Life, illness, and death are basic human conditions. But at the same time, it is a very individual decision which specific meaning you ascribe to these elements. These meanings also affect the behavior patterns of our life and its consequences. Ascriptions of meaning can – considered without any judgment – be of religious, nationalist, pluralist, and atheistic nature, or be supported from the symbiosis of several ways of thinking.

In the training of health care professionals and in public lectures, the author of this article noticed that illness has a very negative image: the color which stands for physical and mental discomfort is a deep black, while shiny white is the color of health. Consequently, modern medicine therapies have been developed that do not necessarily try to diagnose the causes of diseases, but most of all combat the declared enemy. For this purpose, high-dose drugs, radiation and other weapons are out in the field, according to the motto: attack is the best defense.

The doctors make every effort to win the battle, but there is a risk that the emotional state of the ill person falls into despair – because it is taught to him that his new physical condition is an unnatural, undesirable condition. Thus, a melancholy forms, which reduces the quality of life dramatically. The patient regards the illness as invincible.

In the following, I will present some perspectives that renowned scholar Said Nursi (d. 1960) demonstrated decades ago. They are still powerful today. In my opinion, they harbor the potential to raise the quality of life not only of the ill, but also of healthy people.

In his treatise “The Twenty-fifth Gleam: 25 Remedies for the Sick”¹ Said Nursi throws 25 views (Turkish: Deva² ) on the phenomenon of illness. His outlook could assist in transforming the negative picture of illness into a positive one.

What makes a shift in perspective so important?

Anyone who prepares himself while he or she is a healthy person, if they later catch a more serious illness, will benefit from this text. Nursi’s thoughts on the meaning of illness and potential remedies can play an important role in preparation. Those who internalize his message can help prevent the emotional fall into depression and may instead hope for a cure.

Said Nursi’s first view presents its readers with the understanding that illness should not be seen as a problem that brings bitterness into life, but that you can also draw strength out of it. There may, as said before, be different ascriptions of meaning to human life, but ultimately all people agree that life is something precious and offers a variety of opportunities. The direction of our lives depends on which use we make of these opportunities.

Those who consider illness as something negative will experience every illness as a curse. Such an attitude has a negative impact on the patient and their environment and turns them very pessimistic. They might castigate themselves, and ask questions like: “Why is it me of all people who has ​​this disease?” In extreme cases, this can lead the patient to become delusional and withdraw from society. A shift in perspective, however, can release positive energy and let sorrow and pain melt away.

Those who recognize the opportunities offered by life and appreciate the efforts and labors of everyday life as something positive will concede that even diseases have a meaningful function – for themselves and humanity as a whole.

Nursi says that ill people perceive time differently, which enables them to observe their environment from a more passive perspective. This passivity is supposed to tear modern, urbanized people from the hustle and bustle of everyday life and move them to a pause. It decelerates the lives of those affected and leads them to horizons healthy people find difficulty to access.

Nursi’s second view goes to the role of prayer which he defines in two forms: positive and negative prayers. He refers to prayers like ritual worship, fasting, supplication, and other forms of remembrance as “positive” (müspet) prayers. “Negative” (menfi) prayer on the other hand is attaining awareness and knowledge of one’s own vulnerability and mortality – which is more likely to arise in moments of illness rather than any other time – as a result of which one turns to God in praise of His ultimate power and infinity. Nursi signifies these positive and negative prayers as the second remedy.

The insight into our own transience, which is the third remedy, allows the ill person to recall their past mistakes, many of which might have been forgotten, and allows them to reconcile with themselves and their fellow humans. According to Nursi, this allows a person to realize they are not as perfect and as infallible as they thought. Illness makes people honest: honest with themselves and with others. The confession of the own fallibility is tantamount to an admission of human weakness and mortality.

Viewed from this perspective, the question arises as to whether illness itself is a cure for mankind. It conveys us new views and leads us to reconsider our previous positions. The ill person becomes an observer, and he finally has time to start thinking. As said by Nursi, he realizes that mankind may be considered the crown of creation. But man’s frailty, his aging, and also the health problems of other people make him realize that life on earth is not all there is – a realization that opens his eyes and takes him out of the darkness into the light. Becoming aware of one’s mortality takes away any thoughtlessness. It causes a person to shed laziness and reflect on their obligations.

If the patient manages to do so, they will feel gratitude and be patient, not least in dealing with physical ailments. This gratitude and patience is what Nursi refers to as the fourth remedy. For Nursi, the body is not the property of man, but rather a loan, which he may not dispose of freely. Suffering is to be endured, since it can do some good, too. Nursi characterizes it as a kind of bonus, which God the ultimate owner of our body grants to us, and we should not protest against it.

Chronic diseases or disabilities, which are seen very negatively in today’s society, can be reinterpreted positively in this way because, as Nursi asserts, they bring a gain in knowledge compared that we cannot achieve when healthy. As a result of their illness, they understand new things that healthy people cannot, just as blind, deaf, or dumb people perceive their environment differently, and sometimes more sharply, than people without physical limitations.

Each person strives for well-being, mercy, and forgiveness, and every sorrow and misfortune also harbors rays of mercy in it. From behind the veil of the illness many quite pleasant insights can emerge. A new consciousness arises, and thus many people gain the courage to take risks and reposition oneself in life.

This maturity Nursi describes as the fifth remedy and it can be observed especially in young ill people. Because of their illness, and in contrast to their peers, they have to cope with issues that seem to contradict their youth. They do not fall into the typical noise of youth and are relieved of thoughtlessness and of the pressures of everyday life.

From this point of view, health, for some people, can be even a calamity that can make their heads spin and blind, and lets them lose sight of the fact that their life does not last forever.

Conclusion

Even these first 5 of 25 views on the subject of illness show that not everything, which is interpreted as negative, is actually negative. A shift in perspective can often work wonders.

Nevertheless, such a shift in perspective appears quite disconcerting initially in our modern society in which health equals to a gift and illness to a disaster. If we have considered diseases as the enemy for so long, why should we suddenly welcome disease? A notion that a disease may also enrich the patient and their friends and family is a useful approach. Surely, the thought that positive thinking can influence the illness (coping), and even contribute to the healing process, is quite common. However, the angle shift described by Said Nursi goes much further. And in my eyes, there is no doubt that it is able to significantly improve the quality of a patient’s life and environment.

Illness allows ill persons to pull out from everyday life, at least for some time. Thereby, it gives them new insights and opens doors that probably would have remained closed if they had stayed healthy. Illness allows a refocusing of which we can benefit from as individuals and communities.

Erdogan Karakaya is pursuing a master’s degree in history in Heidelberg, Germany.

Footnotes

1. Nursi, Said. 2009. 25 Remedies for the Sick, the Twenty-fifth Gleam, NJ: Tughra Books.
2. Deva in Turkish actually means cure, resort, and solution. In this article it is also understood as view or view angle.

With fire in their hearts and a blissful composure

They take everywhere armfuls of peace

Inside their eyes dews of infinity appear

The luminous riders, divine light on their faces

Like censers giving off fragrance all around

Leaving wisps behind, everywhere they pass

Offering the secrets of eternity to the world

Never-fading values in their thoughts

Like censers, giving off fragrance all around

In their gardens, like a legendary land

Springs of Paradise pour from crystal fountains

In their evergreen realm where no fall is seen

Everyday a new spring, everyday new blooms

In their gardens, like a legendary land

Angels hover in their horizons at each moment

They breathe the same air as heavenly spirits

Skies open their arms, constellations stand in salute

With their inner worlds like bays of Paradise

Angels hover in their horizons at each moment.

Let me remind you that the broad circle of our readers are not interested much in Islamic dogma, but rather in everyday realities, which sometimes are tragic. Unlike Christianity, Islam is not Orthodox (from the Greek “orthos,” meaning correct and “doxa” meaning opinion), but rather Orthopracsic (from the Greek “pracsis,” meaning practice or activity). The latter means that in Islam not only are there postulated specific, and quite clear concrete, dogmas of faith, but there are also obligations that all Muslims must follow in their everyday life; these are the norms of behavior as prescribed by Islam. Fifteen hundred years of staunch Islamic belief and its practical implementation in everyday life and politics have ensured, to a larger extent, the stable development of Islamic civilization and contributed in particular into putting an end to the shameful yoke of colonialism for humanity.

In the last quarter of the twentieth century and more specifically at the turn of the millennium, and in connection with the activated radical-and sometimes extremist-tendencies in the Islamic world, voices can be heard-more often in the media than in science-that claim that Islam is an almost ideal ground for the military and political conflicts and for its extreme form of personal terrorism, under the guise of martyrdom, jihad, etc.

The current collection reveals in full and in detail the concept of incompatibility and non-acceptance for a faithful Islamic believer, from the position of the Holy Qur’an, to attempt to take away the highest gift of the Almighty, a human life. For the first time, a mass readership is able to acquaint itself with the five ultimate values of perfect Islam: Faith, life, family, mind, and property. The comparison made within the collection between the perceptions envisaged in the Qur’an and the Bible (made with a scientific basis and provable via the holy texts of the Qur’an and the Bible) is one of the assets of the work.

In the same balanced and dialectic way (based on the Qur’an and the hadith) the thesis concerning the idea that suicide is an act of revenge on the “infidels” is rebuffed; this is shown to be a product of profanity, propagated by child-killers and outcasts without faith and honor. The authors being Muslim, and reputable scholars themselves, support the principle idea that life is exclusively in the Hands of God, contrary to the belief of kamikaze terrorists, and underline the fact that murder is unacceptable for a true Muslim believer. Those who hide behind the name of God and deprive others of life, in particular children, women, elderly people, as well as themselves, arbitrarily assume the responsibility of the Creator. But indeed, “God does not love those who trespass the limits” (Baqara 2:190). A terrorist commits five sins: Against God, humanity, the specific victims, regardless of their religion, to themselves and their family.

The published articles written by the well-known Turkish experts in the matters of religion, sociology and psychology are of value not only due to a complex description of the prime postulates, but to the very aura of care for humanity, life, and our civilization, which is adherent to those who are truly elated and caring about the integrity of our world scientists and preachers.

Several decades of our research have revealed the existing link between the self-organization of the Earth and the external management of outer space. Our common home, the Earth is a dynamic system that is managed by the universal laws of nature. In the framework of this brief introduction, it does not seem proper to discuss the place of God in this system. It is important to point out that the reason for all kinds of criticism and conflict situations in today’s society, including the very phenomena that has upset the balance of the stable development of the world, a imbalance that comprises the misunderstanding of the essence of Islam with the extremism that is the terrorism of those who feel that they can speak on behalf of the whole of Islam, is a lack of correspondence between the decisions and programs with the laws of nature and the Almighty.

Independently from each other, we and our Turkish colleagues have been involved in natural and scientific research; we have all come to the same conclusion about the absolute necessity to follow the universal laws of nature for the benefit of the stable development of humanity. The authors have proved that an ugly and dangerous distortion of God’s Will and the natural laws, as revealed in the present work, are rebuffed by the Almighty and contradict the fundamental principles of existence.

Merhaba and thank you to the authors and editors of this useful work. I wish mutual understanding, peace, and harmony for all readers.

*Oleg L. Kuznetsov holds a Ph.D. on Technical Sciences and currently teaches at the Moscow State University. He is the President of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, Rector of the International University of Man, Nature and the “Dubna” society, President of the UNEP/UN Russian Committee. 

Abstract: Appadurai’s work offers a very critical and deep analysis of modernity and globalization. He believes that no single theory can describe modernity’s complexity, for he believes that a theory cannot be universalistic, and because societies are much messier than our theories about them. His focus is more on globalization’s cultural dimensions, as opposed to its economic ones. In addition, he looks at globalization in terms of homogenization and heterogenization, for migration and media create both sameness and difference in today’s globalized world. Migrating people and media, particularly television, produce different cultural spheres in different countries. As a result, he looks for irregularities as much as he looks for regularities in the modern or postmodern social world.

Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization

In Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization, Appadurai examines new dimensions of globalization, particularly cultural ones. He argues that few theories describe modernity, and that all of them either declare or desire universal applicability. Looking at modernity and globalization from a historical context, he argues that modernity was very much a product of the Enlightenment. However, he is not convinced that the Enlightenment created modernity and made people wish to become modern (p. 1).

Modernism originated in the late-sixteenth century after the rise of capitalism. However, it is not limited to economic dimensions, for it also contains cultural and political ones. Becoming more visible after the Industrial Revolution, modernism eventually became the dominant culture of the West and then of the world.

The understanding and theorizing associated with modernity is very much a part of Western social science, for it was shaped by such leading Western social scientists as Karl Marx (d. 1883), Auguste Comte (d. 1857), Max Weber (d. 1961), and Emile Durkeim (d. 1917). Appadurai sees Western social science as problematic, for it reinforces the sense of a single moment (which he calls the modern moment) serving as a dramatic and unparalleled break between past and present. Western social science has focused on categorizing and typologizing traditional and modern societies, practices that Appadurai argues distort the meanings of change and the past, and assumes that the Western experience of modernity is universal.

Modernity, however, is irregularly self-conscious and unevenly experienced in different parts of the world. This causes Appadurai to disagree with modernization theory’s identification of societies as modern vs. traditional, urban vs. rural, small family vs. large family, and so on, for he sees irregularities within so-called modern and traditional societies. He claims that modernity is experienced differently over space and throughout time. For instance, such modern metropolitan cities as Mexico City, Sao Paulo, and Cairo experience modernity and tradition simultaneously. The same is true of Germany, the United States, or any other modern state in which both traditional and modern ways of life are practiced at the same time in different parts these countries.

Appadurai thinks that the media and population migration are the most important factors defining today’s global world. He explores their joint effect on the work of the imagination, as a constitutive feature of modern subjectivity. Both media and migration create specific irregularities. For example, he analyzes both print and electronic media, while claiming that electronic media, especially television, has been much more influential in terms of modifying cultural spaces and cultural worlds: Electronic media give a new twist to the environment within which the modern and the global often appear as flip sides of the same coin (p. 44). He believes that the electronic media’s ability to transform the sense of distance between viewer and event transforms everyday discourse. It also shapes and reshapes society and the self in all different types of societies and people.

Migration is the second constitutive force. This is not limited to moving or migrating people; rather, he includes within this concept a process of transporting ideas, values, life styles, and everyday lives from the home of origin. As he puts it: When the story of mass-migration is juxtaposed with the rapid flow of mass-mediated images, scripts, and sensations, we have a new order of instability in the production of modern subjectivities (p. 44).

Migrants create diasporic public spheres that confound theories that depend on the continued salience of the nation“state as key arbiter of important social changes (p. 4). For instance, Turkish guest workers in Germany watch Turkish movies and gather together to celebrate religious and traditional festivals. This is an irregularity in modern German society, as different cultural groups lead everyday lives that have nothing to do the dominant culture of the country in which they live.

When discussing migration, one must realize that the young or new generation are the agents of social challenge and change, not the elderly. The new generation experiences and pushes new ways of life, and is people’s minds migrate along with their bodies and produce change.

Appadurai considers globalization as both cultural homogenization and, at the same time, cultural heterogenization (p. 32). He urges us to think of the new global cultural economy in terms of complexity, overlap, and disorder. Moreover, he is unsure if existing center-periphery models can address such complexity and irregularity. Nor is he convinced that traditional models, such as the pull“push migration model or surpluses and deficits, can explain the global cultural economy.

Therefore, he proposes a new framework for understanding the new global cultural economy’s complexity and messiness. This consists of five dimensions of global cultural flows: ethnoscapes, mediascapes, techno-scapes, financescapes, and ideocapes (p. 33). He uses the suffix -scape to point out the fluid and irregular shapes of landscapes. These deeply perspectival constructs are inflected by nation-states, multinationals, diasporic communities, as well as religious, political, and economic groupings and movements confronting such groups as neighborhoods and families.

I am not going to discuss each cultural landscape. Suffice it to say, as Appadurai asserts, that these cultural landscapes are the building blocks for imagined worlds. He quotes this from Anderson’s discussion of imagined communities. These worlds are socially and historically constructed by historically situated people and social groups all over the globe.

Appadurai disagrees with the idea that goods and services end in consumption. Calling it an illusion, he urges us to re-situate consumption in time and place. He especially focuses on history, periodicity, process, and how demand is produced and consumption is achieved. How do people make their preferences? How is demand produced?

Although people seemingly make free choices in their everyday lives, their choices are structured through the market. Everything is commodified, from food and medical care to transportation and housing, from education and leisure to body and knowledge. Everything is bought and sold in the capitalist market. Thus, it is important to know that commodities are socially constructed and humanly produced.

Expanding capitalism allowed scholars and philosophers to rework time and space. New philosophies showed social constructions of time and space. We know that they are not natural; rather, they are human constructions.

I conclude with a few words about knowledge“ relations. Appadurai proves that different cultural landscapes exist. It also is important to realize that all cultural landscapes are socially made, and that we produce those landscapes with our everyday practices, whether intentionally or unintentionally.

Landscapes, maps, and cultural spheres are social products, and their construction reflects ongoing power relations. Appadurai deals with this when discussing how Britain measured its Indian colony (e.g., census and maps) to control it. The resulting knowledge served British imperial interests, not those of India. Maps as social texts were not used for social betterment, but as tools of social control.

As a result, Appadurai urges, if we are to understand today’s cultural, economic, and political globalized world, we need to understand it in those time“ space contexts and knowledge“power relations that have shaped both its homogeneous and heterogeneous cultural, economic, and political realities

• References:
• Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso, 1983.
• Appadurai, Arjun. Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1998.