Following Artemis II, we go with another piece on the Moon. Amna Majid writes on one major secret of our satellite, that it has water! It has been confirmed in 2018 that there is frozen water in the Moon’s craters. What was thought impossible before, water on the moon theory was first proposed in 1961 by Kenneth Watson. Majid gives a brief panorama of the past research up until 2025, and projects a possible future where the Moon could be a permanent space station.  

Pope Francis and Fethullah Gülen. Mustafa Cenap Aydin gives a brief account of these two giant men of faith, one the leader of the Catholic world and the other a prominent Muslim scholar, whose lives and missions overlapped in many aspects. Born and died not so far apart from each other, both men have contributed to the promotion of peace, education, and community connections around the world. Through their examples, Aydin shows how one can remain deeply committed to one’s own faith while building genuine bridges with members of other traditions.  

This issue also brings one strong document from the depths of history that helped build a peaceful society from among warring tribes: The Medina Charter. Yetkin Yildirim et al explains how this Charter, considered by many as the first constitution in history, enabled the formation of a single entity from different faith groups and ethnicities, while recognizing their respective cultural and belief traits. The Charter’s message is reinforced by Aaron Y. Ryan who wrote about racism and how it reveals at the societal level in “Racism: Egoism of Societies.” Ryan quotes Nursi for whom racism is an external projection of an enlarged ego and that racist ideologies rise “just as latent diseases emerge when the body’s immune system is weakened.”

In “Anger Is Never Sudden,” Naim Yilmaz draws an analogy between anger and allergic reactions. When we are hit by a car and immediately become furious, there is in fact something that was already growing deep down. Yilmaz says that anger appears instantly, but it is built slowly. In his piece, he offers good advice on how to control anger and guard ourselves from such allergic reactions.

Sometimes we find God sends among us some of His servants as a blessing. The mere presence of such servants suffices to instill peace and trust, opening a door of hope in our souls. They are guardians of heart who teach goodness by being the way they are. Thomas Michel was one of those guardians. He was a man of wisdom which he derived from the depths of the Christian tradition and a man of elegance that embodied the conscience of all humanity.

I extend my condolences and prayers of patience to his family, friends, those who had the opportunity to meet him, and especially to the volunteers of the Hizmet Movement who feel his loss deeply.

Condolences to us all.

Meeting Fr. Michel for the first time brought an immediate sense of comfort. He taught not by speaking, but by listening. He approached not by authority, but by understanding. This is how he earned a special place in the hearts of all who crossed paths with him.

“What humanity needs most today is a climate of love,” our teacher Fethullah Gülen said many, many times. Thomas Michel was nourished in such a climate, and he carried it with him across the world as one of its architects. Those who sat with him would recognize his state of acquiescence when he listened; his careful choice of words not to hurt anyone’s heart; his deep respect for those from different faith traditions – all of these were manifestations of his sincere connection to God.

In his latest message from Chiang Rai, Thailand, he taught us another lesson with the humblest of words: “Like Muslims, we Christians are not afraid of death because we know we are returning to the God who loves us.”

What a submission – simple yet truthful and touching. It was not words of farewell, but an expression of the inner peace that comes with walking toward God; a peace that gave voice not to the carnal soul, but to his loving heart.

In a spirit of fidelity, Fr. Michel wrote the following in the same message: “I appreciate and am grateful for the many wonderful people that God has allowed me to know in Hizmet.” This was also a crystal-clear testimony to the dialogue he pursued with us, the Hizmet community. He loved us, understood us, and welcomed us with a big embrace. We loved him back. We saw in him the purity of a servant of God seeking his Lord and the Lord’s good pleasure.

Our dear friend Thomas Michel left behind an indelible mark in the heart of the Hizmet community. That mark is not only from his academic research, books, and conferences, but the result of a smile, a compliment, or comforting a heart that were to last a lifetime. He did not only voice his support to interfaith dialogue but made it his natural state of being. His talks were not only informative but urged his audience to think over what it meant to be human.

We learned from his example that differences can lead not to conflict but richness, that diversions can transform not to polarizations but to bridges of love. Thomas Michel reminded us that the Truth spoke to every person with a different language, that what really mattered was to listen to that language with respect. Once, he said the following:

“Faith is when a person can feel the love he or she has for God in the hearts of others.” This love was the yeast that made him who he was.

While there is now a void left in his absence, there is also a legacy that must be upheld: to carry on the subtle and challenging journey of dialogue without interruption, and to continue that journey with love, respect, and a humble heart.

May God help us to carry forward what we have learned from him: kindness, calmness, and humane warmth.

Today, we are seeing off a real friend, a representative of the community of love, a true architect of dialogue. But we also know that every good seed that falls to the earth grows. The seeds Fr. Michel sowed will continue to grow.

May his spirit be blessed.

One post in a social media account opened by his fans shows Fr. Thomas Michel lying on the ground with several stray dogs sitting around him. They are at peace being near him, just as kids in another photo who joyfully give hugs to this man of God. I saw him for the first time more than two decades ago in a symposium in Istanbul dedicated to research on the life and teachings of Bediuzzaman Said Nursi (d. 1960), one of the leading Islamic scholars of the twentieth century. Now not surprising at all, he was giving hugs to all that came by, including myself with other youth reading Nursi.

We lost Fr. Michel recently (November 24, 2025). He was 84. A big loss for interfaith dialogue practitioners, Fr. Michel has left behind a legacy of true love on behalf of God, dedication to community work, and promoting dialogue among members of different faith traditions. He never abstained from praising good behavior and charitable work regardless of faith differences. He was so committed to education and dialogue that, despite his age and illness, he continued to work for a school in Thailand, where he passed away. One picture shows him happy as he stood in front of a girls’ dorm still under construction.

Even while suffering from health problems, he continued to deliver academic papers and lectures to the last minute – if the doctors had not disallowed him from travel, he would have flown from Thailand to the United States in September for a conference by Respect Graduate School to honor Fethullah Gülen’s life and service. I remember he had to stay in the US during the lockdown due to Covid. After it was over, he wrote to me he was buying a one-way ticket to Thailand to teach at a school, which he did until his last breath.

Another picture shows a dog on guard where the remains of Fr. Michel is kept. As one enters the premise, one can see an epitaph by Fr. Michel himself, which summarizes his life work: “Helping people understand each other is worth spending a lifetime on.” There are thousands of friends he had over the years from around the world who would firmly testify that Uncle Tom lived such a life.

In this issue, Abdullah Aymaz’s eulogy for Uncle Tom is worth reading.

For those not so fond of believing in God or following any faith tradition in modern times, religion is historically one of the major, if not the main, sources of conflict and violence among nations. Religious traditions – the accusation goes – claimed monopoly on the truth and salvation, and have mobilized rulers and fellow followers to impose their beliefs on others, thus igniting wars to subjugate those who did not tag along. Perhaps this argument is not entirely accurate in most instances, nor would it be fair to make a sweeping claim that lays all the blame on religion.. The blame that had to be laid on our greed and desire for more, has been placed on religion as a scapegoat to free our conscience from that burden of guilt. Nostra Aetate, the Second Vatican Council’s declaration on the Church’s relations with non-Christian faiths, was an important step to dispel such accusations by showing that religious traditions can actually serve as instruments for peace.

The declaration was made on October 28, 1965. Commemorating its 60^th anniversary with many events throughout the year, the Catholic church and many interfaith partners from other traditions are taking this opportunity to reaffirm their commitment to continuing friendly dialogue in this day and age when “mankind is being drawn closer together, and the ties between different peoples are becoming stronger” as acknowledged in the Declaration. To contribute to this ongoing dialogue, there are two major contributions in this issue of The Fountain that explore Nostra Aetate and what it means today. The first contribution is by Mustafa Cenap Aydin, the Director of Istituto Tevere, a research center on intercultural and interreligious studies in Rome, Italy, who sees the Declaration as a vision still unfolding. After laying out the tragic background that paved the way for the Declaration, Aydin neatly explains the importance of the fact that the Church did not try to reconcile with Judaism only, but also with Islam. Of course, one important steppingstone in building up dialogue with the Catholic Church and Islam was when Fethullah Gülen, the late Islamic scholar, visited Pope John Paul II in 1998. Aydin also mentions the “Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together,” signed by Pope Francis and Ahmad al-Tayyeb, the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, in 2019, as “an even more expansive vision of religious cooperation in addressing the manifold challenges confronting our global civilization.”

The second contribution is by Jordan Denari Duffner, a Catholic theologian, author, and professor who focuses on Catholic approaches to other religions, Muslim-Christian dialogue, Islamic studies, and Israel-Palestine. This is a shorter version of her piece originally published in Living City magazine, which generously gave permission for publication in The Fountain. Duffner calls on Catholics – and all who take this Declaration seriously – “to be on the lookout for all that is true and holy in other religions, to notice where God is at work in the spiritual lives and ethical traditions of our friends of other faiths.”

The flourishing existence of peaceful social relationships begins with the seed of dialogue. Rather than categorizing human beings into labels of specific religions or belief backgrounds, one should yearn for the beauty that lies within true understandings of actions and the strength that is derived from channels of interfaith conversations. Perhaps such connections are made when a person practicing their religion is provided a platform, while also taking part actively in the efforts that are put forward to create spaces where they are willingly listened to rather than simply heard.

This distinctive factor highlights how the Parliament of the World’s Religions illuminates vital aspects of humanity and peacebuilding by establishing empathetic conversations that first interact with an individual’s heart to focus attention on the search for peace, progress, and justice when it seems like hope is not nearby. In its historic home city of Chicago, where the first official Parliament took place in 1893 in an effort to harmoniously engage religions from the east and west, a beautiful recurrence took place this year: the 2023 convening of the Parliament brought together thousands of attendees from more than 95 countries at the Lakeside Center between August 14th and 18th [1]. As time has gone by, the last three decades mark numerous gatherings of the Parliament focusing on diverse themes that aim to represent pivotal issues facing different cultural and religious groups and individuals. This year’s theme focused on A Call to Conscience: Defending Freedom and Human Rights to place attention on humanity’s struggle with despotic rulers and authoritarian regimes. The theme represents the need to uphold democratic values in sacred spaces through peaceful interfaith dialogue, which can act as an antidote for the violation of rights.

While walking through the large program space, one could come across a luminary voice or figure speaking for or representing a specific religious or spiritual group. In the air, there was a search for conversations that sparked a feeling of understanding not through long sentences but merely through a few words. The conference was organized into spaces where attendees could explore an array of program aspects: exhibition booths where various organizations could connect with attendees, a large plenary space for speeches, and session rooms that provided insight into specific topics falling under the overarching theme of urging action in times of injustice and undemocratic governments that threaten the power of peaceful societies.

Considering how interactive the global setting has become, the numerous options of parallel sessions to attend provided relevant and fruitful perspectives on elevating voices from all spheres of religious and spiritual conversations. To provide some insight, we can take into consideration the session on Creating Inclusive Sacred Spaces: Interfaith Dialogue, Contemplation, and Action, where the discussion revolved around how characteristics of spaces determine how well we are able to connect with others in a gentle manner without encouraging an unwelcoming feeling that can sometimes happen due to having different beliefs and traditions. This session focused on finding common ground and seeking channels of collaboration that would strengthen the peaceful bonds between the people we exist with during our time in the universe. Tessa Bielecki, a writer who is a former Carmelite monk, spoke about the beauty of seeing another individual when considering characteristics that make up sacred spaces. Referencing an Afghan phrase, “From seeing you, I am made very happy,” she emphasized how our “inner sacred space” must be home to kindness and peace so that when we interact with others, our intentions are translated through humble actions. In correlation to how the session highlighted the value of unanimity and peace, Fethullah Gülen’s understanding of dialogue is characterized as the action of embracing the beauty and need to unite bonds in an altruistic, humanitarian approach delivered through acts of tolerance and “love, compassion, forgiveness and humility,” as Dr. Heon Kim wrote in his article on Gülen’s approach to dialogic Sufism [2].

By the time one session ended, another began. The hallways of the convention center overflowed with new and familiar faces as the transitions took place, and ultimately left one feeling tranquil for being a part of a crowd of such diversity and love. There was even a medium-sized stage in the center of the second-floor main area surrounded by comfortable bean bags for attendees looking to take a short nap. If you sat nearby the stage, you had the chance to listen to anyone who wanted to read or recite something special to them, whether that was a call to prayer or a divine verse from a holy book. Watching candid discussions taking place, while seeing how welcomed individuals were in this space, reminded me of Dr. King’s vision of a Beloved Community, a community that receives with open arms all people and makes sure that every individual is cared for. In spaces like the Parliament, such an enlightening perspective makes one believe that Dr. King’s vision might possibly be achieved only when all aspects of systems that are vital in our society become one for a shared purpose of respect for human dignity [3].

While trying to understand what represents quality aspects of a Beloved Community, one transitioned their focus to recognizing strong characteristics of leaders who became role models to lead their communities with determination and resilience during difficult times. The Embracing the Other in Unwelcoming Times: Examples of Interfaith Pioneers session provided a platform where panelists brought forth valuable stories of important leaders and mentors who, at all moments of their life, served as sources of hope and guidance for people. Panelist Reverend Donald Rooney, who is President of the Catholic Association of Diocesan Ecumenical and Interreligious Officers, discussed the importance of praying for one another and caring for our sisters and brothers who are part of our “great human family.” Transitioning from era to era changes our perspectives on how we creatively approach topics in contemporary ways. There follows a need to revisit what helps build characters of this “great human family” with a careful introspective lens that views how every moment of a life echoes with a lesson from the past that our mentors have been through, especially at times of hardship. Senior Rabbi Morris Zimbalist of Congregation Beth Judea highlighted how establishing empathy among one another during important moments allows for the teaching of love, which assists with the approaches we take when overcoming unwelcoming conditions and allows us to become pioneers in interfaith relations. Rabbi Zimbalist honored the work that Rabbi Meshullam Zelman Schachter-Shalomi, commonly referred to as Reb Zalman, did throughout his efforts at interfaith dialogue. In Reb Zalman’s words, “As believers, we all have an opportunity and moral obligation to recognize our spiritual common ground, to rise above our differences, to combat prejudice, and intolerance.”

The next featured session on Women and Political Conflict: Turkey, Trauma, and Spiritual Coping Strategies took into account the human rights violations in Turkey that have drastically altered the lives of the Hizmet movement’s participants as well as other critics of the government. The panel provided insight into the lives that have been destroyed as a result of the government’s actions, but also presented ways to place attention and advocate for the rights of those who have been wrongfully convicted. Speaker Vonya Womack, who is the executive director at Refugees Unknown-Stories Untold (RUSU), called the audience members to action in a heartfelt manner: “…as interfaith leaders, our compassion knows no bounds, transcending the confines of doctrine or dogma. We bear witness to the shared human experience. In the face of human rights violations and the haunting echoes of trauma that follow those violations, our hearts must recognize no division.”

To establish solidarity, empathetic connections must be made to transform lives through patience and advocacy, as Dr. Sophia Pandya who is department chair at California State University at Long Beach in the Department of Religious Studies, discussed when she highlighted the act of “dertlenmek”— that is, sharing the suffering of another as if it is your own situation, as Fethullah Gülen suggests when building bridges of empathy. A crucial aspect of patience comes with how well we can put ourselves in another person’s shoes, how well we can stand in solidarity, and how open we are to rebuilding our character to feel more deeply the struggles our brothers and sisters around the world undergo.

As time progressed throughout the day, the search for good food began. Although stopping by the mini pop-up stands providing various options was a good choice, my interest was piqued by the Guru Ka Langar being served by our Sikh friends outside of the main building. The beauty of Langar, which translates to “open kitchen,” is the instant wave of hospitality one feels when being greeted at the door by fellow Sikh community members who make sure you feel at home. The act of sharing is at the center of Langar, with important characteristics of “nishkam sewa” (self-less service) and “daya” (compassion) being a part of the hospitable atmosphere in the space [4]. Langar allows for community members to serve their guests in a selfless manner through humble actions, taking us back to the importance of dialogic Sufism. The act of sewa reminds one of how dialogue can be delivered by words that are spoken, as well as the kindness felt between the gestures and actions one exchanges with another.

The Parliament’s convening is crucially important for this generation, as well as the next, to create inclusive spaces for members of all beliefs and spiritual practices. Inclusivity brings diverse, integrated perspectives that bloom with the assistance of knowledge sharing and discovering common ground. The need to attain knowledge and refresh one’s mind by interacting with other brothers and sisters emphasizes what Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, a 20th century Islamic scholar and writer of the “Risale-i Nur” (“Epistles of Light”), reminds individuals in Al-Mathnawi Al-Nuri (Seedbed of the Light): “Knowledge without the heart’s insight is ignorance” [5].

Often, we forget how the call to conscience begins with our intentions—intentions that should seek insight into various fields of knowledge. This insight is sometimes awakened by a small conversation or simply from seeing a dance group train before their upcoming performance. Stumbling upon the humble team of Tai Ji Men Qigong Academy’s dance team at the Parliament, our method of communication was established through a friend who spoke fluent Chinese. Monica Wang, a representative with the academy, emphasized how they were a part of the program to “express love and peace from ourselves and to interact with more people.” The pin she gave to our team members is one that we will cherish for years to come and is a reminder to humanity to always keep an open heart for those our lives intersect with as our journey transcends all limits and boundaries through the power of humility and respect that is derived from selflessly serving humanity.

Notes

1. Parliament of the Worlds Religions. (n.d.). 2023 Chicago. Parliament of the Worlds Religions.https://parliamentofreligions.org/parliament/2023-chicago-2/
2. Kim, H. C. (n.d.). Fethullah Gülen’s Dialogic Sufism: A theological framework. Gulen Movement. https://www.gulenmovement.com/fethullah-gulens-dialogic-sufism-a-theological-framework.html
3. Tatter, G. (2019, January 18). Achieving King’s Beloved Community. Harvard Graduate School of Education. https://www.gse.harvard.edu/ideas/news/19/01/achieving-kings-beloved-community
4. Guru Ka Langar: The Sikh ethos of Sharing Hospitality – Parliament of the world’s religions. Parliament of the Worlds Religions. (2019, September 17). https://parliamentofreligions.org/articles/guru-ka-langar-the-sikh-ethos-of-sharing-hospitality/
5. Nursi, S. (2007). Al-Mathnawi al-Nuri: Seedbed of the light. The Light.

When our plane landed in Chiang Rai, the northernmost city of Thailand, my friend and I were at the peak of our excitement.

We were excited because we were going to meet the venerated Fr. Thomas Michel, a scholar and thinker who had met the Hizmet Movement in the budding days of its interfaith dialogue movement in Turkey; Fr. Michel had become one of the movement’s first dialogue friends.

Thomas Michel was born in 1941 in St. Louis, Missouri. The family’s fourth child, Fr. Michel had an older brother and two sisters. His father worked as an accountant for the US Postal Service, and his mother was a homemaker. Describing his parents as profoundly devout Catholics, Fr. Michel also stated his mother’s diligence at church activities. He cherished the environment in which he grew up; he decided early in his life to become a priest and serve God through His people. In 1967, he was ordained as a Catholic priest and began his ministry.

Fr. Michel was kind enough to welcome us at the airport with his humility, modesty, energy, and loving gaze, although we had never met before. Without delay, we were on our way to his educational institution, 30 minutes from the city center.

Fr. Michel, who was in his 80s, fascinated us with his every gesture and kindness, and got younger in our eyes with his energy. During our conversation along the way, we learned that Fr. Michel had settled in Chiang Rai for an educational project carried out by the Jesuits in a village close to the “Golden Triangle,” where the borders of Myanmar, Laos, and Thailand intersect, and that he was working as an English teacher in the school. He gave us a detailed tour of the grounds. Finally, he explained the details of the church they had recently laid the foundation for and built as an annex. When we learned he lived in a room on the second floor of the main administrative building and lived his life as a recluse, my friend and I exchanged glances, perhaps feeling the bliss of meeting another life dedicated to the path of education, similar to the life of the venerated Hodjaefendi, who lived in a small room among his students.

Fr. Thomas Michel is a man of heart who competently understands his time and the age he lives in. He applies this sensitivity and understanding with a positive action-based life philosophy without confining it to the molds of inert thought and spreads and gives color to his ideals and values wherever he goes. When he was a teacher in Indonesia, his Muslim students asked him, “If you want to study Christianity, why don’t you consider studying Islam as a bridge for the followers of both religions to better understand and recognize their faiths?”

Fr. Michel said, “I didn’t know much about Islam until then. I accepted the advice of my students and decided to do a PhD on Islam.”

Although these Muslim students did not realize what a great good they were doing, Fr. Michel would then chart a distinctive path for himself and would become one of the architects of a great friendship between Christians and Muslims.

Having completed his PhD in Islam with a dissertation titled “Ibn Taymiyah’s Al-Jawab al-Sahih: A Muslim Theologian’s Critique of Christianity” at the University of Chicago, Fr. Michel studied Arabic in countries like Egypt and Lebanon and had the opportunity to meet and get to know Muslims in several Islamic countries. Speaking about this period as a doctoral student, Fr. Michel said, “The renowned Pakistani Professor Fazlur Rahman was my Ph.D. advisor. It was under his supervision that I studied the main sources of Islam and in particular the works of Ibn Taymiyah.” All this training would open the door for Fr. Michel to become the head of the Office for Relations with Muslims at the Vatican.

Fr. Michel, who was in charge of the Pope’s relations and communication with the Muslim World at the Vatican between 1981 and 1994, would also meet some acquaintances that would make a great impression. During this period, an official academic exchange program was signed between Turkey and the Vatican to provide mutual education on Islam and Christianity. “On this occasion, I visited and lived in Turkey several times, sometimes for a long duration,” said Fr. Michel, “I gave lectures on Christianity at the theology faculties of universities in Ankara, Konya, and Izmir.” Fr. Michel also said he had the opportunity to visit several provinces in Turkey and get to know many people through various programs. As he recounted some of his experiences, he made us smile and reminded us once again how crucial it is for people of different faiths and religions to get to know one another.

When he came to Konya to deliver a six-month training program, Fr. Michel said, “I had rented an unfurnished detached house, so I went out to buy some things. On my way home, as I was carrying the floor mattress I had bought on my back, the neighbors asked who I was and what I was doing. I told them that I was American and that I had come to the Selcuk University as an instructor. They asked what I taught, and I told them that I was a lecturer at the Faculty of Theology. ‘Then you are a Muslim,’ they said, and I replied, ‘No, I am a Christian and I teach Christianity.’ Some neighbors accompanied me home. Soon they brought tables, chairs, and kitchen utensils. My house was ready in an instant. When I came back from the university after my first shift on Monday, I saw someone I didn’t know sitting at the doorstep of the house. We exchanged greetings. He told me he had been there for some time but couldn’t enter the house, so he waited for me at the door. When I said, ‘I had locked the door and left,’ he said, ‘You don’t need to lock your door, everyone knows one another here. There are no strangers here. Anyway, we will take care of your house and protect it.’ This was something I was not used to.

“The next day, I said to myself, ‘Okay,’ and left the house without locking the door. When I came back from the university, I was surprised by the sight! There was food in the kitchen, my clothes were ironed, and the house was tidy. This continued for the six months I was there.” On the last day, before leaving, to thank the gentlemen and ladies who prepared food for him and helped him daily, Fr. Michel asked the person he had seen waiting outside his door “Can you put me in touch with them? He said, ‘There is no need. Because these people did it for the sake of God, not for you. And since He sees it all, there is no need.’

“This answer touched me deeply and I will always remember it as a living example of the truth of Jesus Christ’s saying, ‘The good deed of one hand should not be seen by the other.’”

Fr. Michel said he had experienced another interesting incident in Gaziantep, Turkey, and that he was more impressed by the theme and the details than the incident itself. “I visited the educational institutions opened by the Hizmet Movement both as part of my duties in the Vatican and on other occasions. I had visited an educational institution in Cambodia. Long after this visit, I met a plumber who owned a small business in Gaziantep, a city I visited on one occasion in Turkey. While talking to him, he told me, ‘I am sponsoring a school abroad.’ When I asked him where and which school he sponsored, he told me the name of the school I had visited in Cambodia. It is rather original and exquisite that a group of Muslims from Gaziantep organize such activities in Cambodia, a Buddhist country, regardless of faith. I was particularly impressed by the dedication of the people and the fact that they carried out projects far beyond their means.” When we asked Fr. Michel the reason for his visible love and affection for the Hizmet volunteers, he said, “I love them because I see them doing the things that I have been trying to do and that I have dedicated my life for. That is why I am happy to be with them.”

He recounted another incident that profoundly moved him: “When I visited Zamboanga, in the south of the Philippines, because of the conflict between Christians and Muslims, to see what could be done to establish peace and tranquility between the peoples of the region, I saw a building in the middle of the conflict and a signboard with the words ‘International Tolerance School.’ I walked inside with my team and saw it was an educational institution where Christian and Muslim children received education together. Witnessing this Hizmet school standing like an island of peace amidst conflicts and tensions, and witnessing the educational activities carried out there, we once again realized the importance of the Hizmet Movement’s contributions.”

Fr. Michel, who was in Turkey in the ’90s, speaks with pride about the students he met there. He says he experienced no negative incidents, that Muslim Turkish university students respected him, and that a relationship developed between them that led to constructive friendships. Fr. Michel got to know the Risale-i Nur by Bediuzzaman Said Nursi and met Fethullah Gülen on the advice of his Turkish students. These encounters left an indelible mark on his life. “I had never heard the names of these two precious Islamic scholars before,” says Fr. Michel.

Talking about the meeting between Fethullah Gülen and Pope John Paul II and the preparations for this meeting as the head of the Department for Relations with Muslims, Fr. Michel said, “This meeting proved immensely productive in terms of preparing the ground for miscellaneous exquisite projects,” adding that he welcomed Fethullah Gülen to the Vatican where the meeting was to take place and explained the details of the meeting: “On that day, Hodjaefendi proposed to the Pope a joint university project in which all religions would be taught in tandem with positive sciences, emphasizing the significance of the people of different faiths getting to know one another and that this would contribute significantly to world peace. Finding this proposal appropriate, the Vatican assigned me to do the groundwork and plan the joint project. Subsequently, different initiatives and meetings were held in Sanliurfa.” Fr. Michel expressed his deep regret that this project ran into political and financial issues and wasn’t completed.

When we asked Fr. Michel what advice he would give young people seeking to pursue interfaith dialogue, he said, “Half of our lives are spent cooking and eating, and we always live these moments with someone else. We should find opportunities to share this time with people of different faiths and build bridges of love in this way.” He added, “You will always meet people who hate these activities, but never be disheartened… I always advise everyone, especially Christians, that if they receive an invitation from Muslims to iftar dinners or other programs, they should attend. I tell them, ‘Meet them. You will see that these occasions open doors to so beautiful friendships.’”

Fr. Michel has made key comparative readings and assessments on the dialogue aspects of Christianity and Islam, especially in his books Insights from the Risale-i Nur: Said Nursi’s Advice for Modern Believers and Peace and Dialogue in a Plural Society: Contributions of the Hizmet Movement at a Time of Global Tensions, which he wrote after being acquainted with the works of Bediuzzaman Said Nursi and Fethullah Gülen.

Bediuzzaman Said Nursi talked about the importance of Muslim and Christian unity in the 1910s. The word that appears frequently in the Risale-i Nur, is ‘ittihad’ i.e., union, a stronger and more encompassing word than dialogue (Peace and Dialogue in a Plural Society: Contributions of the Hizmet Movement at a Time of Global Tensions, p. 36).

It has been noted that, “The fact Said Nursi mentions only Christian unity and not Buddhist, Hindu and several other faiths in the Risale-i Nur Collection may be due to the fact that Anatolia was not close to these faiths and geographies at the time the works were written” (Insights from the Risale-i Nur: Said Nursi’s Advice for Modern Believers, p. 15).

Fr. Michel points out that Said Nursi refers in his Risale-i Nur to the fact that it would be a great mistake to consider Christianity an enemy, and emphasized that Nursi said that the biggest enemy of both religions are ‘ignorance, poverty and division,’ and that Muslims, Christians, and Jews can overcome this by fighting against them together (Peace and Dialogue in a Plural Society: Contributions of the Hizmet Movement at a Time of Global Tensions, p. 32). Gülen went even further: “The fact Fethullah Gülen says and writes that all faiths in the world, even atheists, should be included in dialogue efforts shows how open and inclusive he is on this issue” (Peace and Dialogue in a Plural Society: Contributions of the Hizmet Movement at a Time of Global Tensions, p. 147). “Fethullah Gülen says the prescription for humanity to avoid a common conflict is common respect and understanding” (Peace and Dialogue in a Plural Society: Contributions of the Hizmet Movement at a Time of Global Tensions, p. 48)

Commenting on the overlapping ideas between Pope John Paul II and Gülen, Fr. Michel wrote that, “Both believe that peace can be achieved through justice and forgiveness” (Peace and Dialogue in a Plural Society: Contributions of the Hizmet Movement at a Time of Global Tensions, pp. 44).

In a section in which he compared Pope Benedict XVI and Gülen, Fr. Michel noted that both emphasized the importance of love and truth in democratic societies, and that at this point they were similar in terms of their interpretations and discourses on religion-democracy, religious freedoms, and democracy-social development: “You can see how Pope Benedict and Gülen want to realize in a similar way what we might call Christian Humanism and Islamic Humanism in the name of modern societies today, where democracies are in fact active and societies have reached this level” (Peace and Dialogue in a Plural Society: Contributions of the Hizmet Movement at a Time of Global Tensions, p. 51).

Fr. Michel stated that Gülen’s educational philosophy is the basis of the education system in Hizmet schools and is a reflection of Said Nursi’s “Unity of Mind and Heart”: “It is seen that Gülen attempts to put forth an education model for future generations in which they can be ‘integrated with their past and best equipped for their future.’” Fr. Michel quoted Gülen on the religion-science divide: “Soon the long-standing conflict between religion and science will come to an end, or at least be recognized as an absurd situation.” He also referred to Gülen’s works, where Gülen has stated that the future of societies will be shaped by the quality of education they give to their youth (Peace and Dialogue in a Plural Society: Contributions of the Hizmet Movement at a Time of Global Tensions, p. 68)

This is just a short introduction to the ideas of Fr. Thomas Michel, a profoundly valuable scholar and thinker who has led interreligious dialogue activities and lived every moment of his life believing in the importance of this issue. We hope that distinct minds—like Fr. Thomas Michel— who believe in the unity, brotherhood, and peace of all faiths can foster this vision and influence the advocates of dialogue and peaceful coexistence through his inspiring life. In this way, a growing number of people can act as antidotes to unproductive debates and tensions and contribute to the peace and tranquility of humanity.

Fr. Thomas Michel – A life dedicated to education and interfaith dialogue

– Born in 1941 in St. Louis, MO as his family’s fourth child

– Ordained as a Catholic priest in 1967

– Took vows as a Jesuit in Indonesia, in 1969

– Completed his PhD in Islam at the University of Chicago

– Studied Arabic in Egypt and Lebanon

– Taught Christian theology at Turkish universities for four years in Ankara, Konya and Izmir

– Served as the Head of the Office for Relations with Muslims at the Vatican between 1981 and 1994

– Served as the Jesuit Secretary for Interreligious Dialogue in Rome and as Secretary for Interreligious Affairs for the Catholic Bishops of Asia between 1994 and 2008

– Served in Indonesia, The Philippines, and Thailand

– Taught in Georgetown University in the US and Qatar

– Published extensively on modern Muslim thinkers such as Said Nursi and Fethullah Gülen

As the famous Sufi poet Jalal al-Din al-Rumi (d. 1273) once said, “Listen with ears of tolerance, see through eyes of compassion, speak with the language of love” [1]. It was Rumi’s mystical falling in love with God that animated his affective poetry. For many a modern-day observer, however, the connotations of such words as “religion” and “God” would seem divisive and sectarian beyond any hope. There are, however, two prominent theologians of our time who demonstrate that religion and inclusivism are not mutually exclusive: the Canadian philosopher and Catholic theologian Bernard Lonergan (1904-1984) and the Turkish Islamic intellectual Bediuzzaman Said Nursi (1873-1960). The two have wielded, and still do, considerable influence upon their respective religious milieus, presenting original and yet faithful interpretations of their respective traditions that are sensitive to the intellectual and spiritual exigencies of modernity. The two showed that their interpretations of religious experience are conducive to peacemaking and interreligious dialogue.

During his lifetime, Nursi several times reached out to Christian leaders, the most important instances being sending his works to Pope Pius XII in 1950 and visiting the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras in Istanbul in 1953 [2]. Further, despite constant state persecution and arbitrary imprisonments, Nursi’s whole life exemplified his innovative and yet deeply Islamic notion of a “spiritual” or “educational” jihad (jihad-i manawi), one that never resorts to violence and opposes not physical, but “spiritual” enemies: ignorance, poverty, and division. Fr. Thomas Michel, who worked in the Vatican as a Head of the Office for relations with Muslims from 1981 to 1994, states, “Along with Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Said Nursi must be seen as one of the Twentieth Century’s great exponents of non-violent resistance” [3].

Lonergan, in turn, is an important Neo-Thomist thinker who was once presented on the cover of Time magazine as “one of the finest philosophic thinkers of the twentieth Century” [4]. He worked out a transcendental theory of intentional interiority that allows him to argue that dialogue is a must not only between empirical science and theology but also between different religions and diverse worldviews. This article will demonstrate how the two thinkers base their idea of interreligious dialogue on their interpretations of the inward dimension of their religious traditions as an “infatuation with beauty” and a “falling in love,” as well as analysing how their interpretations can foster interfaith dialogue.

Nursi’s philosophy of interreligious dialogue

The value that Nursi places on accepting and understanding the culturally “Other” can be better portrayed if we attend to his epistemology. Nursi incessantly underscores that all his treatises (generically called the Risale-i Nur [Epistles of Light]) are inspired by the Qur’an: he almost always cites a verse of the Qur’an at the beginning of key passages and provides, through what follows, an exegesis of the verse [5]. His interpretation of the Qur’an, in turn, insistently reverts his reader’s attention to the observed data of the sensible world in order to reveal how the created entities point beyond themselves to the divine “Wholly Other” – so much so that, for Nursi, the entire universe might be seen as a materialized form of the Qur’an [6]. This radiant inward dimension of being is called Malakutiyyah (“Intellective Realm”), whereas the outward dimension of the physical world, Mulkiyyah (“Material Realm”). Malakutiyyah discloses itself to anyone who personally reflects and deliberates (tafakkar) on the design of the world after the model provided by Nursi’s exegesis and with the intention of “finding” God in everything. Nursi allegorically assimilates this “Intellective Realm” to the transparent frontside of the mirror. Even if very different forms – some apparently ugly and some apparently beautiful – “intrude” on the Mulkiyyah side of the “mirror,” its “Intellective” aspect always remains transparent and beautiful, as it looks to the Creator of all beings [7]. On the Malakutiyyah level, all individual entities of the world – humanity first and foremost – constantly and ubiquitously partake of divine holiness thanks to their being loci of Allah’s reflected “Superb Names” (al-Asma’ al-Husna) mentioned in the Qur’an. Even if God’s essence (Zhatullah) is ineffable, the divine names’ observable activity in the world displays divine artistry for anyone willing to intend God through his or her reflective thought. Such a thought will show that, for instance, philosophy is based on the Superb Name Hakim (All-Wise), medicine on the Name Shafi (Healer), and geometry on the Name Muqaddir (Determiner), and so on. The same goes for human perfections and all levels of human virtues – they are founded on the Superb Names [8].

It is this inward “Qur’anic” outlook that allows Nursi to perceive everything in the world as intelligible and dialogic in the sense that all created entities – different as they might be in appearance – are essentially beautiful divine “mirrors” telling something about God and requiring that their observers appreciate them: “Beauty and fairness desire to see and be seen. Both require the existence of yearning witnesses and bewildered admirers” [9]. This yearning and this admiration show all things as inwardly lovable and allows Nursi to say, “Love is the cause of the universe’s existence and is what binds it; and it is both the light of the universe and its life. Since man is the most comprehensive fruit of the universe, a love that will conquer the universe has been included in his heart, the seed of that fruit” [10].

Of course, Nursi’s constant focus on his “Qur’anic lenses” might invoke – in some people’s minds – a sense of absolutism and inability to learn from the culturally Other. To ward off such a possibility, Nursi bases his idea of beings as “mirrors of God” on two aspects. First, in the same way as the darkness serves as a foil for the beauty of light to manifest, the impotence of human beings – their weaknesses, shortcomings, and mistakes – serve as a foil for the power of the All-Powerful, All-Subsistent and Perfect One to manifest His Names all the more intensively. So, Nursi warns that the believer is to use the reflective thought to see how the Superb Names self-manifest through things and through his or her own being, not in things or in his or her being, lest he or she come to deify or absolutize his or her personality, culture, or nationality [11]. Secondly, human beings are only mirrors to the Names, not the authentic possessors thereof [12]. (That is to say, humans, thanks to their self-awareness and if they are not self-conceited, are able to compare their activity/attributes with those of the Transcendent and come to appreciate the latter’s awe-inspiring beauty, i.e. come to know God. Someone who has built a physical house and self-identifies as a “builder,” for instance, can profoundly admire the One who has built the magnificent Universe.) Our “mirror-like” nature, however, manifests the Superb Names only in an incomplete manner; for Nursi, we “possess” them in a metaphorical, partial, and temporary manner. This, in turn, means that our “mirror-like” natures are inherently open to learn from the manifestations of the Superb Names within other cultures and religions.

This being the case, for Nursi, no animosity can make serious inroads in the minds of those who can contemplate the Real in this vein. Even if someone does not accept the Real as such, this “someone” remains His mirror, epiphany, and masterpiece, which means that he or she is to be ontologically appreciated, not violated against. However, in Nursi’s view, one is able to realize this sense of appreciation of the world only if one purifies one’s sense of self – which he calls “I-ness” (anā) – from any egocentrism. If anā looks at one’s selfhood with an attitude that is self-indicative rather than God-indicative, the entirety of the reflections of the Names come to be attributed to the human person’s ego, thereby giving rise to spiritual ignorance and intolerance [13].

Lonergan’s philosophy of interreligious dialogue

The very heart of Lonergan’s take on interreligious dialogue rests in what he calls “GEM” (“Generalized Empirical Method”): it provides a basis not only for any interdisciplinary cooperation, but for interreligious dialogue as well. It presupposes that, at least theoretically, the disinterested desire to know and wonder – which is pertinent to all humans as long as they are humans and not only scientists, historians of religion, or theologians – drives all humans to be attentive to data, intelligent in understanding, reasonable in judgments, and responsible in decisions [14]. Lonergan’s system proposes that the very structure of the interlocutors’ intentional consciousness leads them to seek what is authentic and true in the ways of the religious Other and to anticipate the possibility of “integrated understanding” between various religious traditions. Further, the interlocutors should see any differences, obvious as they are at first glance, as “genetic,” i.e., reconcilable, rather than “dialectic,” i.e., irreconcilable. Any point-blank refusal of the interlocutors to see the existence of at least some important similarities with the Other, signals, for Lonergan, an unauthenticity of their own thinking due to its affliction with one or several biases [15]. That is, the powerful drive of the interlocutors’ disinterested desire to wonder in an unrestricted manner might be frustrated by one or several of the following four biases. The first one is dramatic bias, that is, the existence of psychic aberrations or underdevelopment within the interlocutors caused by their “psychic wounds.” The second one is egoistic bias, i.e., one’s self-centeredness that refuses to allow for even a minimal degree of self-abnegation necessary to consider the common good. The third one is collective bias that “favors what is best for the group at the expense of others outside the group.” The fourth one is general bias that disregards questions that do not seem to be of immediate practical importance [16].

Further, Lonergan asserts that, if one self-transcends by remaining not only attentive, not only intelligent, not only reasonable, but also responsible (he calls these levels of intentionality as the “four transcendentals”), one comes to be well-positioned to reach the fullness of one’s ontological, axiological, and epistemological horizons by mystically falling “in love with God” in an immediate and unrestricted manner [17]. This love operates within the parameters of one’s intentional interiority, and yet it comes as a free gift of God’s grace that brings about the most genuine state of one’s relation to God, namely a “dynamic state of being in love in an unrestricted manner” [18]. This unmediated experience of God’s love is transcultural as far as its inner nature goes; from the standpoint of different cultural contexts and historical periods, it is mediated differently through different religious and cultural expressions, practices, and traditions [19]. Lonergan calls this experience as the “infrastructure” or “inner word” which ensues upon the Holy Spirit “flooding one’s heart,” and it becomes a hermeneutical toolkit for one’s authentic response to the challenges of interreligious dialogue [20].

Even if this mystical state of “being-in-love” is transcultural, for Lonergan, the Christian claim that religion is being in love with God in an unrestricted manner, renders Christianity unique. Lonergan insists that the “outer word” of the Christian tradition is more than just a religious experience objectified: it was given as revelation, coming from Jesus Christ [21]. That is, for Lonergan, “infrastructure” that informs the very spirit of religious faith, presupposes its mediation and objectification vis-à-vis the world through the “superstructure” of language and beliefs, meanings and values, scripture and sacraments, and community and culture. For him, however, Christian doctrine is this “superstructure” par excellence, and its unique appropriateness cannot be transcended by any universal mystical experience [22]. In other words, for Lonergan, the authoritativeness and structure of this outer word is such that it can be conceived as the most direct mediation of immediacy and becomes, if properly appropriated, “second immediacy” [23].

Differences-in-Similarities

As follows from the abovementioned, the positions of the two thinkers can be broadly identified as “inclusivism.” While they acknowledge that God’s salvific activity can unfold everywhere in the world in an overt or covert manner, they make it clear that, wherever it unfolds, it does so as either the ubiquitous operation of the Qur’anic “Superb Names” (Nursi) or the Christian notion of “love of God flooding our hearts” (Lonergan). Both seem to have realized that most people are never totally detached from their tradition and that any God-talk is bound to be “confessional” – but not necessarily “confessionalist.” Naturally, one starts interreligious dialogue based on the minimal “non-negotiable,” premises of one’s religion.

At first glance, Lonergan’s clear distinction between the “inner word” as pertaining to the “unmediated experience of the mystery of love” and the “outer word” as this love’s mediated expression, allows him to see a somewhat deeper unity behind the differences. For him, the gift of God’s love justifies dialogue with “all Christians, with non-Christians, and even with atheists who may love God in their hearts while not knowing him with their heads” [24]. For Nursi, in contrast, aggressive atheism is evil to be wrestled with by the “Qur’anic sword of persuasion”; it is irreconcilable with genuine civilization. Indeed, he sees an atheistic civilization a contradiction in terms, for genuine civilization is possible only if humans recognize the transcendent meaning of their lives and thus gain in virtue [25].

Yet, the importance of the mystical love of God as the inner telos behind all events is the common point in which the dialectics of their difference might be resolved. Nursi’s overall accent on one’s affective appreciation of the beauty of the world as reflective of the divine beauty, allows one to contextualize his apparently incoherent lack of charity toward atheistically minded people. It might hark back to such facts as his identification of the penetration of atheistic assertions and materialistic ideologies as the root problem facing the Muslim world at the start of the 20^th century or his lack of travel to Europe at the time of peace (he spent 2 years in Russia but only as a prisoner-of-war) [26]. The inner structure of Nursi’s theology makes it incumbent upon his followers – under normal social and political conditions – to pursue meaningful dialogue even with non-religious or atheistic people. Another possibility to reconcile Nursi’s position with that of Lonergan’s is to address the meaning of the word “atheism.” If it denotes, as John Paul II said, “not knowing the true nature of created reality but absolutizing it, and therefore ‘idolizing’ it,” [27] then Lonergan’s discourse on biases would rather concur with Nursi’s strictures on atheism.

Conclusion

As Ian Markham, a Nursi scholar and Episcopal priest says, in order for any interfaith encounter to be meaningful, one has to know, understand, and love one’s own tradition, for one will “find it easy to recognize in others the same depth of commitment and affection” [28]. Indeed, two music enthusiasts (say, one involved in jazz, the other in choral) “can relate much more effectively to each other than with the musical amateur who cannot read music” [29]. One’s discovery of the common “inner dimensions” within different faith-traditions, is greatly facilitated when one first fathoms the profundity of one’s own one. Nursi and Lonergan are deeply in love with their traditions and yet contemplate, through the inner mystical dimensions of their traditions, the beauty of other ways. Even if the “inner dimensions” of the two religions are remarkably transparent and transcultural, there should be some place that can determine the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of insights emerging from one’s encounter with the Other. There is an inward spirit behind any outward form; in order to penetrate to the spirit, however, one first needs the form. One can argue that it is this aspect of both thinkers’ ideas that makes them so appealing to their respective religious milieus today. If Ian Markham says that Nursi’s “Qur’anic” approach could, in principle, be “affirmed by any traditional Muslim,”[30] arguably the same statement can be made about Lonergan, too: his “inner word” can be seen as nothing but a harmonious development of the current position of Catholic church regarding the “seeds of the Word” present and active in different religions.

References

1. Mahmoud Masaeli and Rico Sneller, “Introduction,” in Responses of Mysticism to Religious Terrorism: Sufism and Beyond, ed. Mahmoud Masaeli & Rico Sneller (Oud-Turnhout: Gompel&Svacina, 2020), 8.
2. Thomas Michel, “Muslim-Christian Dialogue and Cooperation in the Thought of Bediuzzaman Said Nursi,” in Said Nursi’s Views on Muslim-Christian Understanding, ed. Shukran Vahide (Istanbul: Soz Basim Yayin, 2005), 36.
3. Thomas Michel, “Dialogue of Ideas between the Thought of Pope John Paul II and the Risale-I Nur,” in Globalization, Ethics, and Islam, ed. Ian Markham and Ibrahim Ozdemir, (London and New York: Routledge, 2005), 44.
4. Gerard Whelan, “The Continuing Significance of Bernard Lonergan,” Thinking Faith, https://www.thinkingfaith.org/articles/20080923_1.htm (accessed August 24, 2021).
5. Ian Markham, An Introduction to Said Nursi: Life, Thought and Writings (Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate, 2011), 18.
6. Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, Sualar [Rays], (Istanbul: Soz Basim Yayin, 2003), 200.
7. Said Nursi, Signs of Miraculousness (Istanbul: Sozler Publications, 2004), 72, in Colin Turner, The Qur’an Revealed: A Critical Analysis of Said Nursi’s Epistles of Light (Berlin: GerlachPress, 2013), 91.
8. Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, The Words: On the Nature and Purposes of Man, Life, and All Things, trans. Sukran Vahide (Istanbul: Sozler Publications, 2008), 655.
9. Nursi, Words, 80.
10. Nursi, Words, 367.
11. Farid al-Ansari, Miftāḥ al-Nūr fī Mafāhīm Rasā’il al-Nūr (Miknas: Jami‘at al-Sulṭān al-Mawlā Ismā‘īl, Kindle Edition), 117-118.
12. Al-Ansari, Miftāḥ, 115.
13. Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, Al-Mathnawi Al-Nuri: Seedbed of the Light, trans. Huseyin Akarsu (New Jercey: Light, 2007), 376.
14. Bernard Lonergan, Method in Theology, ed. Robert M. Doran and John D. Dadosky (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2017), 101-2.
15. John Dadosky, The Structure of Religious Knowing: Encountering the Sacred in Eliade and Lonergan (New York: State University of New York Press, 2004), 35, 38.
16. Bernard Lonergan, Insight: A Study of Human Understanding (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1992, 214-5, 242-253.
17. Lonergan, 2017, 105.
18. Dadosky, 2004, 30.
19. Joseph Flanagan, “Lonergan’s New Context for Theology,” Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia 63, (2007), 211 (193-215).
20. Dadosky, 2004, 32.
21. Ibid.
22. William Johnston, The Inner Eye of Love (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, Inc., 1978), 65, in Nancy C. Ring, Doctrine within the Dialectic of Subjectivity and Objectivity: A Critical Study of the Positions of Paul Tillich and Bernard Lonergan, (San Francisco: Mellen Research University Press, 1991), 145-6. Dadosky, 144.
23. Ring, 1991, 147.
24. Lonergan, 2017, 261.
25. Markham, “Secular or Religious Foundations,” in Globalization, Ethics, and Islam, ed. Ian Markham and Ibrahim Ozdemir, (London and New York: Routledge, 2005), 72.
26. Patrice C. Brodeur, “The Ethics of Dediuzzaman Said Nursi’s Dialogue with the West in Light of His Concept of ‘Europe,’” in Globalization, Ethics, and Islam, 89.
27. John Paul II, “General Audience,” Vatican.Va, Wednesday 14 April 1999, accessed Dec. 9, 2021, https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/audiences/1999/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_14041999.html
28. Markham, Ian. Engaging with Bediuzzaman Said Nursi. New York: Routledge, 2016. p. 138.
29. Ibid.
30. Ibid. p. 63.

According to the American Humanist Association, nowadays the word “humanism” is popularly understood to imply “some progressive philosophy of life that, without theism or other supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment” (American Humanist Association). Rarely, if ever, is religion associated with the ideals of humanism. It is even more so in the case of Islam, which after the attacks on September 11 came to be closely associated with “terrorism,” “intolerance,” and “dogmatism” within the modern mind. Most people seem to remain in the dark about the insightful, life-affirming, and broad-minded philosophies developed by modern Islamic thinkers and adopted by millions of Muslims all over the world.

One such thinker is Bediuzzaman Said Nursi (1877-1960), who wrote thousands of pages of Qur’anic commentary collected under the title of the Risale-i Nur (“The Epistles of Light”). The commentary has become the foundation of a number of Turkish-led modern Islamic movements (Mattson 2013, 249). Nursi’s profound exposition of the Qur’an allows him to speak about a unique and positive vision of humanity embedded in the inward dimensions of Islamic scripture. His worldview tends to be all-inclusive, philosophically profound, and featuring the life-affirming concept of “humanity.” While being erected upon Nursi’s firm religious weltanschauung, his philosophy welcomed cultural diversity and highlighted tolerance and forgiveness as sine qua non for the success of any modern Islamic discourse. Hence this paper’s importance: it will highlight the ideas of Nursi that deal with the notion of “humanity” and will thereby show an authentically Islamic vision of humanity. I will explore Nursi’s concept of humanity by showing the way he bases his understanding upon his Qur’anic interpretation. As Nursi scholar Hakan Coruh argues, the exegetical approach of Nursi is rather difficult to classify: while Nursi himself defines his tafsīr as “spiritual” (tafsīr-i ma‘nawī), it is in fact a synthesis of the traditional kalām (speculative theology) and tafsīr, or, in Coruh’s parlance, a kalāmized Qur’anic exegesis (Coruh 2015, 11).

Purposes of Human Life

Bediuzzaman’s understanding of man draws heavily from the Qur’an. The main question that he tries to address is that of the origins and purposes of human life. The answer, he thinks, is provided in chapter 55, verses 1-4: “The Most Compassionate. He has taught the Qur’an. He created humanity. He taught them speech” (Nursi 1994, 23). Indeed, according to Nursi, the Universe—and humans as a part thereof—came to exist through the manifestation of God’s attributes and names, everything therein owing its existence and vitality to Allah. For example, we can see in all animate things His Names “the Ever-Living One” (al-Ḥayy) and “the Giver of Life” (al-Muḥyi); in the universe’s mind-boggling degree of majestic balance, one can contemplate His Name “the Just” (al-‘Adl). Thus, in the Islamic worldview, Allah is not something conflated with the Universe or defined by natural laws; being the sole creator of all and manifesting His names everywhere, He, nonetheless, stands beyond and above Creation: as Nursi says, the Qur’an does not terminate the stable realities of things (Risale-i Nur Enstitusu). In Bediuzzaman’s own analogy, when one stands on the bank of a spring, he can see the sun reflected on the surface of the bubbles of water passing beneath. The “tiny suns” disappear after a short while, as the bubbles burst. The real sun remains intact, of course. This shows that the sun in no way belongs to the bubbles themselves, being everlasting and independent from the existence of the tiny bubbles (Nursi 2008, 296). The same goes for creatures: through their being alive they allude to the Divine and the life of the Divine; through their deaths they disclose His Permanence (al-qayyūmiyyah).

According to the Qur’an, any kind of knowledge—even that which angels are granted, or that which humans acquire because of their own intellectual pursuits—is a Divine gift. As the Qur’an tells us, “They [i.e. angels] said: ‘Glory be to You! We do have no knowledge save what You have taught us. Verily, You are the All-Knowing, All-Wise’” (Q 2:32). Indeed, it was Adam’s ability to grasp the abstract realities of things through naming them that astonished the angels, distinguishing him from the rest of Creation and entitling him to become God’s viceroy on Earth. For Nursi, the divine origin of the Qur’an renders it an unfailing criterion enabling one to distinguish between authentic and inauthentic knowledge (Nursi 1994, 23). Nursi defines the Qur’an as the embodiment of truth. In the book Ishārāt al-I‘jāz fī Maẓann al-Ijāz (“The Indications of Inimitability in the Loci of Apparent Terseness”), the fifth part of his Qur’anic commentary Risale-i Nur (“Epistles of Light”), Nursi defines the Qur’an as follows:

It is the pre-eternal translator of the great book of the universe; the discloser of the treasures of the divine names concealed in the pages of the earth and the heavens; the key to the truths hidden beneath the lines of events; the treasury of the Most Merciful’s favors and of the pre-eternal addresses, which issue forth from the World of the Unseen beyond the veil of this Manifest World; the sun, foundation, and plan of the spiritual world of Islam, and the map of the worlds of the hereafter. (al-Ansari, 253)

Thus, for him, the real source of the most authentic knowledge is the Qur’anic principles themselves, which “confirm each other in respect of humans’ feelings and intellect, blending them in a Qur’anic combination” (Muhsin 2004, 404). Indeed, according to Nursi, humans can hardly balance out the three aspects of their inner nature, namely their powers of appetite, anger and reasoning (Unal 2007, 51). For the purpose of the Divine test, humans were left unrestrained as far as their use of these inward powers is concerned. For instance, humans are seldom successful at getting the power of their anger to revolve around their courage (which is a combination of anger with reasoning), or in keeping their appetite in check with the principles of chastity (which is a combination of appetite with reasoning). Indeed, our intellect does not always ply the pathway of wisdom (i.e. our understanding of our limits), and justice (as the sum total of all virtues) is yet to be fully maintained in our social life. However, without obtaining this balance, humanity’s happiness is well-nigh impossible. Thus, according to Nursi, only the universal, unfailing intellect of God can cater to our quest for happiness by sending us Divine Revelation (Unal 1998, 24).

Divine Names

Nursi is sure to show that the spiritual viceregency (al-khilāfah al-ma‘nawiyyah) was granted to humanity because of their ability to mirror Divine names and attributes: “Man is a well-composed ode of wisdom proclaiming the manifestations of the Sacred Divine Names, and a seed-like self-evident miracle of Divine power containing all the members of an eternal tree (Nursi 2008, 329).” However, this means that the Divine attribute of “Mutakabbir” (supremely proud) is also reflected in humans, transforming into their self-identity and, sometimes, into outright egotism. Hence the Qur’an says, “We offered the Trust to the Heavens and the Earth and the mountains, and they declined to bear its burden and got afraid thereof. However, humans picked it up” (Q 33:72). Ironically, even if humans oftentimes behave as if they were omnipotent, their direct power is confined to the distance of their arms’ length, for everything further stands out of their immediate command. In fact, physically speaking, the human body is quite helpless compared to other animals. Human knowledge always remains partial in comparison with Allah’s: “O humankind, you are the poor [in relation] to Allah” (Q 35:15). Humankind’s possession of anything is always limited, while their needs are unlimited. One’s mind, thanks to its consciousness of the past and future times, can reduce one to the level of a most wretched animal, for it can arouse in one an insatiable anxiety as to how one can meet one’s unlimited needs. According to Nursi, humans’ duty is to deploy their intellect within the guidelines provided by the universal intellect of the Revelation. They must take recourse to the power of God as an intercessor for their helplessness and resort to His boundless knowledge as a remedy for their ignorance (Unal 2007, 51). Thus, humans’ ontological poverty may become a source of their good qualities. Jealousy might transition into one’s emulating or competing with others with the pure intention of doing good, and one’s ambition can turn into one’s persistence in being virtuous (Unal 2007, 61).

According to Nursi, everything in the Heavens and the Earth serves humans. Humans, however, serve nothing of creaturely order, as their sole existential aim is to serve God, as stipulated in the Qur’an: “I (Allah) did not create the jinns and humans except that they should worship Me,” (Q 51:56) and, “It is He Who created for you all that is on earth” (Q 2:29) (Unal 1994, 4). That is to say, humans act as the ruling kings of nature; thanks to their ability to manage things and manipulate them in a way that benefits them, humans are radically different from animals.

Humans are seen by Nursi as the fruit of the tree of the Universe (al-Ansari, 106). Had any fruit of any tree become sentient and prostrated itself to its Creator, it would have performed an all-embracing type of worship on behalf of the entire tree. Therefore, the fruit is the ultimate goal of the tree and the natural outcome of the tree’s life. In the same vein, humans, being the most perfect creatures in the world, are the latter’s fruit and final goal. As a fruit of a tree bears the whole plan of the tree’s life, the fruit of the universe, that is, humans, are a miniature index and quintessence of everything that the universe contains. To put it differently, humans are microcosms, and the universe is a “macrohuman” (Unal 1998, 4). All chemical and physical elements, indeed, life in all its manifestations—animalistic, vegetative, angelic, or diabolic—is present within humans in the same way it is present in the universe. On this point, Scheler was of the same opinion: humans, he thought, bear within themselves the essence of the whole universe (Unal 1998, 4).

Mirror

According to his Qur’anic anthropology, a unique feature Nursi confers on humans is the notion that we are “mirrors of God.” This conclusion proceeds from the following two aspects:

• In the same way that darkness serves as a foil for the beauty of light, the impotence of humans—their weakness, shortcomings, and mistakes—serve as a foil for the power of the All-Powerful, All-Subsistent, and Perfect One to manifest (al-Ansari, 117, 118).
• Being a mirror of the perfect names of Allah and not the authentic possessor thereof, humans fail to manifest the Divine names and attributes in full. Their partial manifestation within humans is rather meant to highlight the existence of the corresponding names and attributes of Allah, ones that are all-embracing and universal (al-Ansari, 115).

Thus, humans’ lofty attributes serve the mission of being measurement units of the corresponding lofty attributes of the Divine. To put it differently, humanity’s partial and incomplete ability to comprehend the names and attributes of Allah gives it some idea about the unlimited, absolute nature of those names and attributes by the power of contrast. Also, even as far as their physical appearance is concerned, humans are beautiful mirrors of the Divine names and attributes (for instance, their faces are the proof of the inimitable and beautiful creative act) (al-Ansari, 115).  

   Even if humans have the nominal ability to create and manage, Nursi maintains, it is Allah who remains the real creator of everything and its sole manager. Verily, if other creatures “bow” in their servitude to humans, they do so only because Allah meant them to do so and because this “bowing” is their own, unique way of worshipping Allah. This is reflected in the Qur’anic verse “And to Allah prostrates all those within the heavens and the earth, willingly or by compulsion, as do their shadows in the mornings and in the evenings” (Q 13:15).

Dialogue

Another central feature of Nursi is the openness of his philosophy toward dialogue with alternative religious worldviews, especially with that of Christianity. As Ian Markham, a scholar of Nursi’s work, points out, “…Said Nursi is properly labelled an ‘inclusivist.’ He is committed to the truth of Islam… Yet he acknowledges that other traditions have a partial insight into the truth” (Markham 2004, 18). The value that Bediuzzaman placed on dialogue can be understood if we attend to his account of creation. For him everything in the world is intelligible and dialogic, as all entities—different as they might be in appearance—are essentially beautiful mirrors of God requiring that observers appreciate them. As Nursi says in his magnum opus, The Words: “Beauty and fairness desire to see and be seen. Both of these require the existence of yearning witnesses and bewildered admirers” (Nursi 2008, 80). During his lifetime, he several times reached out to Christian leaders, the most important instances being his sending his works to Pope Pius XII in 1950 and the visit that he paid to the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras in Istanbul in 1953. His intention was to invite Muslims and Christians to cooperate against their common existential enemy, atheism (Michel 2005a, 36). According to Nursi, the verse Q 5:51 that calls Muslims “not to take the Jews and the Christians for your friends” is only applicable when the Jews and the Christians demonstrate qualities of disbelief and impiety—and not when they are pious followers of their religion. He also points out that the aforementioned verse should be interpreted within the more general context of Islamic Law. The very fact that Islamic law allows Muslim men to marry Jewish and Christian women suggests for Nursi that, if this profound relationship is allowed, so is friendship between the communities. Most naturally, the spouses will reciprocate love and compassion and will become intimate friends (Michel 2005b, 37). Nursi also found another reason to entertain dialogic relations with Christianity. That is, a Prophetic tradition predicts that, when the end of time will draw close, God-mindful Christians will swell the ranks of Muslims to fight their common adversary—atheism (Michel 2005b, 20). Indeed, the ideological opposition envisaged by Nursi is not against Christianity. Rather, it is against those elements of Western civilization that are alien to the spirit of what he believed to be true Christianity and that are focused on the anthropocentrism of Greco-Roman philosophical thought, which absolutized the human person and marginalized God (Michel 2005a, 29).

All in all, Nursi’s approach to humanity is informed by his unique interpretation of the Qur’an. Well-trained in the ways of modern philosophy and steeped in his own Islamic tradition, he spoke about some sort of theocentric humanism, in which one’s devotion to God necessitates one’s unconditional love for human beings as God’s best creatures to mirror His names and attributes. His is unique Qur’anic philosophy which endeavors to capture the very essence of being while remaining informed by the Qur’anic outlook. According to Nursi, those steeped in philosophy alone “consciously walk along dead end streets or through such labyrinths wherein finding the way becomes increasingly difficult” (Unal 2007, 66). In his sight, philosophy unaided by revelatory truths is too vague, convoluted, and idiosyncratic. As for his Qur’anic approach, it flaunts realism and objectivity. Based on centuries-old Islamic tradition, it proffers criteria that can be easily practiced. Finally, based on its notion of humans as the best pattern of God’s creation, the Scripture-based philosophy of Nursi envisages open-mindedness to other worldviews and is intrinsically inclusive—something that should be celebrated in our divided contemporary world.

References

• al-Ansari, Farid. Miftāḥ al-Nūr fī Mafāhīm Rasā’il al-Nūr (Miknas: Jami‘at al-Sulṭān al-Mawlā Ismā‘īl), 253, Kindle.
• “Are You Humanist?” American Humanist Association, http:///americanhumanist .org (accessed on Nov 19, 2019).
• Coruh, Hakan. “Bediuzzaman Said Nursi and his understanding of exegesis in his Risale-i-Nur,” (PhD diss., Australian Catholic University, 2015), 11, ACU Research Bank.
• Markham, Ian. “Truth and Toleration: The Said Nursi Achievement,” in Bringing Faith, Meaning & Peace to Life in a Multicultural World: The Risale-i Nur Approach (Istanbul: Nesil, 2004), 18.
• Ingrid Mattson, The Story of the Qur’an: Its History and Place in Muslim Life, (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013), 249.
• Michel, Thomas. “Muslim-Christian Dialogue and Cooperation in the Thought of Bediuzzaman Said Nursi,” in Said Nursi’s Views on Muslim-Christian Understanding, ed. Shukran Vahide (Istanbul: Soz Basim Yayin, 2005a), 36.
• Michel, Thomas. “Nursi’s View of Tolerance, Engagement with the Other, and the Future of Dialogue,” in Said Nursi’s Views on Muslim-Christian Understanding, ed. Shukran Vahide (Istanbul: Soz Basim Yayin, 2005b), 20.
• Muhsin, “‘Abd al-Hamid. The Theory of Knowledge in the Qur’an according to the Risale-i Nur,” in A Contemporary Approach to Understanding the Qur’an. The Example of the Risale-i Nur, ed. Abdullah Varlik (Istanbul: Sozler Publications, 2004), 404.
• Nursi, Bediuzzaman Said. The Words: On the Nature and Purposes of Man, Life, and All Things, (Istanbul: Sozler Publications) 2008, 296.
• Nursi, Bediuzzaman Said. “Ishārāt al-I‘jāz fī Maẓann al-Ijāz,” in Kulliyat Rasa’il al-Nur 5, trans. Ihsan Qasim al-Salih (Beirut: Nur, 1994), 23.
• Risale-i Nur Enstitusu, “’Her Sey O’ Mudur, Yoksa ‘Her Sey O’ndan’ Midir?” Sorularla Said Nursi, http://www.sorularlasaidnursi.com/her-sey-o-mudur-yoksa-her-sey-ondan-midir (accessed on Nov 19, 2019).
• Unal, Ali. Islamic Perspectives on Science: Knowledge and Responsibility (New Jersey: Light), 2007, 51.
• Unal, Ali. “Kant, Scheler and Bediuzzaman on Man,” Fountain Magazine 24, no. 4 (October-December 1998), https://fountainmagazine.com/1998/issue-24-october-december-1998/kant-scheler-and-bediuzzaman-on-man (accessed on Nov 17, 2019).

About 3500 years ago in Egypt, Moses began to preach the religion that calls for submission to God, which he inherited from his forefather Abraham. According to the belief in that era, the ruler was considered a son of God, even a god on earth.

The Pharaoh said (to his chiefs): “Let me kill Moses, and let him call upon his Lord! I fear lest he alter your religion (replacing it with his), or lest he provoke disorder in the land” (Mu’min 40:26). What is meant by “religion” as mentioned in the verse refers to the civilization, i.e. the overall social order, of that society. The pharaoh was rather concerned about his own reign, like many other tyrants, but he professed as if he was concerned about his people and that he wanted to get rid of Moses for their good.

The following verse expresses this fact: “They said: ‘These two men are surely sorcerers intent on driving you out of your land with their sorcery, and doing away with your exemplary way of life’” (Taha 20:63).

Then the Pharaoh increased his torment to the believers and closed up their temple. In that case, God commanded Moses and his brother to take their houses as places of worship (a center of learning) (10:87). The essential judgment on worship was to be observed in the temple, but the command to pray at home was a special judgment to be implemented during this period of torment.

We are currently facing another crisis, though entirely different from the persecution that Moses and his followers endured, that is requiring us to temporarily close our houses of worship and instead pray at home. In these days of Coronavirus, all faith communities, including Muslims, Jews, and Christians, abide by this special judgment. For Muslims even the congregational Friday Prayer, which all males without valid excuse must strictly attend, is suspended. Everybody prays at home instead for the same reason of protection from harm. Whether they observe prayers or not, most people are at an obligatory retreat.

From a believer’s perspective, these days are offering us some serious food for thought. Is Coronavirus on a mission sent by God to warn people who exceed in wrongdoing? Are we being told to come to our senses, to make up our minds, step back from wrong, act in accordance with our purpose of creation, not neglect our families for the sake of greedy pursuits, and live in a way to be eligible for eternal happiness?

Two thousand years ago, Jesus Christ, peace be upon him, taught his people about belief in God. He was able to preach for only a very short amount of time, only to be accepted by a limited number of people around him all of whom suffered and were exterminated under the cruel Roman Empire. Yet, his message was not silenced; by the third century after he was gone, a great majority of people ruled by Roman Empire accepted his invitation. Muslims believe Jesus Christ was ascended to the heavens to be sent back to complete his mission as a renovator of faith in God in the Latter Times in the way of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, who, according to some Muslim scholars, is the “advocate” (Paraclete – or Parakletos, the Praised One) mentioned in John 14:16. It is believed that Jesus Christ will lead his followers – now dispersed in many denominations more so than any other tradition has [1] – and will unite them back in worship. Coronavirus has struck at a time that is most special to the Christian community, and thus giving them an opportunity to reflect on faith. It was the time of Lent, a six-week period which ended on April 11. Observing Christians have sought closeness to God by observing different forms of worship such as fasting, praying, and supporting the needy while hoping to be more receptive to the call of revival by COVID-19. Taking this opportunity, it is my hope that Christians, who are adorned with these lofty qualities, had a happy Easter holiday, which was on April 12 this year. I also celebrate the Passover holiday of the Jewish community, which was on April 8.

As a matter of fact, even the timing of this global retreat is worthy of attention; similar to Christian Lent and Easter, Muslims are in the midst of the holy three months of Rajab, Shaban, and Ramadan, while the Jewish community have been celebrating Passover within these days of retreat. Surely the followers of other traditions such as Buddhism and Hinduism will evaluate this period in meaningful retrospect. The indigenous people of Canada pray as follows:

 “O our exalted Creator! We wish you to be with us. We wish you to help our diseased ones and our friends who are far away. When we lose hope, please remind us to be thankful for the blessings of water which gives life and the earth which bears us. O God, please help us know that all people are our relatives!”

Muslims have not undergone as huge a diversification as has been the case in Christianity in terms of the essentials of faith. However, many Muslim nations have failed to duly understand the true message of the religion, could not interpret its commandments, nor could they practice it properly. As those in power did not govern them well for a very long time, many countries of the Muslim world have lagged behind with regards to civilization, ethics, culture, and public administration. In a way, they have alienated themselves to the essence of their own values. Interestingly, social studies indices that conduct research on which countries perform better on establishing institutions that reflect Islamic values and principles, there is not a single Muslim country among the first thirty [2]. There are countries like Ireland, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, New Zealand, and Canada among the first ten. The brilliant face of Islam entered a period of eclipse in the Muslim world, and then the eclipse got to be constant. Accordingly, Corona is virtually making the following call to Muslims: “You did not thoroughly understand and practice religion God revealed to you by means of His Messenger. Come back home, you need a revival. Make up your mind to make wise use of this opportunity. Evaluate the oncoming opportunity of Ramadan well in your home. Try to make up for things you neglected for years. Make self-criticism, come to grips with yourself! Become repentant and ask forgiveness!”

May this holy Ramadan, the month of the Holy Qur’an, be a means of God’s good pleasure and happiness for all Muslims.

With Coronavirus, and for that matter with all such tribulations, perhaps God Almighty makes us realize that He has not ceased to care for the humanity He created: “Shall We take away this Reminder from you (and leave you to your own devices), because you are a people wasteful (of your God-given faculties and committing excesses)?” (Zukhruf 43:5). Thus, He gives an opportunity to people before the Day of Judgment to repent and experience a “revival” now, so that we can be absolved “there.”

Notes

1. De Glasenapp. 1954. Les cinq grandes religions, Paris, Payot, 1954, p. 415.
2. http://islamicity-index.org/wp

As a rabbi and professor of rabbinic literature, I am naturally drawn to interpreting texts. The best moments are when these texts come alive and inform my life (inshallah). I have long been intrigued by an ancient text attributed to a pre-rabbinic figure from the first century BCE (Before the Common Era – rabbis did not emerge until after the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 CE). The text reads:

Joshua ben Perahia said, “Find a teacher for yourself, and acquire a colleague, judge every person favorably” (Mishnah Pirke Avot 1:6).

This triplet of good advice requires some explanation. Find (or “make,” which is closer to the Hebrew original) a teacher for yourself might also be translated that you should make someone your “master.” In the Hebrew text the word for teacher is Rav which can mean master, as well as being the root of the word rabbi. In other words, choose a rabbi to study with and to follow.

Next, we are taught to acquire a colleague. Most likely this means someone to study with, but it also can mean someone who you can share a meal with (that is to say, you trust that his food is kosher or halal). In general, it is a blessing to have good colleagues.

The final piece of advice, while commendable, seems on the surface to be disconnected: Judge everyone favorably. Might it refer to choosing a teacher or your study-buddy?

I will come back to what I think this text means, but first, I want to consider a text from the Torah, which commands: Love your neighbor as yourself (Lev 19:18). This text, too, seems straightforward, until we wonder how do we “love” on command? Some commentators assume this means that you would care about your neighbor’s finances as you would your own. A small minority of others, I am embarrassed to say, have construed this to mean that you need only love your neighbor who is like yourself. This implies that the commandment is limited to only loving other Jews!

Indeed, there is a rabbinic text from the second century that might be construed precisely this way – it is alarming:

In the Mishnah (Yoma 8:7) we read about a case where a wall falls upon someone on Shabbat. Now uncovering a pile of rubble is a forbidden labor on the Sabbath. But the Mishnah of the second century CE seems to make an exception: If there is doubt whether he was there or not there, if there is doubt whether he was alive or dead, if there were doubt whether he was a Jew or a non-Jew – then one removes the rubble.

The text is clear that to save a Jewish life, one may violate Shabbat, as saving a life takes precedence over all other commandments. But we must ask: whose life? Does this only apply, God forbid, to saving a Jew? This one of those famous “difficult texts” that we stumble over in interfaith dialogue. When we compare “our best” to “their worst” during dialogues, such difficult texts are stumbling blocks. We all have such texts. And until we learn to dialogue by proudly sharing our best with their best, we will stumble.

My teacher 45 years ago was a man in his eighties, Rabbi Saul Lieberman. He was widely regarded as the foremost authority on the Talmud in his generation. He once told me the story about taking a Shabbat stroll with a colleague from Columbia University, Prof. Morton Smith. Now it happens that Morton, although many years my elder, was my teacher but also my colleague and my friend. He had been ordained an Episcopal priest early in his career, and he loved to tweak the supercilious pieties of religion. Morton was also an expert in rabbinic literature. As the story goes, Morton Smith and Rabbi Lieberman walked past a building site on Broadway when Morton asked my rabbi, “Prof. Lieberman, if that wall fell on me now during the Sabbath, would you save me?”

On the face of it, this was a serious challenge to what might have been understood as the law of the Mishnah. A strict reading might have required Prof. Smith’s body to remain under the rubble until Shabbat ended. But Prof. Lieberman replied in an instant, “Why Morton, of course I would save you! And then, I would go home, consult my tomes of Jewish law, and find the correct reason for having done so.”

Actually, it would not have been very hard to find a legal authority. As we mentioned above, saving a life certainly would take priority over Sabbath law. That’s what the Mishnah is trying to teach us. But would it apply to saving a non-Jew? Both Lieberman and Smith knew perfectly well that the Torah explicitly teaches, You shall not oppress the stranger. You must know the heart of the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt (Exodus 23:9). And if that wasn’t clear enough, the Torah commands, You shall love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt (Deut 10:19).

Indeed, the Mishnah and other rabbinic literature bend over backward to assure that Jews have good relations with their non-Jewish neighbors (the word used is Shalom) and require that Jews greet non-Jews, care for their poor, mourn and bury their dead, offer condolences, care for their animals, midwife their births, heal their sick, much as would be done for other Jews.

What I learn from the story of my teacher Rabbi Lieberman and my colleague and teacher Prof. Smith is that teachers and colleagues who are NOT Jewish require us to confront, and solve, our tradition’s difficult texts. Interaction with the other, collegiality, even friendship, to say the least of discipleship, require us to love one another as we would ourselves.

My teacher of New Testament, Father Raymond Brown, offered an example from the Catholic tradition. Prof. Brown took scrupulous care in carefully teaching Gospel texts, lest other priests or their parishioners might learn anti-Semitism from those ancient texts. Christianity had a long and sorry history of enmity towards the Jews. Anti-Semitism had been the norm for almost 2,000 years. But in the aftermath of the Holocaust, Christian teaching radically changed. As Pope Francis said in March, 2019, “I stress that for a Christian any form of anti-Semitism is a rejection of one’s own origins, a complete contradiction.”

We take care to find the right teachers. I am blessed to have such teachers and to have made good colleagues in the Muslim world, as well. This is not surprising as the Holy Qur’an teaches,

O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other. Verily the most honored of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you (Qur’an 49:13, after Yusuf Ali).

In the Hadith of al-Nawawi (Forty Hadith, no. 15): we learn that on the authority of Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him), the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “Whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day should speak good things or keep silent. Whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day should be generous to his neighbor. Whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day should be courteous and generous to his [travelling] visitor.” This is reported in Bukhari and Muslim.

In other words, this Hadith seems to teach a tradition similar to that of the Torah and the rabbis. Further, al Nawawi teaches (ibid. no. 13): on the authority of Abi Hamza Anas bin Malik, the servant of the messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) from the prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) who said: “None of you [truly] believes until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself. ” This is also reported in Bukhari and Muslim.

These Hadith traditions emphasize that what is true for Jews is true for Muslims. We must learn to love one another and want what is best for our brothers and sisters of the other religion, much as we would want for ourselves.

Now we know that despite these teachings, there are Jews who hate Muslims and Muslims who revile Jews. Thank God / Al hamdulillah, that we have teachers who clearly teach against this tendency. Our master, Hocaefendi Fethullah Gülen stated:

“A crucial step in healing the sick mindset that leads individuals to kill people out of hatred or other reasons is for every individual to acknowledge the dignity of every human being, to respect them as a work of art that was created by God and to inculcate this perspective in the minds of our youth.”

If we all come from our common ancestors Adam and Eve, Hocaefendi Gülen seems to say to us, then every person shares the same human dignity. No one can say, “My ancestry is better than yours.”

A couple of months ago, I had the wonderful privilege of meeting with Hocaefendi Gülen at his home in rural Pennsylvania. We drove there from New York City, but were warned that Hocaefendi was tired and might not spend more than a few minutes greeting us. As it turned out, we were honored to share an hour of discussion with our teacher. By the end of the meeting, I had found for myself another “rabbi.” I was thrilled to meet this revered leader, a man near in age to my rabbis of old. But I was utterly astounded by the act of humility with which he welcomed me. Hocaefendi Gülen rose from his chair and said, “Rabbi, please sit here in my place.” Had I traveled hours only to experience his hospitality and humility, it would have been a lesson well learned.

But I was privileged to engage further in a wide-ranging conversation on how we might confront anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. As with all good teachers, the conversation and Hocaefendi’s questions have continued to turn over in my mind since that extraordinary meeting.

What can we do to better relations between Muslims and Jews? Here are some suggestions I have learned in my nearly three decades of Jewish-Muslim dialogue.

First, as the Holy Qur’an teaches, we should meet and “know one another.” A good example of how this is accomplished is through the organization the Sisterhood of Salaam / Shalom (https://sosspeace.org/ ). Or we can arrange visits between Mosque and Synagogue. (see http://mideastweb.org/muslim-sermon_cg.htm ). We can celebrate our festivals together (see http://nyc.muslimjewishsolidarity.org/). Here, the Hizmet movement has excelled in arranging interfaith Iftar dinners during the Holy month of Ramadan (e.g https://hizmetnews.com/24889/interfaith-ramadan-iftar-dinner-held-in-montville/#.Xg9tJLpOmEc ).
 
We can also study to learn about one another. I recommend a book jointly published by the Jewish Theological Seminary and the Islamic Society of North America: Sharing the Well: A Resource Guide to Jewish-Muslim Relations (www.jtsa.edu/sharingthewell ). And, of course, we must protect one another and fight Islamophobia and anti-Semitism by standing together SHOULDER TO SHOULDER (https://www.shouldertoshouldercampaign.org/ ).  Both the Jewish and Muslim traditions demand that we work for social justice and righteousness (e.g. feeding the hungry: https://www.denverpost.com/2012/11/18/muslims-jews-gather-at-denver-mosque-to-help-feed-the-hungry/ ).

Now that I have shared what I learned from loving my neighbor, the non-Jewish other, the Christian or the Muslim, I have a new understanding of the text I quoted at the outset of this article.

Joshua ben Perahia said, “Find a teacher for yourself, and acquire a colleague, so that you will learn from them to judge every person favorably” (Pirke Avot 1:6).

Rabbi Burton L. Visotzky
Director, Milstein Center for Interreligious Dialogue Jewish Theological Seminary, New York