an honor and perfection which, in an art that was considered as the most exalted skill in his time, made everybody admit to its superiority, but he said that it came from Allahu ta'ala whom no one knew, and through this honor and superiority he tried to introduce not himself but that unknown person. This is surprisingly incompatible with human wishes of those who seek for fame and personal advantages. Those who consider the pleasure of governing people superior to the pleasure of knowledge and marifa are those who cannot appreciate the value of knowledge and marifa. A poet will not change even his one poem that proves him to be in the highest stage of his art for the presidency of government. Even if there might be someone to change it, he would change it for material advantages. Muhammad ('alaihi 's-salam) said that he was not a president and, instead of sovereignty and pomp, he lived moderately like everybody. To his daughter Hadrat Fatima (radi-Allahu 'anha), when she asked for a little thing, he said, "We prophets do not leave inheritance behind. What is left behind us will be alms," and he left nothing for his family when he passed away. One has to be muddle-headed and one's conscience darkened to suppose that such a person was after sovereignty. The probability of being a liar (Allah forbid!) for that exalted Prophet ('alaihi 's-salam) who came forward saying, "I do not say these words from myself. I declare Allahu ta'ala's commands. I am a man like you," is so remote, so wrong that European and American men of idea have had to admit to it unanimously. They have had to say that he accomplished the high rank, which he attained through the religion he had put forth, with his keen wit, strong sight and smart intellect. Also communists, realizing that they could not belittle that exalted Prophet, say that he accomplished all these under the influence of a sort of an epileptic fit (Allah forbid!) in which he supposed that an angel came to him. Though they accept his genius, intellect, diplomacy and accomplishments, they say that he spoke what he imagined out of illness. This is obviously a nonsense which they say out of the illness of denial that has covered their minds, because one part of their words proves the other to be a lie. That is, communists refute themselves with their own words.

Literary men understand the writer of a poem from the literary style of the poem without looking at his signature. The specialists in literature examined the Hadith ash-Sharif, which are Rasulullah's ('alaihi 's-salam) saying, and the Qur'an al-karim and saw that they were unlike each other. It has never been seen in the history of letters that one person had two kinds of style completely unlike each other; it is impossible. It is like a man having two faces unlike each other.

Another respect in which the Qur'an is different from and superior to the Hadith and other divine books is that up to present time it has remained unchanged as it descended from heaven. Not only its letters and punctuation have remained unchanged, but also, besides the various pronunciations of the words in the Qur'an, their being pronounced in long, short, open, closed, deep or thin voice has remained as Rasulullah ('alaihi 's-salam) revealed and pronounced them. One could not help being bewildered at the science called "ilm al-qira'a", on which many books have been written, and at Muslim scholars' studies and services in this way. Not a single word has been taken out of or added to the Qur'an later, for Muslim scholars have put a very strong principle lest the Qur'an be injured, lest even a small doubt approach it: that the Qur'an must be conveyed through unanimity in every century. In every century from the Prophet's ('alaihi 's-salam) companions up to today, it has come to us through hundred thousands of persons who have memorized the Qur'an and who could not be thought of as agreeing on a lie. It flows towards eternity like an overflowing river that never stops for a moment. Despite the presence of enemies of Islam all over the world today, every letter and dot of one copy of Allahu ta'ala's book, thank Him, are the same in another. It may be understood how dependable the faithful's Book is also from the fact that no matter how emphatic they may be, some different pronunciations, which belonged to some great companions of the Prophet ('alaihi 's-salam) but were not accepted unanimously, have not been considered to be of the Qur'an. For example. Hadrat 'Abdullah ibn Masud (radi-Allahu 'anh) conveyed the ayat "fasting for three days", which defined the atonement (kaffara) for breaking an oath, as "fasting for three consecutive days", and the scholars of fiqh taking this as a document, made it necessary to perform the atonement by fasting for three days without intervals. But, though Hadrat 'Abdullah ibn Masud (radi-Allahu 'anh) was one of the great ones of the Prophet's ('alaihi 's-salam) companions and a very dependable person, the word mutatabi' (consecutive) was not included to the Qur'an, because he was left alone in his word. As a precaution, only the meaning of his word was taken and, again as a precaution, it was not put into the Qur'an. These are called "qira'at shadhdha".

Rasulullah's ('alaihi 's-salam) own sayings are called al-Hadith ash-Sharif. Surprisingly cautious labors have been done in learning and preserving the Hadith. Every saying of Fakhr al-'alam (the 'Honor of all creatures', Prophet Muhammad) was memorized by his companions and conveyed to those who did not hear it or who came later. Thus, 'ilm al-hadith, which is like an infinite sea, was established. Despite the Qur'an, the evident, unequaled miracle, why should not Muhammad ('alaihi 's-salam) whose life and sayings are minutely obvious and each action was a proof of his prophethood, be a prophet, while believing in Musa and 'Isa's ('alaihimu 's-salam) being prophets by depending on complicated and obscure histories? We are surprised at and regret Jews and Christians' this denial and obstinacy.

Nationality is not a virtue which one can obtain by working and wishing. Nationality is the unity of advantage of those who have been born and grown up in the same country. It is a favor gained from birth without working for it. One should be thankful to Allahu ta'ala who has endowed this favor upon him. And one is thankful by endeavoring for the continuation of the endowment and for being much more helpful to others. Islam is the integral part of Turkish nationalism and orders that one should work for the continuity of this nationalism and for being more helpful to others, that one should love others and render the same rights also to the fellow-countrymen of other religions and that justice and social rights should be shared equally. Those who live in the country where the above-mentioned orders and national duties are undertaken should be proud of their nationalism and pray for their ancestors, ghazis and martyrs who has left this favor to them. They should love and regard their national anthem and flag which are the symbols of this unity and happiness of theirs. They should obey the laws and government that directs them and works for their happiness, and they should pay their taxes willingly. For those who love one another as such, not touching or doing harm to the members of other religions or sects is not a defect but a virtue for nationalism and shows that Islam, the religion we belong to, is the righteous religion and that Muhammad ('alaihi 's-salam), our exalted prophet, is the blessing over all the worlds of beings. The word 'nationalism' is not a meaningless, out-of-date word as it is used by the governing minority in some technologically advanced countries, e.g. in East Europe, especially in Russia. Those who exploit the people believe in and are attached to it only as much as the irreligious are attached to morals. One needs to be among one's nation so that one may lead a comfortable life. He has to live in a society so that it may protect his existence, rights and needs; this is what civilization means. And this society is his own nation. We said in the above that men should live in society in order to protect the rights which one cannot gain by himself. Living in a society requires reciprocal help and sacrifice. Let us see whether one should sacrifice oneself for the nationalism which admit religious freedom or for one's irreligious nation the more:

An irreligious nationalist may think this way: the feeling of dying for the nation should be in common. It should be considered an injustice to die for one part while another part survives. The profit of the nation is necessary for my own profit. If I sacrifice myself in that way, I will be sacrificing the real purpose for the sake of the means. I, first of all, think of myself. I cannot sacrifice myself for another person. If self-sacrifice is for receiving fame and reputation, who on earth wants to be annihilated for temporary fame and honor? No one knows on which mountain and where the soldiers who, in an army of millions, had died for their nation, are, and their names have been wiped out from the hearts of people. Those men had sacrificed their possessions along with their lives. To be more clear, they are, on their account, in a pitiable condition, rather than being praise worthy. If the self-sacrifice I would render for the nation will not be appreciated and, in addition, if I will be deemed guilty because of those who envy me, what will become of me?

In irreligious nationalism, there is no thoughtful and logical reason that forms the power of self-sacrifice in man. Nor can self-sacrifice based on unreasonable feelings receive its reward. Especially the progressives and exploiters, who govern the nation, will never sacrifice their lives for the sake of such feelings. It happened so in communist countries. As it had been witnessed in the Second World War, those who had fought in the battlefield and won honor were executed by shooting when they came back lest they might seize the power. As for the people, they do not have the idea of sacrificing their lives for one another. The feeling and mania of nationalism in reformers, who try to imitate Europeans in a manner of worshiping and who suppose their every idea, every deed to be the very truth and the very happiness, are, again, imitative. Men have been attached to the bonds of business and profession, that is, of irreligious nationalism, which they had discovered with their minds and thoughts, more than racialism. If we put aside the swindler politicians who use nationalism as a means for their own advantages, the remainder's nationalism results by hearing and imitating. It is seen that religious men also join in this imitating.

The thirteenth ayat of the surat al-Hujurat declares that human beings, the descendants of the same parents, can be graded only according to their fear of Allahu ta'ala, and there cannot be racialism in Islam. Some put forth this ayat in favor of parting Muslims into nations and say that Islam is not against parting into different kinds of nationalism and all should be respected. Whereas, if Muslims be divided into separate nationalities, the danger of conflicting with one another will commence.

The hadith, "On the Day of Judgement Allahu ta'ala will say: 'O men! I chose a family, a lineage (having common religious qualities, e.g. fear of Allahu ta'ala). You chose another family (you cared for racial qualities). I said he who feared Me more was more valuable. You did not give up saying, "He is so and so's son. For this reason, that man is superior to this man." Therefore, today I exalt My family and debase your family. You should know very well that My Lovers are those who fear Me,' " obviously shows how Muslims should be.

Fiqh books write that man and woman to be married should be suitable for each other and add the races and nationalities to this criterion. This may make one suppose that racialism and nationality also are important in Islam. Whereas, in nikah (Islamic betrothal) every kind of suitableness, right or wrong, between the man and the woman are considered. If it were permissible to break the nikah done with the consent of the both sides because of racial and national difference, then it might be rightful to suppose so. While, all over the world today, every nation tries to win every support to its own advantages, we also should think of our own nationality. Nationality without religious freedom will not have been esteemed by doing this, for the idea of nationalism is based not on knowledge but on emotions. Georgy Zaidan, the author of The History of Islamic Civilization, writes that the idea of nationalism existed in the beginning of Islam and that even the policy of Hadrat 'Umar (radi-Allahu 'anh) was based on this idea. He puts forth Hadrat 'Umar's (radi-Allahu 'anh) endeavors not to leave any polytheist on the Arabic Peninsula as evidence to this. Whereas, those endeavors were for a national unity based on religious unity.

In Christian religion there is not a reasonable principle left. It has taken the shape of superstitions and complicated ceremonies. Moreover, Christians belonging to the same faith, even to the same sect, have been living under the administration of different governments. For this reason, European governments looked for another bond. Thus religious unity has been developed and the feeling of nationalism has been born in Europe. Islam, establishing commercial, industrial and social order, includes the idea of nationalism. There is no need for establishing different nationalism among Muslims. For this reason, it is written in all books teaching elements of the religion, "Religion (din) and nationality (milla) are the same." Moreover, it will be quite right to say that the Europeans' suspicions against Islamic religion are born from the fact that there is also a feeling of nationalism in every rule of this religion. If Muslims do not disunite, they will, by getting use of the fact that Islam represents nationality, find a way of becoming more powerful than many nationalities that have not become firm on the earth.

From Islam's representing nationality, lingual unity also occurs to the mind, and since the adhan and the Qur'an are recited in five times of salat each day in Arabic in all Muslim countries, it provides for this unity. It is for this reason that in order to separate a nation from Islam and annihilate the unity of Muslims, the enemies of Islam try to change the language, grammar and alphabet of that nation. And the biggest blow to be given to a nation's religion comes through this way. As a matter of fact, Muslims in Sicily and Spain have been Christianized by this way. And now, Russians use this sharp weapon to annihilate the iman in Muslims of Turkistan. Their dungeons, electric furnaces, exiling in Siberia and merciless massacre cannot be as effective as this sharp weapon is. Jalal Nuri Beg recommends Arabic as a common language for Muslims in his book IItihad-i Islam. Yavuz Sultan Salim Khan endeavored for this purpose, and the religious books have been disseminated in Arabic in all Muslim countries in the course of history. Arabic has become a religious language in all Muslim countries. The hadith says that everybody will speak in Arabic in Paradise. The purpose is not aimed at making every Muslim nation Arabic. While the English language becomes a common language in many countries, no government opposes it. Today it has become a strong necessity for a man of knowledge and science to know one, and even more foreign languages. The Hadith says, "He who learns the language of a race protects himself against their harm." It is for this reason that as our youngsters learn Arabic, so it is necessary and useful for them to learn European languages. This may cause many deeds which will make them to be rewarded in the next world. The reason why, for many centuries, Europeans have looked upon us as foreigners is not the difference of national feelings but their not knowing the religion of Islam.

The Hadith says, "If you do not try to bring the evil amongst you to the right course, that is, if you do not perform al-amru bi'l-maruf wa 'n-nahyu 'ani 'l-munkar, Allahu ta'ala will give upon you so bad calamities that in order to get rid of them even the entreaties to Allahu ta'ala of the good ones among you will no longer avail." The 110th ayat of the surat al 'Imran commands Muslims to perform al-amru bi 'l-maruf wa 'n-nahyu 'ani 'l-munkar. When Yavuz Sultan Salim Khan said to the non-Muslims under his rule, "Either become Muslims or I will put you to the sword," Islamic scholars said that this would not be right, that is, they performed an-nahyu 'ani 'l-munkar. So, the Sultan gave it up. There may be eccentric people who consider his behavior wrong. Whereas, this behavior of that honored Sultan, who yielded to the religious scholars and understood that these unfair, groundless religious feelings could not be of Islam, is worth praising. The difference between religious ideas and feelings and national ideas and feelings appears on such delicate points as this. National thoughts of the irreligious may neglect right and justice, but Islamic thoughts cannot, for the virtues such as right and justice are within the boundaries of Islam.

Islam has contributed a high, pure feeling of justice to mankind. After the First World War, courts of justice were established in Istanbul in order to exile and kill the guilty Armenians, but the Mufti of Boghazlayan, his hand on his chest full of iman and his beard wet with tears, opposed the officials in the courts who had tortured the Armenians. Of old, Europeans, thinking that some bigoted Turks could be dangerous for non-Muslims, used to become hostile against real Muslims. By the way, today's progressives call Muslims, who carry out Allah's commands and abstain from prohibitions, e.g. those who perform salat and who have their wives and daughters covered when going out and who do not have alcoholic drinks, "bigots". Whereas, 'bigotry' or 'obstinacy' means 'holding to one's own sect and opinion and refusing others' right words that are unsuitable with his'. A person who persistently defends an unright thing is called "bigot". Bigotry is a bad habit which Islam dislikes.

When our master Rasulullah ('alaihi 's-salam) was asked what Islam was, he said, "Islam means to esteem Allahu ta'ala's commands great and to pity His creatures." Muslims who walk on the luminous path which Rasulullah (sall-Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam) points out in this hadith know that it will deserve a severe punishment in the next world to meddle with others' rights no matter of which race, nation or religion they are. The above-mentioned behavior of a Mufti shows obviously that no one will suffer harm from Muslims. Though in Islam working is for the benefit of individuals and of the society, Muslims' purpose is a divine thing which is above this usefulness. It is natural and necessary to think of advantages, yet it is a shame, a defect and bad egoism to consider it superior to every purpose and one cannot escape this egoism by considering irreligious national feelings superior to everything. The one who behaves with such national feelings thinks that he also is of that nation and therefore he behaves more or less egoistically. As for the purpose that motivates Muslims, it is purer and nobler. Above all, every Muslim who works for Islam, for Allahu ta'ala, behaves with great love and sacrifice. Advancement of his nation will be easier and firmer. It will not harm other nations. Muslim means the one who takes his each step for Allahu ta'ala and reckons up his account for Him. Such a person cannot do any harm either to himself or to anybody. Whereas, those who abandon the religion and Allahu ta'ala and who think of nationality deprived of religion may not, at least sometimes, behave rightfully and fairly against other nations. To be religious means to be for everybody as in the French proverb, "Chacun pour soi et Dieu pour tous."

The sixty-forth ayat of the surat al 'Imran says, "O Jews and Christians, who say, 'We believe in Allah's book'! Come to the word [iman, six principles of iman] on which we have no disagreement." Here is the difference between the nationality that provides religious freedom and that does not in front of humanity!