Greed shows its evil consequences wherever there are animate beings. In contrast, seeking one’s provision while trusting in God is a means to tranquillity and displays its good effects everywhere. For example, fruit trees and plants need provision and yet remain stationary, “contentedly trusting in God and showing no impatience.” And so their provision hastens to them and they reproduce more vigorously than animals. Animals attain only an insufficient provision after great effort, since they pursue it with impatience.

Only young animals, who “demonstrate their trust in God through their weakness and impotence,” receive in full measure their rightful and delicious provision from Divine Compassion’s treasury. On the other hand, wild beasts that leap greedily at their provision obtain “illicit” and coarse food at the cost of great effort. These examples show that greed causes deprivation, while trusting God and contentment are the means to Divine mercy.

Contented and greedy people can be likened to two people entering a great one’s audience. One thinks: “It is enough that he admits me so that I can escape from the cold outside. Even if he seats me in the lowest position, it will be a favor.” The second person arrogantly hopes for the highest position, as if he had some right to it and as if everyone were obliged to respect him. He enters with greed and, fixing his gaze upon the highest position, attempts to advance toward it. But the owner turns him back and seats him in a lower position. Instead of thanking the owner, the man is angered and criticizes him, thereby annoying the owner. The first one enters most humbly and shows his willingness to be seated even in the lowest position. His modesty pleases the owner, who invites him to sit in a higher position and thereby causes his gratitude to increase.

This world is like the Most Merciful One’s audience hall. Earth’s surface is like a banquet laid out by Divine Compassion, with the different degrees of provision and grades of bounty corresponding to the seating positions.

Everyone can experience the evil effects of greed. For example, you are offended by a beggar who importunes greedily and are inclined to refuse the request, whereas you give to the peaceable one out of pity. Or you may fall asleep quickly if you do not think about sleeping, instead of trying to fall asleep immediately. If you are impatient, you might lose your whole night’s sleep. Or, if you impatiently wait for someone and complain continually, finally you will lose patience and leave. But a minute later the person will come, and so your purpose will remain frustrated.

The reason for this is as follows: A loaf of bread is produced only after cultivating the field, harvesting the crop, taking the grain to a mill, and baking the loaf. Similarly, Divine Wisdom arranges everything according to a certain deliberation. If you do not comply with this deliberation and neglect to follow all the arranged steps, you cannot achieve the desired result.

I had a true, highly interesting, dream during the fifth year of WWI. In it, I was asked the reason for this hunger, financial loss, and bodily trial afflicting the Muslims. I replied:

From the wealth He grants to us, God Almighty requires, as zakat, either a tenth or a fortieth so that we may benefit from the poor people’s grateful prayers and avoid their rancor and envy.(3) As our greed did not allow us to pay, God Almighty removed its accumulated amount: three-fourths where a fortieth was owed, and four-fifths where a tenth was owed.

He asks us to fast for a month each year so that we may benefit from as many as 70 beneficial purposes. But we pitied ourselves and did not fast. And so God Almighty compelled us to fast for 5 years with a hunger that combines almost 70 kinds of afflictions.

God requires believers to spend no more than one hour out of 24 in prayer, a pleasing and lofty, illuminating and beneficial form of Divine training. But we were too lazy to observe the five daily prayers and so wasted all 24 hours. In return, God Almighty chastened us by making us undergo a form of training and physical exertion for 5 years.

I awoke after this and, pondering over it, realized a very important truth. As The Twenty-fifth Word indicates, by comparing modern civilization’s principles to the Qur’an’s commands, all immorality and disturbances in human social life proceed from two sources and two attitudes: “Once my stomach is full, what do I care if others die of hunger?” and “You work and I will eat.”

These attitudes are perpetuated by the prevalence of usury and the abandonment of zakat. The only remedy is to implement zakat as a universal principle and duty and then ban usury. Zakat is a most essential pillar for individuals, particular communities, and humanity to live a happy life. Humanity usually comprises two classes: the elite and the masses.(4) Only zakat can arouse the elite’s compassion and generosity toward the asses, and the masses’ respect and obedience toward the elite. Without zakat, the elite cruelly oppresses the masses and thereby often engenders revolt. Such a development gives rise to a constant struggle and position, finally resulting in labor and capital confronting each other, as in Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century.

O people of nobility and fairness, of munificence and liberality! If you do not act generously in the name of zakat, your acts are useless and potentially harmful. If you do not give in God’s name, you make poor people feel obliged to you and so deprive yourself of their prayers, which are acceptable in God’s sight. Also, your subsequent belief that you own your wealth shows great ingratitude.

But if you give zakat, you are rewarded for giving for His sake and thank Him for the bounties received. What is more, its recipients will not feel obliged to flatter or fawn, and thus damage their self-respect. Moreover, their prayers for you will be accepted.

See the vast difference between giving to earn fame and impose obligation, and giving as zakat to fulfill your religious duty, gain a reward, be sincere, and have poor peoples’ prayers for you accepted.

Glory be to You, we have no knowledge save what You have taught us. You are All-Knowing, All-Wise. O God, bestow blessings and peace on our master Muhammad, who said: “Believers stand together like a firm building, one part of which supports the other” and: “Contentment is a treasure that will never be exhausted,” and on his Family and Companions. And all praise be to God, Lord of the Worlds.

Footnotes

1. The Qur’an says: Ignominy shall be their portion wherever they are, unless they (seize) a rope from God or a rope from people (3:112). This means that those nations can make progress when they begin to obey God’s commands or are backed by some powers, as is the case today. Otherwise, ignominy shall follow them. Regardless of their current status, when compared with their long history of ignominy, they still live in constant fear, insecurity, and uncertainty about their future. (Tr.)
2. Zakat: This word literally means purification and growth, for Muslims believe that it purifies their possessions. For most purposes, it consists of setting aside 2.5 percent of one’s capital, provided that this capital reaches a certain minimum amount after its owner’s needs have been met, to help those who qualify for it and to benefit the local community in general. Zakat is considered so important that those who ignore it are not considered part of the Muslim community. (Ed.)
3. A tenth of wealth that annually yields a new crop; a fortieth of whatever yields a financial surplus during the year, or of at least 40 pasturing animals (e.g., sheep or goats). (Tr.)
4. Said Nursi uses elite for those who can give zakat, and the masses for those eligible to receive it. These designations are relative, for they depend upon local standard of wealth. As Islam does not allow a deep socioeconomic gap to form between Muslims, the gap between these groups is not very great. In many Muslim societies today, members of both groups can be found within the middle class. As the main purpose for zakat is for the poor to receive enough money to provide for their families, we should consider the living standard envisaged by Islam when considering zakat. (Tr.)

Then, as the weather grows warm toward the end of winter, you witness an overall resurrection on earth. The seeds of innumerable species of grasses, plants and trees germinate under earth and each individually, without confusion, takes on its own form and puts on its own charming dress. Countless living beings brought back to life change the dead earth into a paradise and enjoy the happiness of awakening to a new life. The number of flies which fill the earth in a single season of summer make up, alone, is a more populous community than the whole of humankind from the time of the Prophet Adam to the end of time. Each living being restored to life again, whether of plants or animals, is given its special provision without any neglect, and supplied with the equipment necessary for its life. All this takes place in so short a time and yet so perfectly and in such a miraculous harmony that, like the rays of the sun being indicative of the sun, it points to the Single One of Unity who rules over all things and creates everything on a particular pattern and with a particular nature and disposition.

Indeed, who other than the One with infinite power, all-encompassing knowledge and an unlimited wisdom, can have a part in those infinitely complicated yet harmonious events of creation and recreation or revival and provision, instruction and training and discharge from life? If anyone other than the Supreme Being, who gives existence to all living and non-living things, had had a part in these events, which are each a miracle, everything would have been in a chaos. Whereas, as all branches of science have concluded after long years of study and research, there is a wonderful, overall order and harmony in existence, with nothing in confusion or disorder.

The quality of the services provided by the welfare state depends upon its level of prosperity. For this reason, welfare states came into existence in industrialised countries before developing countries. Where these states have been economically and politically stable, improvements in social welfare have been made. However, there has been a claim that in recent years the concept of the welfare state is in crisis and that in practice governments have been unable to meet the needs of vulnerable people adequately. Welfare pluralists have claimed that the welfare state has failed to meet needs and provide services. They assert that the state must withdraw from direct provision and recognise the potential of both the family -especially in providing personal social services, and the voluntary sector. With the provision of services transferred from the state to the community, the cost of social services will become less and effectiveness will increase. However, will ‘the community’ shoulder this responsibility? Can the family be expected to meet the needs as effectively as welfare pluralists envisage. There are serious doubts whether a well formed family structure neighbourhood actually exists.

‘The community’ is now seen as the main source of care for vulnerable people. ‘Community care’ implies ordinary members of local communities such as families, neighbours and friends providing help and care for those who are in need.

Abrams (1977) defines community care as the provision of help, support and protection by lay members of societies acting in everyday domestic and occupational settings. It is possible to say that community care is care provided by the community itself.

The community is composed of families, neighbours and friends. Most of the care for the elderly and for children is provided by families and relatives. Only a limited number of elderly people, children or the disabled are cared for by the statutory voluntary organizations; the rest are looked after by their families and relatives and to a limited extent by neighbours and friends. In the United Kingdom during 1987 fewer than 243,000 out of a total of 8,6 million people aged 65 and over were resident in local authorities’, voluntary organizations’ and the private sectors’ homes. This means that only nearly 3,5% of the total number of elderly people were living in institutional homes: The rest of them were either taken care of by their families or were trying to cope with living on their own.

If the burden of social services provision is to be shouldered by the community, can families, relatives or neighbours manage to act as a realistic substitute for the welfare state? Can they meet the expectations of the welfare pluralists?

In today’s industrial societies most relationships are based on reciprocal interests. Individualism is at its highest level. The ties of kinship and family are withering away. Social and moral values are being undermined. However, as Abrams (1977) points out, the effective social bases for community care are kinship, religion and race, not ‘the community’.

Although the family is seen as the strongest and most reliable source of care, it is at present undergoing severe problems, particularly in Western societies. The family is affected by a number of social and demographic factors, the most significant ones being: the age structure of population, its marital structure, the size of the family and the changing roles of the family members (Nissel: 1980).

The population is ageing. The number of elderly in need is increasing and the level of provision is decreasing. On the one hand number of the people dependant on family care is increasing and is likely to continue increasing; on the other, the number of carers is declining because the idea of having a family is disappearing and the size of the family is getting smaller. Birth rates decreased from 84,3% in 1971 to 64,2% in 1990 in the United Kingdom and the percentage of births outside marriage rose from 8,1% in 1971 to 30,3% in 1990 (Social Trends, 22:1992). This may mean that there will be fewer potential carers when the present generation of parents reach old age (Johnson: 1990). The family is also faced with a changing marital structure. There are increasing numbers of one-parent families caused by separation, divorce and deaths. Many of these single parents have young children. Divorce affects the care negatively; the estimated number of divorcees in Great Britain was about 517,000 in 1971 and increasing to 2,374,000 in 1988 (Social Trends, 20:1990).

Another set of demographic and social factors that affect the relation between the family and the welfare state is the change in household structure. It would be argued that women are more likely than men to be the carers of the family. This is because women have been seen traditionally as the main people responsible for the care of children and the elderly, while the men have been seen as the bread-winners working outside of the home for the family. However, during the last two decades this situation has changed in Western societies. Although most of the family-based care is shouldered by women, the number of women in the labour force has been increasing. According to the statistics, there were 9,3 million women in the British labour force in 1971 and to 11,8 million in 1988. It is also projected that there will be 12,7 million women working in the year 2000 (Social Trends, 20:1990). The number of working women is likely to continue increasing, and as a result this may mean that the care provided by women is likely to decline.

In today’s world, particularly, in Western industrialized societies, the family has gradually been losing its strength and increasingly unable to perform its functions. It may be true to say that we now live in a world where family, social and moral values are being slowly destroyed. Policy makers, politicians and religious scholars are worried about what should be done to avoid the impending consequences.

How can men and women be encouraged to stay in marriage? How can their children be motivated to care for their frail parents? What are the motivations that keep the society in order and ensure that its members help each other? How is altruism managed in societies where individualism exists? How can social solidarity be re-established? There are many other questions; however, most agree that the main problem is with the social and moral values of society.

In recent years, the managers of the welfare state have found it difficult to meet the needs of its ever increasing number of vulnerable people due to high costs, ineffectiveness and lack of resources. This has led them to try to shun all responsibility for provision of services and to put the onus on us ‘the community’.

However, as society as a whole changes, relationships between children and parents, between families, between neighbours are changing. People’s behaviour in a society is usually formed by their social position and by the moral and religious beliefs with which they have been brought up. It may be impossible to expect people to take care of others especially those who are in need, if they do not feel that they should do so. In today’s societies it is clear that most of the elderly parents are not looked after by their children and they have to cope with living on their own which they usually cannot manage. Most neighbours are also reluctant to get to know each other.

We can conclude that societies need to be supported by strong social and moral values which form the norms of social behaviour. Only then people will try to behave as they are expected to as human beings. In this context, I will leave you with the words of the Messenger, upon him be peace:

‘None of you truly believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself’, ‘He who does not care about his neighbour’s starvation, while he is in wealth, is not among us’, and ‘He who desires that he be granted more provision and his lease of life be prolonged, should treat his kith and kin well’. 

References

• ABRAMS P. (1977) Community Care: Some Research Problems and Priorities Policy and Politics No.6
• JOHNSON N. (1990) Reconstructing the Welfare State Hertfordshire: Simon&Schuster Int.
• NISSEL M. et al. (1980) The Welfare State-Diversity&Decentralisation, London, PSI
• Social Trends 20 (1990) London Central Statistic Office
• Social Trends 22 (1992) London Central Statistic Office
• SPICKER P. (1988) Principles of Social Welfare, London, Routledge
• WALKER A. et al. (1986) The Debate About Community, London PSI