Capitalist modernity emerged in the West out of a conservative and religious past. Society in the Middle Ages of the West was highly influenced by the Church and feudal law, and was based on an agricultural economy (Kelley, 2002). After the Renaissance and the Enlightenment Era of free thinkers and new social theorists such as Locke, Bentham, and other Liberals, the West dramatically transformed into a highly individualistic and capitalist society. It is worth noting that not everybody agrees as to what modernity is (McPherson, 2015). Some of the values that come with modernity, such as dress codes and legal drinking of alcohol, do not comply with the way many Muslims practice their faith. Even when pushed, liberal capitalism has always been uncertain in the Muslim world, from ultra-conservative countries to more liberal ones. Locke’s social vision of ownership of property through applying labor and exchanging products (i.e. principles of capitalism) are not all against the economic principles of Islam. Islam allows for regulated capitalism with the permissibility of small businesses, dispersal of property, and trade (Dunning, 2003). Of course there are still limits, such as dealing with usury, but the problem today is that there is no Islamic country or state, but rather only Muslim-majority countries, which is the term preferred by many Muslim political academics, such as Tariq Ramadan (2001). After Western colonization of many of these Muslim-majority nations, there has risen many different political strategies and responses to capitalist modernity, whether they be in the West or in Muslim countries that have adopted secular-liberal principles.

Political Islam was born after the colonization of the Middle East by Western nations such as Britain and France, and after the establishment of Israel, supported by Western allies. Furthermore, the backing of autocratic rulers in the Middle East and the ongoing Western interference into Muslim countries, have ensured that even though physical colonialism has ended, it still survives in different forms. Some Muslim countries have completely rejected any Western ideals, such as liberalism or democracy; these include Khomeini’s Iran (Rubin, 2003). Others have rejected the Western way of life but allowed for trade with the West and allowed for some capitalist principles. These include Saudi Arabia (Martin, 1982). Turkey used to be an oft-cited example of how a Muslim-majority country could have capitalism in common with the West and also share a Western-style modernity, but recent developments have dramatically shattered this image.

Like any movement, Political Islam has spawned its share of thinkers and writers. Sayyid Qutb wrote extensively, arguing against modernism and capitalism having any place in Muslim societies. He believed that Muslims who welcome modernism are creating a state of “jahiliyya” (ignorance) and that they are committing “kufr” (disbelief), which has given rise to the very dangerous and politicized idea of “takfir” (declaring Muslims are apostates) (Terence & Dagger, 2009, p. 456-460).
Many radical movements, such as al-Qaeda, and their leader, Osama bin Laden, were heavily influenced by this idea. Bin Laden often expounded on his political ideology and his ambitions for a puritan Islamic state free from any Western influence. His arguments justifying the bombing of various American buildings in the Muslim world or on American soil were not so different from Qutb’s arguments in support of a global “jihad” as an offensive attack against modernity, capitalism, and other Western ideals which are seen blasphemous by their interpretation of Islam.

The Muslim Brotherhood, which was founded in Egypt in 1920s, has been an influential conservative movement. They sought political rule recognizing the Qur’an and Sunnah as the only reference point for social order. The Muslim Brotherhood eventually came into power in Egypt after the Arab Spring of 2011 and the overthrow of Egypt’s long-serving dictator, Hosni Mubarak. Their rule under the leadership of Morsi gave rise to much discontent among those who did not share the Brotherhood’s worldview, and eventually General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi took over the government after a coup and promised to restore Egypt to a secular society.

In another part of the Muslim world racked by civil war, the Islamic State came to power (Gerges, 2015). Even though the majority of Muslims worldwide reject the group’s claim to Islamic polity, IS strongly believe themselves to be the heirs to the revival of the Islamic caliphate. Before going further, it is important to know that every political Islamic group, whether militant or not, dreams of returning to an Islamic caliphate. The political philosophy of an Islamic caliphate is the ultimate goal and social vision, any policy that achieves that goal is worthwhile. Of course what is necessary and what is not, differs from group to group. There are extreme groups utilizing terrorism and other fear factors, such as IS and al-Qaeda, and other groups, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, utilizing democracy as a process to achieve power and the implementation of the Islamic caliphate. There also are Islamic groups such as Hizb-ul-tahrir, who are completely non-militant but who propagate amongst Muslims globally, aiming to achieve the return of an Islamic caliphate (Butt, 2010).

There are also moderate political voices in the Muslim community, who also have a strategy for dealing with the challenges of capitalist modernity. According to the well-known Muslim preacher and writer, Fethullah Gülen, secularism should not be seen as at odds with Islam. He admits that secularism involves freedom of religion, writing “The freedom of religion is defined as for the individuals to believe in the religion of their choice and without the fear of being disturbed to be able to practice the requirements of the religion they chose freely” (Ergil, 2015). He sees this as being coherent with Islam, as the Qur’an states that “there is no coercion in religion.” He has always strongly believed that religion should not be used as a tool of politics, whether that be Christian politicians or Muslim politicians, who seek to gain political power.

Seyyed Hossein Nasr, a prominent Muslim thinker, makes a strong critique of modernity, arguing that modernity means that “which is cut off from the Transcendent, from the immutable principles which in reality govern all things and which are made known to man through revelation in its most universal sense.” This is a spiritual interpretation of modernity, which argues that traditional Islam rejects that definition of modernity and sees Islam as focused on spirituality in this world and not materialism, which is the Western way of living (Bilecen, 2014). Tariq Ramadan, a professor of Islamic studies at Oxford University, advances political Islamic thought in contrast to Western political thought. Ramadan contends that Muslims, especially in the West, must be equipped to respond appropriately to the challenges of modernity with a point of reference, one going back to Islamic ideals of ethics and spirituality (Ramadan, 2001). He argues there must be a meaningful and intellectual dialogue to occur between Muslims and the West in tackling modernity.

Many Muslims have adopted living in the West under secularism and in a capitalist society yet still remain critical of the challenges both pose. It is also clear that the majority of Muslims reject the atrocities occurring in isolated parts of the Muslim world and perpetrated by some militant Muslims responding to Western ideals of capitalism and modernity which they usually encountered in the form of colonialism. Muslims and non-Muslims alike have been critical for centuries and this critique should not be seen as an attack on society, but rather it should enhance society and open a dialogue between Muslims and non-Muslims.

References

• Achcar, G, Extreme capitalism of the Muslim Brothers, Le Monde diplomatique, retrieved 8 February 2016, http://mondediplo.com/2013/06/05brothers.
  Bilecen, H 2014, Islamic Modernism Series II: modernism vs. traditional Islam, Today’s Zaman, retrieved 8 February 2016, < http://www.todayszaman.com/blog/hali-l-bi-lecen/islamic-modernism-series-ii-modernism-vs-traditional-islam_350214.html>
• Butt, N 2010, Hizb ut-Tahrir is a political party and has no connection with militancy, The Khilafah, retrieved 8 February 2016, http://www.khilafah.com/hizb-ut-tahrir-is-a-political-party-and-has-no-connection-with-militancy/.
• Dunning, J & HRH The Prince of Wales 2003, Making Globalization Good: The Moral Challenges of Global Capitalism, Oxford University Press, New York.
  Ergil, D 2015, What is the view of Fethullah Gülen on secularism?, Fethullah Gülen, retrieved 8 February 2016, < http://fgulen.com/en/gulen-movement/fethullah-gulen-and-the-gulen-movement-in-100-questions/48023-what-is-the-view-of-fethullah-gulen-on-secularism>.
• Gerges, F 2015, The rise of IS – and how to beat it, BBC News, retrieved 8 February 2016, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-30681224.
  Kelley, D 2002, 9/11 and The War Against Modernity, The Atlas Society, retrieved 8 February 2016, http://atlassociety.org/commentary/commentary-blog/3653-9-11-and-the-war-against-modernity.
• Martin, D 1982, Saudi Arabia’s New Capitalism, The New York Times, retrieved 8 February 2016, http://www.nytimes.com/1982/02/21/business/saudi-arabia-s-new-capitalism.html?pagewanted=all.
• McPherson, C 2015, Not everyone agrees on what modernity is, Today’s Zaman, retrieved 8 February 2016, http://www.todayszaman.com/columnists_not-everyone-agrees-on-what-modernity-is_380078.html.
• Ramadan, T 2001, Islam, the West and the Challenges of Modernity, The Islamic Foundation, Markfield, United Kingdom.
  Rubin, B 2003, Why Islamic societies of the Middle East are so opposed to globalization, Yale Global Online, http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/globalization-and-middle-east-part-one.
• Terence, B & Dagger, R 2009, Ideals and ideologies; a reader, 7th edn, Pearson/Longman.
  Trager, E 2013, Think Again: The Muslim Brotherhood, Foreign Policy, retrieved 8 February 2016, http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/01/28/think-again-the-muslim-brotherhood/.
• Tristam, P, The Assassination of Egypt’s Anwar Sadat, About News, retrieved 8 February 2016, http://middleeast.about.com/od/egypt/a/me081006a.htm.

he debate over religion’s role in social change has been raging for centuries.

The interpretation and perception of even just a single social action is multi-layered, multi-faceted, complex, and sophisticated. It almost seems impossible to explain a social action entirely through any of our sciences; in fact, it seems unlikely that any science will be developed that fully encompasses all of humanity’s problems.

As human beings our needs, conscious or unconscious, stretch from a tiny atomic particle to nearly the whole universe. It sometimes seems that the whole universe and all that within it are not good enough to satisfy even the smallest need of our unlimited desire. Some have asserted that one day human beings are going to play the role of God. They do this because of their strong and persistent belief that we are merely the product of material existence and it is therefore the material realm that makes us who we are. As such, they believe we will eventually rule over the things that created us.

Others would undoubtedly take a whole different direction and argue that our nature is a complex, interwoven tapestry of the material and immaterial realms; it is imprecise to contend that it is only economic conditions or conditioning that beget all the other elements of our social and individual lives, which includes things such as literature, the fine arts, religion, and the like. Hence, I intend to examine the notions of two influential intellectuals of the recent past: Karl Marx and Max Weber, particularly their notions as to religion.

To begin with, the history of humanity has seen a lot of wars, but the intellectual war that we have experienced over the past two centuries, which split the entire world into two blocks of countries (until recently they were communist and capitalist), should be of the greatest interest to almost everyone; it has been a one-of-a-kind struggle.

Marx, a reductionist, framed his argument as such:

“…the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a single word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in revolutionary re-constitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.”

He wrote this about the sorry state of the working class, especially in the nineteenth century, when workers were treated almost like machines or animals. This was particularly true in Western Europe. Even from just these few lines, one could easily grasp the sympathy of Marx for the working class of his time, what he called the oppressed, and his animosity and utter disgust toward the elite class, what he called the oppressor. It is no surprise then to see him portray a system in which the rights of the oppressed to a happy life could not be realized as needing to be overthrown through a social upheaval or revolution against the oppressors. For Marx, everything was crystal clear: it was the economic system which made the elites oppress their workers (please see “Karl Marx: the Prophet of Materialism” article in this issue).

Marx frequently turned to the then recent revolutions occurring in Western Europe: the English Civil War of the 1600s and the French Revolution. These struggles cost many lives and were for him just a new chapter in the ever-repeating class struggle between the oppressor and the oppressed.

On the surface, the apparent causes of the infamous conflict could be identified as politics and religion, which were quite intertwined then. A thorough analysis of Marx’s society enabled him to discover the subtle connection between the social class divisions and the stages of economic development, and allowed him to postulate his version of human salvation: communism, in which the superstructure, with all its elements including religion, would perish eternally in the name of a utopian, classless society. He prophesied a future in which the communal life of people would be shaped by a new idealized economic system that negated all private ownership of property, monopolized the political structure, and left no room for religion in social and individual life. As a matter of fact, most of his writings reflect his reactive response to the perceived evils or fatal flaws of capitalism. For instance, while some people enjoyed luxurious lives because of the fact that they were born to a rich family, many others endured the severest conditions just to survive. Witnessing this, one cannot help but wonder, “Is the economic system to be blamed for this?” Or even, “Are the ill-perception, misuse, and exploitation of the system the culprit?” I am completely sure that every sensible human being would appreciate the diagnosis of the diseases of class struggle and the oppression of the poor, but I also think it is hasty to reflexively blame the system – capitalism – as being solely to blame for the wretched conditions of the oppressed. According to Marx, religion was the opiate fed by the oppressors to the oppressed to keep them in line. To realize the revolution that Marx felt was necessary, this opiate had to be eliminated.

His approach to religion was always contemptuous and very similar to the functional and reductionist theories of Freud and Durkheim. In his view, religion is nothing more than a pure illusion – in other words, an entity that has no real existence. Therefore, he did not heed what religious beliefs or holy books taught; rather, he emphasized the function that religion and its fundamental elements played in social life. Even though his portrayal of religion was reduced to a social function, he still maintained that we should discover why people insist on this illusion, arguably since the beginning of human life.

As depicted above, Marx left no room for religion in his imagined world after the envisaged revolution against the oppressor. He saw it as an effect, an expression or a symptom of a deeper reality: material facts of the class struggle and alienation. Religion was the culprit to be annihilated in the name of real human bliss.

On the other hand, almost a half century later, a young and bright social scientist would dare to hold a completely different account of religion and argue that though the economic conditions of an individual or a society could determine the tone of some religious beliefs or practices, history would bear witness otherwise. He stated:

“…the side of the problem which is generally most difficult to grasp: the influence of certain religious ideas on the development of an economic spirit, or the ethos of an economic system. In this case we are dealing with the connection of the spirit of the modern economic life with the rational ethics of ascetic Protestantism. Thus we treat here only one side of the causal chain.”

In “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism,” Max Weber diligently outlined a delicate connection between an attitudinal and doctrinal change in the framework of a religious group of Protestantism and the economic development that followed. Throughout his scholarly treatise, he gave an exquisitely drawn picture of the early Protestants, particularly the pioneers of Protestantism: Martin Luther and John Calvin. In fact, he claimed that the self-constraining ethic of Protestantism that stemmed from the inner-worldly asceticism fostered with frugality, personal discipline, solemnity, thrift, self-denial, hard work, investment, and making the best use of one’s time and resources was the spirit of capitalism. There was, he explained, a sharp difference between the adherents of the then Catholic Church, which regarded the daily chores and business enterprises as petty issues compared to the religious works of monks, nuns, and priests (other-worldly asceticism), and the followers of early Protestantism, who praised any effort to please God, including daily chores and especially the acquisition of wealth (inner-world asceticism).

He aptly placed this sharp change of attitude in the disciples of Calvin towards the acquisition of wealth at the very center of the eventual rise of the capitalist economy and the birth of a new civilization. Some monumental maxims like, “A penny saved is a penny earned…”, “Time is money; sloth is sin…”; “Even the humblest tasks are solemn duties assigned by God Himself…”; “All work, not just religious work, was a calling from God; it should not be done but done well, as a faithful service carried out under the great Taskmaster’s eye…” reflect this spirit of capitalism in Protestant countries like the United States and England. For Weber, “an idea in the mind of one human agent (or shared by a group of agents) is as much a real cause of human action as the application of heat to water is the real cause of steam.” Therefore, the backbone of the current capitalism originates in the very change in the belief system of a group of religious people. Such a claim is a consistent proof for social scientists like Weber to argue against the extremely reductionist notions of religion like that of Marx.

The two contrasting views of religion are significantly worth studying. While Marx, with his infamous animosity towards religion, divorced it from his utopian communist society and sentenced it to death forever, he adamantly upheld the necessities of human nature and pointed out the fact that negligence of the material aspect of life would result in absurdities in the name of human salvation. Moreover, his emphasis that history had become an arena of social class struggle urged humans to find lasting resolutions in order to establish projections of heavenly bliss on earth. Humanity undoubtedly owes him a round of applause due to his incessant efforts to vocalize the rights of the oppressed to life, dignity, and freedom. However, it is truly heartbreaking to see that he could not apprehend the real core of religion, which is pure devotion, compassion, self-denial, and other humble traits. If only he had chosen a different path that appreciated the diverse nature of humanity, of which religion is a distinguished component. I have never understood why Marx negated the fact that as material conditions shape ideas, ideas also cause material beings to change. Hence, unlike Marx, Weber approved of the fact that the key cause of the capitalist revolution was not some material circumstance, but a new form of economic behavior that followed logically from a new religious idea: “the self-constraining ethic of Protestantism was the animating spirit of capitalism.”

Has the battle come to an end yet? Honestly, I would assert it is an ongoing process. As we progress in light of the more inspiring notions of contemporary social scientists, we come to realize how wrong it is to reduce a very deeply embedded part of human social and individual life -religion- to something superficial or hypothetical. It is rather to be understood as something “sui generis” and a multi-faceted reality – a reality in and of itself. It is unquestionably inspiring to see several people search for an answer to what religion is and at the same time quite overwhelming to know that a great number of things in religion need an unbiased, pure, and sophisticated mind supported with the sublime emotions or faculties of the (metaphorical) heart. Furthermore, it is absolutely necessary to devise a new, multicolored approach to religious studies that embrace not only the fine-tuned minds but also the purified hearts. It would be wise to heed Kant’s argument against pure reason: “The ultimate truth can never be known through the theoretical mind. Only then can it be perceived partially via the practical mind.” Finally, it wouldn’t be a mere exaggeration to assert that what religion is or what role it plays in social and individual lives is a question of life and death to a certain degree. Hence, is religion a cause, an effect – or both? While many would say it is just an effect, several others would sail to the shore of “a cause”; still others, like me, agree that religion is both, and that every thought or emotion should get the benefit of the doubt.

References

1. Anatomy of the Sacred, an introduction to religion, 5th Ed. by James C. Livingston
2. Introducing Religion, readings from the classic theorist, by Daniel L. Pals
3. Eight Theories of Religion, 2nd Ed., by Daniel L. Pals
4. Gale Encyclopedia of Religion, 2nd Ed.
5. Encyclopedia of Quran by Jane Dammen McAuliffe

The availability of CNN worldwide (media), the growth in international organizations (political), and McDonald’s (economic and cultural) illustrate the diverse factors driving globalization. In addition, it is important to recognize that globalization, as an issue, is linked to capitalism’s triumph in the Cold War. The United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, pointed out that its opponents see globalization as “an ideology of predatory capitalism.”²

Hardt and Negri: Empire

Michael Hardt is a professor of literature at Duke University, and Antonio Negri is currently an inmate at Rebibbia Prison, Rome.³ Their book Empire, a post-Marxist attempt to analyze capitalism/globalism proposes the following simple thesis: “Globalization is a symptom of the new Empire. The new Empire is a result of the demise of the sovereignty of the nation state. However, ‘throughout the contemporary transformations, political controls, state functions, and regulatory mechanisms have continued to rule the realm of economic and social production and exchange. Our basic hypothesis is that sovereignty has taken a new form, composed of a series of national and supranational organisms united under a single logic of rule. This new global form of sovereignty is what we call Empire’…⁴ As national sovereignty declines, however, ‘Empire’ emerges. Empire, or globalization, is the latest strategy of the wealthy and powerful to control the weak and powerless. It has a number of advantages over the traditional nation state that it has displaced. First, it has no boundaries. Second, it is attempting to create this myth that it is simply the logical expression of certain economic laws. Third, it wants to shape every aspect of human life. And finally, it shelters behind the rhetoric of peace.”⁵

The study makes much of the decline of state sovereignty. It documents, with some care, the distinctive set of historical and social conditions that gave birth to the idea that a particular people within a particular boundary are sovereign over their actions. It notes that this was often a device that protected tyranny, and that the European Enlightenment had strong tendencies toward racism and colonialism.

Where traditional national sovereignty was grounded in a “transcendent” ruler (e.g., the king over his people), the Empire uses capital to operate on the plane of immanence “through relays and networks of relationships of domination, without reliance on a transcendent center of power…. In the passage of sovereignty toward the plane of immanence, the collapse of boundaries has taken place within each national context and on a global scale.”⁶ Capitalism is not simply about power over resources; it is also about the relationship of religion and ethics to economic life.

The danger in this debate about globalization is that we confine our reflections to the political left (i.e., those with socialist sympathies) and the political right (i.e., those with capitalist sympathies). To prevent this, we turn to Said Nursi. If I am right in stressing the religious factors at the heart of capitalism and globalization, we should expect to learn something from Nursi.

Four Themes in Said Nursi

It is dangerous to apply the ideas of great thinkers to problems that they did not experience. Said Nursi (1877-1960) experienced the concluding years of the Ottoman Caliphate, the First World War, and the establishment of the aggressively secular Republic of Turkey (1923). He responded to modernity’s challenge to belief with the Risale-i Nur (the Treatise of Light).

Although he does not mention globalization, his work contains four relevant themes. The first of these is that it is appropriate to build bridges between Western scientific culture and the Islamic world. Nursi believed that the best of modernity is compatible with and anticipated in Islamic thought. For example, he writes: “Things like the airplane, electricity, railways, and the telegraph have come into existence as wonders of science and technology as the result of humanity’s progress in science and industry. Surely the All-Wise Qur’an, which addresses all of humanity, does not neglect these. Indeed, it has not neglected them.”⁷

He argues that the Qur’an anticipates such technological advances. This enthusiasm for scientific achievement underpins his “natural theology” (i.e., the world itself provides good and decisive arguments for God’s Existence). After discussing various scientific disciplines, he concludes: “Through the certain testimony of hundreds of sciences like these, the universe has been adorned with innumerable instances of wisdom, purposes, and beneficial things within a faultless, perfect order. And the order and wisdom given through that wondrous, all-encompassing wisdom to the totality of the universe have been included in small measure in seeds and in the tiniest living creatures. It is clear and self-evident that aims, purposes, in-stances of wisdom, and benefits can only be followed through choice, will, intention, and volition, not through any other way. Just as they could not be the work of unconscious causes and Nature, which lack will, choice, and purpose, so too they could not interfere in them.”⁸

Nursi saw science as part of God’s intended purpose for humanity: “The miracles of the other prophets all indicate a wonder of human art or craft, and Adam’s miracle indicates in concise form, besides the fundamentals of those crafts, the index of the sciences and branches of knowl-edge, and of the wonders and perfections, and urges humanity toward them.”⁹

His confidence that Islam endorses modern-ity’s technological dynamic, a major feature of globalization, is reflected in this vision of the future. Writing about Nursi, one author states: “Indeed, as we shall see when examining the [Damascus] Sermon, Bediuzzaman [Nursi] predicted that, according to all the signs, Islam and Islamic–or, true–civilization would prevail in the future, and that the majority of mankind would accept and join the religion of Islam. He said: ‘In the future when reason, science and technology hold sway, that will surely be the time the Qur’an will gain ascendancy, which relies on rational proofs and makes the reason confirm its pronouncements.’”¹⁰ In other words, the truth of the Qur’an will be recognized when reason, science, and technology hold sway in the world.

Many who are sympathetic to religion tend to see modernity, as well as the growth of technology and globalization, as evils to be opposed. However, Nursi argues that the achievements of science, modernity, communication, and globalization need to be recognized as representing the best of the human spirit and humanity’s creativity. In addition, they are made possible by the God-designed order of the universe.

Themes two to four are far more critical. The second theme is that society must accommodate in a just way the inequalities of wealth. While Nursi assumes that some inequality is inevitable, he maintains the need for balance:

“. . . just as the source of mankind’s revolutions is one phrase, so another phrase is the origin of all immorality. First Phrase: ‘So long as I’m full, what is it to me if others die of hunger.’ Second Phrase: ‘You work so that I can eat.’ Yes, the upper and lower classes in human society, that is, the rich and the poor, live at peace when in equilibrium. The basis of that equilibrium is compassion and kindness in the upper classes, and respect and obedience in the lower classes. Now, the first phrase has incited the upper classes to practice oppression, immorality, and mercilessness. And just as the second has driven the lower classes to hatred, envy, and to contend the upper classes, and has negated human tranquility for several centuries, so too this century, as the result of the struggle between capital and labor, it has been the cause of the momentous events of Europe well-known by all. Thus, together with all its societies for good works, all its establishments for the teaching of ethics, all its severe discipline and regulations, it could not reconcile these two classes of humanity, nor could it heal the two fearsome wounds in human life. The Qur’an, how-ever, eradicates the first phrase with its injunction to pay zakat, and heals it. While it uproots the second phrase with its prohibition on usury and interest, and cures that. Indeed, the Qur’anic verse stands at the door of the world and declares usury and interest to be forbidden. It reads out its decree to mankind, saying: ‘In order to close the door of strife, close the door of usury and interest!’ It forbids its students to enter it.”¹¹

There are two strategies for balancing inequal-ity: obligatory charity, which falls heavier on the rich, and forbidding usury. Implied in this is the fact that economic globalization becomes problematic when inequality is not managed. Some nations are fortunate and benefit from globalization, while others struggle with it. Nursi’s proposal has much to commend it: fortunate nations are obliged to help unfortunate ones, and IMF loans should not require a prohibitive repayment schedule. Also, debt cancellation is appropriate, given the detrimental contracts negotiated in the mid-1970s by Western financial institutions. The overall point is that inequality needs to be managed with considerable care.

The third theme is that all wealth and property ultimately should be entrusted to God. Nursi speaks of a king with two subjects. One allows the king to hold the property in trust; the other insists on sole ownership. The first subject experiences positive results; the second one eventually becomes an object of pity. According to Nursi: “Transient property becomes everlasting. For this waning life, when given to the Eternal and Self-Subsistent Lord of Glory and spent for His sake, it will be transmuted into eternity. It will yield eternal fruits. The moments of one’s life will apparently vanish and rot like kernels and seeds. But then the flowers of blessedness and auspiciousness will open and bloom in the realm of eternity, and each will also present a luminous and reassuring aspect in the Intermediate Realm.”¹²

This fundamental religious insight should shape our view of globalization. As life is transitory, we can see possessions as ends in themselves or as a means to serve God’s purposes. In the latter case, we seek to make globalization feed the hungry, educate the ignorant, bring hope to the hopeless, and so on by entrusting what we have to God.

The fourth theme is that not all of the West’s achievements should be seen as part of the march of progress. He has harsh words for uncritical supporters of European progress, especially when it is at the cost of religion: “O miserable pseudo-patriot who fervently encourages Muslims to embrace this world and forcibly drives them to European industry and progress! Beware, do not let the bonds with which certain members of this nation are tied to religion be broken! If thus, foolishly, blindly imitating and crushed under foot, their bonds with religion are broken those irreligious people will become as harmful for the life of society as fatal poison.”¹³ The meaning is clear: Together with the third theme, globalization should not become the goal in itself, but rather should serve a vision of social organization that allows humanity’s spiritual dimension to grow and develop.

Concluding Reflections

Unlike the entrenched positions of Hardt and Negri, Nursi offers a far more nuanced approach. To interpret capitalism simply as the tool of the powerful to retain control of as much wealth as possible distorts reality. Capitalism has its roots in certain religious dispositions and has generated vast wealth. It offers many dangers as well as many possibilities.

This is also true of globalization. Nursi certainly would recognize globalization’s technological and scientific underpinning as good. However, he also would want to make sure that globalization works for the good by creating strong safeguards against the vast inequality engendered by so much wealth. I believe that he would have strongly supported the debt-cancellation campaign and agreed that the world’s economic life is intended to serve humanity’s spiritual vision. Generating wealth for itself is madness; generating wealth so that all people can live full God-directed lives is a vision. Globalization might make the latter possible, and all of us should work toward that end.

* Ian Markham is Dean of Hartford Seminary, Hartford, Connecticut.

Footnotes

1. Robertson, R., “Globalization and the Future of ‘Traditional Religion,” in God and Globalization, eds. Max L. Stackhouse with Peter J. Paris, Harrisburg, PA, Trinity Press International: 2000, Vol. I, pp. 53-54.
2. As quoted in ibid., Vol. I, p. 5.
3. A writer, professor at the University of Padua and Marxist political activist, Negri was arrested on 7 April 1979 on the charge of “armed insurrection against the powers of the State.” Acquitted and released after 4 years in jail, he fled to France to avoid re-imprisonment. He returned to Italy in 1997, turned himself in, and received a 13-year sentence. (http://www.notbored.org/negri.html.)
4. Hardt, M., Negri, A., Empire, Harvard University Press: 2000, p. xii.
5. Ibid., pp. xiv-xv.
6. Ibid., pp. 326-32.
7. Nursi, S., The Second Station of the Twentieth Word, The Words, Sozler Publications, Istanbul: 2002
8. Ibid., 3:408.
9. Ibid., 1:272.
10. Sukran Vahide, Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, Sozler Publications, Istanbul: 1992, p. 90.
11. Nursi, S., The Words, Sozler Publications, Istanbul: 2002, p.421.
12. Ibid., 1:38.
13. Ibid., 3:168.