Insaf is half of religion

The term insaf, which sometimes denotes righteousness, fairness, justice or never deviating from truth, is the term for not violating others’ rights while claiming your own, even wishing what you wish for yourself for others as well and giving priority to them if need be, and being balanced at doing the right thing by refraining from extreme behavior.

God’s Messenger counted insaf among the three basic components of good character. He stated that three things are originated by one’s faith: “Not giving up insaf despite the urges of the carnal self, promoting greeting, and spending in God’s way even during financial straits.” Another beautiful phrase-even though it is not a hadith-reflecting his views about right and justice is “insaf is half of religion.”

When we evaluate a matter in a certain fashion according to our own logic and reasoning, we might take our personal considerations as a basis and view the issue from the perspective of our carnal selves and corporeality. When doing that, we may be mostly mistaken, make wrong judgments and think ourselves to be definitely right. In such a case-even though our personal feelings, thoughts, inclinations and wishes are different-siding with the right as soon as we recognize the truth and taking a stance in spite of our ego is an expression of insaf. Being respectful toward the requirements of faith all the time, blending our morality with righteousness, always being in pursuit of truth, and, in spite of the pressure of carnal inclinations, listening to the voice of the conscience and championing the right is a requirement of having insaf.

A human being without insaf is cruel and ruthless; such people use every opportunity to have an ill opinion of others, ignore their tens of good deeds for a single evil one and always fail to cherish a good opinion. Even though the Islamic moral code counsels having insaf and holding a good opinion, a person without insaf takes unfairness and ill opinion as a basis. Therefore, they become trapped by one bad apple and conclude that the entire orchard is barren and putrid. As a matter of fact a damaged banknote in the state treasury does not lessen the reserves, but in the sight of one who lacks insaf-a bad trait which we can compare to the damaged note-the riches of being human can turn into an object of no value.

A single mistake should not nullify many good deeds

Actually, given that a good deed is counted tenfold and a misdeed only once in the sight of God, one mistake should not be allowed to evoke ill feelings toward a person in spite of his or her many good deeds. Believers who have insaf should always try to think positively and recognize someone’s good side; they should not totally condemn a person because of one mistake. They should even consider one of a person’s good deeds to compensate for all of his or her misdeeds. For instance, when a person devoted to a righteous cause considers one of his fellow friends, he should say, “Such and such person committed this misdeed, but I cannot overlook his loyalty to serving in the way of God,” and thereby be very faithful toward his companion and always do the decent thing and hold the truth dear. Nevertheless, an event narrated in the books of hadith underlines a very important point about this issue: A Companion of the Prophet who was not very conscious about drinks and could not break his addiction would sometimes get intoxicated and be rebuked by God’s Messenger each time. The same Companion was one day brought to the presence of God’s Messenger for the same offense. One of those present said, “O God, curse this man! He is being punished for the same offense for so many times but still does not behave himself.” On hearing this, God’s Messenger said, “Do not curse him. I swear by God that he loves God and His Messenger from the heart!” Then he told them to pray for him saying, “O God, grant mercy to him and forgive his faults.”

Given that this Companion’s sincerity is appreciated so much, we can better picture what it brings to a person to serve in the way of God and to strive for His name to be engraved in hearts. Thus, we can make a well-placed evaluation of the attitude we are to take in the face of that person’s faults and mistakes.

Commitment to the right and wishing to hold the truth dear

The worst example of lack of insaf in our time is seen in criticism which is based upon grudge, guile, and pride. In fact, true criticism, which means analyzing the good or bad sides of somebody or something, making a comparison between what is and what should be, is a means of walking toward the ideal.

Making constructive criticisms and being open to criticism is a scholarly principle. However, this should be done within a certain manner and form. After all, the person who criticizes should have insaf, he or she should speak not out of personal considerations but in the name of God’s good pleasure and have no intention other than goodness. The drive for criticism should arise from striving toward the right and a wish to clarify the truth. A critic with insaf should only hold the aim of unearthing the truth. Otherwise, criticism without insaf-which serves pride and beguilement-destroys the truth and leads to unfairness and wrong.

As you know, we can define a debate as the act of having an exchange of views in order to clarify a truth, brainstorming within certain rules and principles, cooperative thinking, mutual discussion, and presenting decently expressed personal considerations to collective reasoning. Unfortunately, in almost all the gatherings held under the name of debate in our time, we witness lack of insaf in the form of criticism. Today, almost everyone who joins the quarrels at the platforms of dispute, sophistry, and demagogy-what we can call verbal duels-has certain presumptions and the debaters usually strive to make the opposite side accept their own views rather than clarifying a truth. To the degree that they spend utmost effort in this matter-sometimes they engage in a play on words or play of logic, or resort to unbecoming acts like provoking their opponents or silencing and embarrassing them-they always remain closed to the truth. Rather than revealing truths, they turn their words into dialectics by opposing the expressions of thought and philosophy of the other side, and the debaters act with the intentions of defeating, humiliating, and silencing one another. In fact, such an argument can never be called a true debate; it seems to me like a quarrel between mentally disabled ones. Unfortunately, nowadays assemblies of debate have become grounds of dialectics.

The only remedy for this disease is not to give up insaf, always to do the decent thing, to hold the truth dear and never sacrifice it for the sake of anything else. Every party to a discussion should reproach their own ego and not favor themselves but the person or people they address. Let alone humiliating the other party, when a person who proves right makes the other self-conscious, he or she should be regarded as being disrespectful to human values.

As Said Nursi suggests, the attitudes at a decent scholarly debate based on the principle of insaf are to be evaluated as follows: if a person asserts a certain opinion, proves right, and becomes happy about it, that person lacks insaf because what matters is not proving right but discovering the right. A person who is happy about both proving right and the opposite site being wrong loses. That is, the person who proves right does not learn anything new or benefit from the debate. Moreover he or she may be taken by pride and suffer further loss. However, if the opposite side proves to be right-without any possibility of loss-the person benefits by learning something new and is freed from pride as well. So a righteous person with insaf rejects his or her own ego for the sake of the truth; even if he or she sees the truth in the hands of the opponent, he or she accepts it anyway with good consent and supports the other.

Do we really have insaf?

On the other hand, concerning the followers of other faiths or philosophies one sometimes cannot help but say, “I wish these people had some insaf, and they would look at the Qur’an and the Prophet’s message accordingly! Insaf might open their eyes as well and be a means for them to draw different conclusions. I wish they could be freed from their biases for a moment and could consider Islam with insaf.” With such reflections in mind, we invite people to hold insaf. But are we taking into account what falls to our part while expecting insaf from them? I wonder to what degree we have been able to present the right and truth to them. Have we been able to be credible and inspire trust? Have we been able to represent the truth properly so as to invoke insaf in them?

Muslims have moved to many different countries of the world and their population has reached a considerable level in certain places but their influence has not been proportionate to their number, because they have worked for others mostly with worldly concerns. As masters do not care for their slaves, they did not listen to Muslims’ words; they usually used Muslims like slaves and sought ways of disposing of them when they had profited from them. In this respect, even though Muslims have gone to many different lands, we cannot consider the message of Islam to have reached the people of those lands. Particularly at a time when materialism and naturalism prevail, people who are accustomed to looking at things and events with a materialist perspective cannot be said to have met the logic of Islam and the Qur’an. Therefore-with the exception of the body of tyrants who dye the world in blood and oppress the weak-the people from whom we expect insaf can in many respects be regarded as equivalent to the people of the Interregnum Period.² Then isn’t it we who should have insaf in the first place? For not having been able to go to all corners of the world and present a credible type of behavior, stance, and example, for not being able to represent the truths of the Qur’an-which are truly beautiful by objective criteria-shouldn’t we first question ourselves? If people are saying, ”What we are being told is so good, but we haven’t seen any community with these truths ingrained in their life. We haven’t witnessed any people who have been adorned with those laudable virtues. We have found no paragons of virtue who live with meticulous sensitivity. Where are the people who are completely closed to sins and are determined to remain so? Where are the living examples of true believers? We cannot believe without seeing them!”, if they are saying this and they voice this on Judgment Day, how can we give an answer before God? In this respect, when we talk about insaf and call others to be fair, we should not forget that we need a vision to trigger the feeling of insaf within ourselves.

An example from the Prophet to evoke the feeling of insaf

Did not those who saw the Pride of Humanity say, “We haven’t witnessed any lies from you so far”? Did they not admit the truth in saying, “We never doubted your being a truthful and trustworthy person”?… Truly, the noble and virtuous stance of God’s Messenger in a way became a reference for his addressees to pay attention to the Qur’an, listen to the message of Islam, and listen to the truthful Prophet. The unique example of the perfect guide evoked the feeling of insaf in consciences.

Today as well, what has an influence on hearts and brings people to insaf is “representation.” Few people say, “I found the truth after I heard such and such words.” But there are many people who say, “I embraced faith after seeing this sincere example of such and such true believer.” Likewise, the words which become a means for others’ faith are always fruits of what the heart voices and what our actions reflect. For conveying the message finds its true value through genuine representation.

The case of an American professor is one of hundreds of examples proving the power of proper representation: This person, who was an expert on the history of religion, visited Urfa, southeastern Turkey. He was attending a charity meeting of a group of chivalrous souls. As they were all seated around a table, he briefly spoke with the person beside him. In the conversation, the professor mentioned that he had just returned from Southeast Asia. On hearing this, his poor neighbor whispered humbly, “I support a school in Cambodia.” The professor described that devoted man with the following words: “He looked poor. He was modest; however-surprisingly-he was giving nearly all his surplus income for a school he will probably never see in this life. Cambodian children were being educated thanks to the sacrifices including his own and he was happy beyond expression.” The professor said that he did not need any further proof about the sincerity of those devoted ones.

That professor and others like him are not unaware of the Qur’an; however, what makes an impact on them is representation. Again, there is someone I know who read books on Islam for almost ten years with no significant change in his life. One day, he visited one of our friends and heard that sincere person saying God’s name with his every act; he was such a devout believer that even though he spoke very little, his acts, his looks, and the way he prostrates himself in prayer reflect the Almighty. The condition of that devoted person affected his guest very much, who then saw that the principles he had read about in books were built on a sound basis and that things fit in their place; he was then able to say, “These acts derive from such and such essential disciplines.”

In this respect as we invite representatives of different understandings to insaf, the necessity of a degree of exemplary representation to evoke insaf in them should not be ignored. Showing the truth through exemplary representation to the people whom we expect to be righteous is a requirement of holding insaf. We can even say that the sole duty of the volunteers who have dispersed to every corner of the world today is an exemplary representation to evoke the feeling of insaf by the language of love.

Notes

1. In Islam, people have a responsibility to their Creator, and to all people including themselves, and the entire creation.
2. After Jesus, people failed to keep up his original message from God and deified him instead. From then on until the Prophet Muhammad came-the Interregnum Period-there was no undistorted religion for people to follow. Therefore, God will not hold them responsible in the day of Judgment.

“The subjective experience of emptiness represents a temporary or permanent loss of normal relations of the self with object-representations, that is, with the world of inner objects that fixates intrapsychically the significant experiences with others and constitutes a basic ego identity and, therefore, a stable integrated self and a stable integrated world of internal objects.”(3) Existential psychotherapists call this “existential isolation,”(4) an unbridgeable gulf between self and other, a separation from the world. Yalom asserts that even fully satisfying relationships with other people, complete self-knowledge, and a sense of wholeness cannot overcome this feeling.

Fromm agrees that existential isolation is inevitable: “The awareness of his aloneness and separateness, of his helplessness before the forces of nature and of society, all this makes his separate disunited existence an unbearable prison … The experience of separateness arouses anxiety; it is indeed the source of all anxiety. To be separate means to be helpless, unable to grasp the world-things and people-actively; it means that the world can invade me without my ability to react.”(5)

Yalom writes: “A defamiliarization occurs when meanings are wrenched from objects, symbols disintegrate, and one is torn from one’s moorings of ‘at homeness.’”(6) This is true, for the two concepts most closely related to emptiness and existential isolation are meaninglessness and alienation.

We have self-knowledge only when other things have meaning, and relations with them when their meaning is understood. Reinhardt describes the alienation caused by the loss of meaning as: “Something utterly mysterious intervenes between him and the familiar objects of his world, between him and his fellowmen, between him and all his ‘values.’ Everything which he had called his own pales and sinks away, so that there is nothing left to which he might cling. What threatens is ‘nothing,’ and he finds himself lost in the void.”(7)

Even if this is inevitable, Yalom still asks: “How does one shield oneself from the dread of ultimate isolation?” In his view: “One may take a portion of the

isolation into oneself and bear it courageously or resolutely.“ His second solution is relationship, for it alleviates-but does not dispel-the sense of loneliness and basic isolation. Psychology stops here. Said Nursi, author of the Risale-i Nur and one familiar with emptiness and alienation, goes further.(8)But how was this feeling of emptiness initially caused? Kernberg provides the most useful clue: 

What does he mean?

Internalization of Self and Universe

No person begins life with a tabula rasa.(10) “The infant is equipped with basic feelings, as well as the basic ability to communicate them through expressive-motor mechanisms that are mainly concentrated in the face system.”(11)

A baby’s existing senses must be developed. According to Said Nursi, animals are born already perfected, whereas we need years to acquire the same skills and knowledge.(12) He concludes that a person’s innate duty is “to be perfected through learning and to proclaim his worship of God and servitude to Him through supplication.”

For the first 6 months, infants live in an “undifferentiated” world, an “us” system formed with the mother, and are unaware of any “self” and “other.”(13) But they are not passive, for they perceive and respond to stimulants as a “we.” This engenders a strong sense of security, like being a drop in the ocean (ocean feeling). “Self” and “other” are seen as not completely distinct, but as closely joined-mainly biologically-within one system.(14)

When they are around 2 years old, infants become more aware of themselves and thus of duality. The first thing encountered is the “self.” Through this developing “I,” they gradually acquire an awareness of “self” and “other,” and divide the world accordingly.

Internalization and self- and object-representation formation now begin. Children experience countless interactions, mainly with the mother, and begin

representing their self and objects, as well as the self-image and the object-image.(15) When they are around 2.5 years old, they enter the “identification” stage and begin internalizing their own and the other’s image and function.(16) “Just as the world settles in the child’s inner world, so the child’s inner world starts to become established in the world.”(17) This stage ends with the onset of puberty.

People, being alive and conscious, have relations with all things. Living but unconscious beings, such as birds and trees, also have relations but are unaware of them-only consciousness “illuminates” life and makes the being aware of its own existence.(18)

The sentence “a human being is able to move through the rooms of his house through his consciousness and mind, which are the light of life,”(19) means that we can internalize ourselves. We become aware of our existence through consciousness and mind, and come to know our spirit, consciousness, body, intellect, senses, and feelings. Conceptualizing and reaching conclusions about ourselves and values, we gain a “self” whose image is reflected and represented in our spirit’s mirror.

But we do not stop here, for “that conscious and animate being may go in spirit as though as a guest to those worlds [and].… those worlds too come as guests to his mirror-like spirit by being reflected and depicted there.”(20) Our consciousness and intellect convey the things with which we have relations to the spirit’s mirror, where they are reflected and their representations are formed. Thus each person becomes “a universal within particularity, and a world within … insignificance,”(21) a being who internalizes everything to understand His Names and experience His bounty. Each person first was given life, then consciousness, and so gained the comprehensive nature needed to “understand and take pleasure in the Divine Names.”(22) Such comprehensiveness enables us to have relations with the universe, for it makes each person “like a tiny index and miniature specimen of the universe, and so displays the embroideries of all the Names.”(23)

These representations make us reflect the manifestation of Divine Oneness and function as the Creator’s vicegerent on Earth. This manifestation is the simultaneous manifestation in one thing of the Creator’s Names, which are manifested in everything. It also includes the duties of beings, which constitute representations by forming images in our spirit’s mirror.(24) Since we are conscious, the universe can be “established” in us. Our representation of all beings’ glorifications and worship, realized primarily as an inner duty, means that we must know, be aware of, and internalize them.

Duality and Loneliness

The more self-aware we become, the more we are differentiated from the “other,” for “consciousness is an aspect of existence according to which beings are distinct from one another.”(25) The “ocean feeling” disappears, and each child becomes “aware of being alone, of being an entity separate from all others. This separation from a world, which in comparison with one’s own individual existence is overwhelmingly strong and powerful, and often threatening and dangerous, creates a feeling of powerlessness and anxiety.”(26)

Unconscious beings cannot expe-rience separation, for they are unaware of duality. Consciousness engenders individuality, yet recaptures and joins what has been separated. Consciousness and intellect want to establish relations with everything. Since “the realms of beings in the universe are so interwoven they have made the universe into a totality,”27 we seek reunification within a framework of meaningful ties between self and other in order to live as part of the universe’s system.

We search for that lost “ocean feeling,” hoping to establish relations with our self and all things. We do not want this biologically, but within the framework of meaningful ties.

Kernberg and others conclude by saying that a person’s inner world is filled with self- and object-representations. Said Nursi, however, presses onward.

Said Nursi’s Analysis

Said Nursi mentions three sorts of representation or reflection.(29)

First Representation: The reflection of dense, physical objects, such as a tree (“other”) reflected in a mirror, water, or a shining surface. Said Nursi says such reflections are “other than the thing reflected …without life. Their only quality is their apparent identity” [emphasis added]. This is how such people see and then represent the tree in their spirit.

In this case, we deny creation by claiming to be self-created, self-owning, powerful, and able to realize our own existence. We give ourselves and others whatever meaning we wish.(30) Our “I” functions in its own name, seeks to satisfy its physical desires, and wants no connection with its true Creator. Thus the self’s internal representation has no connection with its real, created self. The reflected image and the self’s representation are dead. We see a tree as owning itself, and therefore meaningless and limited to providing fruit.(31)

Our consciousness and intellect convey the self and the other to the spirit’s mirror, where their reflections form representations and images. As the tree’s reflection and representation are separate from its reality, its form is dead and meaningless, and there is no communication. The spirit remains unnourished, for mere similarity in appearance cannot nourish it.

This results in alienation, for both remain unknown to each other, as well as anxiety and fear, for fear of the unknown is intense and keeps us alert to danger. Thus alienated, the “I” sees itself as meaningless, the internalized and reflected self becomes dead and meaningless, and we feel pain. The absence of relations causes pain, and the object-representations continue to disappear.

This view fills our world with loneliness and emptiness. The lack of relations between the self and the object-representations engender feelings of nothingness (existential emptiness) and distress, of non-relation to the external world, for both are dead and thus unable to communicate. So, we cannot connect with reality.

Second Representation: “The reflection of physical luminous objects,”(32) such as the sun’s reflection in shining objects. The sun and its reflection are neither identical nor completely different. They do not resemble each other in essence, but the reflection has most of the sun’s characteristics and may be considered as living and having some of its attributes (e.g., light and its seven colors, and heat radiations).

In this case, our “I” accepts that it is a work of the Creator’s art,(33) tasked with recognizing and knowing Him, and serving as a mirror for His Names’ manifestation. Its representation in the spirit’s mirror is like the sun’s representation in a mirror, meaning fairly close to reality.

This “I” sees the tree as meaningful and created, and so forms a relation with its Creator to “read” it. This relationship gives the tree meaning, enabling it to be read as a mirror reflecting His Names and to be related to all beings. As the reading is close to its reality, the tree becomes something living and charged with duties. Our intellect and consciousness convey it to the spirit’s mirror, where its representation and reflection are like the sun’s reflection, for the reflection is neither the tree nor different from it. The tree’s representation, now a living missive, tells us of His Attributes and makes Him known. As they can communicate with the Creator, the tree becomes luminous like the sun, its representation gains luminosity, and it nourishes the spirit.

Through the Creator, all representations are related to each other. Here, the representation is formed of the tree’s meaning within itself-its function (role representations). The spirit feels no pain when the tree dies, for its representation remains alive. As the tree is not independent or existant in its own name, but only through and in its Creator’s name, its role/function representation persists in the spirit. The object-representations are never lost, for if the Creator exists, everything exists, has meaning, and exists as representations and role representations.

Our personal universe is full of living representations, neither identical with nor different from the actual things, that nourish the spirit. Thus we feel no existential emptiness, for the actual things form relations with the living representations. We cannot be nourished by a fruit’s reflected image, but just as the sun’s reflection may warm and illuminate us, living and meaningful object-representations may nourish our spirit and heart.

Not seeing ourselves as self-created or divine, we experience a warm feeling of belonging. We see ourselves as living in a friendly, stable,and interconnected world in which the “other” conveys His messages to us.

But something is missing. Our “belief consciousness” enables us to read the Creator’s art, but the unconscious “other” cannot read us.

Third representation: The reflection of luminous spirit beings belonging to unseen worlds. These reflections are identical to-and thus are-the beings themselves.(34) Said Nursi places angels, other spirit beings, and Prophet Muhammad in this group. He also emphasizes that the reflections in such representations are living. However, since the representation appears according to the mirror’s capacity, he sees a difference between the spirit being and the representation: The reflection and the thing are not the same in essence.

In this case, the third person is the second person’s articulation. This solves the following two problems: First, if people are unaware of the Creator’s Names, if their consciousness cannot understand them, or if they are aware of but cannot read them properly, the manifestation seems to be unnecessary, for all beings’ decorations, beauty, and inscriptions “require the gazes of thoughtful admirers and wondering, appreciative lovers; it demands their existence.”(35) Second, there is no real relationship, for the unconscious other is unaware of the conscious person.

If a tree’s attributes (e.g., art, beauty, order, perfection, knowledge, power, intention, and care) are unperceived or denied, they become meaningless. If they are not recognized by consciousness and read properly, they serve no purpose: “[C]reatures exist for, find their perfection and rejoice through, and are saved from futility through conscious beings.”(36)

However, angels understand the unconscious beings’ duties of worship and glorification, utter and represent them in the inner worlds, and offer them to the Divine Court. Like people, angels are “spectators of the palace of the universe, observers of the Book of Creation, and heralds of the sovereignty of dominicality.”(37) Their activities save unconscious beings from meaningless. Since angels present the duties of beings “knowingly at the Divine Court,”(38) all beings perform their functions consciously.

Angels and spirit beings, inhabitants of the unseen worlds and who necessarily exist, change our concept of the “other.” They “are not restricted to this manifest world, and existence is not limited to it,”(39) and remind us that we cannot perceive all levels of existence. Angels are created beings-not creators-who convey the Divine Names to our world.

This expanded definition causes visible beings to gain consciousness. An angel makes its tree meaningful and conscious, and its duties known and recognizable. Thus the first problem is solved, for angels and spirit beings have consciousness in the inner world. Each being’s angel observes and gazes upon the Divine Names manifested on that being, and represents its duties in the name of beings that formerly appeared to be unconscious.

This transforms all formerly meaningful missives into conscious envoys who visit our spirit and speak to us. No longer are they go-betweens waiting to carry our reply. The tree is the angel’s words in this world, for “the All-Wise Maker causes all the realms of beings in the universe to speak.”(40) The second problem is solved, for “the universe is seen to be full of angels, spirit beings, and intelligent beings.”(41)

Since we can internalize, be aware of, and experience relations with the other, we want the other to know and internalize us and so form a stable two-way relationship. As angels also want this, the relationship moves into further dimensions. Angels love us, pray to their Compassionate Sustainer for us, seek our forgiveness, and call blessings upon us.(42) There is a real relationship, for both sides are aware of, and can communicate with and “read,” the other.

Since an angel’s or spirit being’s representation is identical with its actual being, a tree is represented in the spirit as it actually is. Belief in the Creator gives life to a representation; belief in angels gives it consciousness. The tree’s reflection serves as a mirror to its Sustainer’s Names, glorifies Him, and is conscious; its angel offers its manifested Names and glorifications to the Divine Court. As both the actual thing and its reflection are conscious, our spirit is filled with reflections of conscious beings. Finally able to establish conscious relations with all beings, we represent their duties while their angels represent their reflections.

This is a basic existential need, for each person searches for the “ocean feeling” of infancy.(43) In order to say “us creatures,” all beings must be able to say “we.” The tree proclaims its createdness through the tongue of disposition only. However its angel, who is conscious and aware of and proclaims that the tree is created, enables it to say “us.”

The resulting relationship, mutual recognition, and knowledge of each other’s duties gives a sense of “us” without removing any individuality. We become friends with everything, for now they are conscious beings. Knowledge of God and belief in angels have removed all dualism. The universe remains the scene of all beings’ constant renewal, transformation, disappearance, and replacement, and yet our spirit suffers no pain. As its angel’s representation never dies, it continues to represent the tree’s glorification, even after the real tree’s death, and be light and sustenance for our spirit.

Our companionship with angels continues after death, for Azra’il, the angel of death who represents the glorifications offered at the moment of death, becomes our companion on our journey after death.(44)

Footnotes

1 I. Yalom, Love’s Executor and Other Tales of Psychotherapies (New York: 2000), 3.

2 T. Zeldin, Insanligin Mahrem Tarihi [Turk. trans.] (Istanbul: 1998) 67, 68.

3 O. Kernberg, Sinir Durumlar ve Patolojik Narsisizm [Turk. trans.] (Istanbul: 1999), 192.

4 I. Yalom, Existential Psychotheraphy (New York: 1980), 355.

5 E. Fromm, The Art of Loving (New York: 1956), 7.

6 Yalom, Psychotheraphy, 358.

7 K. Reinhardt, The Existential Revolt (New York: 1957), 235.

8 Said Nursi, Letters 1928-1932. 2d ed. [Eng. trans.] (Istanbul: 1997), 42 ff.

9 Kernberg, Sinir, 192.

10 V. F. Guidano, The Self in Process (New York: 1991), 17.

11 Ibid., 18.

12 Said Nursi, The Words. new ed. [Eng. trans.] (Istanbul: 1998), 324.

13 N. G. Hamilton, Self and Others: Object Relations Theory in Practice (London: 1988), 36.

14 Ibid., 38.

15 O. Kernberg, Object Relations Theory and Clinical Psychoanalysis, (London: 1995) 29.

16 Ibid., 38.

17 D. M. Orange, G. E. Atwood, R. D. Stolorow. Quoted by C. Ardali and Y. Erten, Psikoanalizden Dinamik Psikoterapilere (Alfa, 1999), 88.

18 Nursi, Words, 523.

19 Ibid., 524.

20 Ibid.

21 Ibid., 338.

22 Said Nursi, The Flashes Collection. new ed.

[Eng. trans.] (Istanbul: 2000), 456.

23 Ibid., 458.

24 Nursi, Words, 523-24.

25 J. Kovel, Tarih ve Tin: A–zgurlesme Felsefesi Aœzerine Bir Inceleme (Istanbul: 1991), 95.

26 E. Fromm, Escape from Freedom (New York: 1941), 29.

27 Nursi, Flashes, 415.

28 Guidano, Self, 15.

29 Nursi, Words, 210; Said NursA, Mesnevi-i NA riye [Turk. trans. Abdulmecid NursA] (Istanbul: 1977).

30 Nursi, Words, 560.

31 Ibid., 560.

32 Ibid., 210.

33 Ibid., 320.

34 Ibid., 210.

35 Ibid., 522.

36 Ibid., 98.

37 Ibid., 191.

38 Ibid., 531.

39 Ibid., 528.

40 Nursi, Letters, 339-40.

41 Ibid., 342.

42 Qur’an: 33:56; 40:7-9.

43 Yalom, Psychotheraphy, 362.

44 Said Nursi, The Rays Collection [Eng. trans.] (Istanbul: 1998), 277.