Muslim’s perception of the United States of America: The case of Said Nursi

Introduction

When it comes to the Islamic world and Muslims, feelings and opinions about the United States are variable, complex, and contradictory. According to some studies, the factors shaping the perception of America in the Arab-Islamic world are cultural, while according to others, political and military reasons take first place. Whatever the reason, the role of political elites and opinion leaders in determining the perception of America in these countries is evident (Blaydes and Linzer 2012, 1).

In this article, I will examine the views of Said Nursi on America. He was an Islamic scholar, a Quran commentator and the founding leader of the Nur Movement. Thus, Nursi’s views and evaluations on America will be presented in a critical manner in article form for the first time. But first, I will focus on the reasons why I included Nursi’s perception of the United States in the article. Later, after covering the development of his ideas about America in the Ottoman Empire and Islamic world in which he was born, we will consider Nursi’s perception of America. While the time frame of my research is Nursi’s life (1876-1960), the primary bibliography regarding his views is his Risale-i Nur collection, which consists of his books and exceeds six thousand pages.

Why Said Nursi?

There are five important reasons why I chose Said Nursi for this study. Firstly, Nursi lived in perhaps one of the most turbulent, unstable, and fragile periods in world history (1876-1960). The Balkan Wars, the First World War, the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the Second World War, and many other conflicts and disintegrations that accompanied them took place before Nursi’s eyes. In addition, Nursi also witnessed the sultanate, constitutional monarchy, single-party rule, and multi-party political systems in the lands in which he lived (Nursi 2019g). In his own words, witnessing this century of disasters and destruction is important in itself, but more importantly Nursi recorded this testimony in his magnum opus Risale-i Nur collection (Risale-i Nur Külliyatı). Therefore, the views of a person who witnessed such a dramatic period in recent history about America are important.

Secondly, while Nursi explained the truths of Islam and the Quran through the treatises he wrote, using his own unique language and methodology, these writings began to be circulated by hand and manually copied under the societal conditions of Turkey in the 1920s and 30s. In this process, people from all segments of society began to coalesce around the ideas in these treatises. Thus, like the Mevlevis movement, which was shaped around Rumi's Mathnawi, the Nur Movement was formed around Nursi's Risale-i Nur Collection (Mardin 1992, 8-14). This movement, which continued to grow after Nursi's death (1960), spread to the Islamic world and all over the world and gained a global character with its members numbering in the millions today (Orhan 2022, 24). Therefore, Nursi's perception of the United States, which continues to influence contemporary Islamic thought with both his works and the Nur Movement, requires consideration.

The third factor that makes Nursi’s views on America worth discussing is his bold comments on the Muslim-Christian alliance and unity within the scope of explaining some verses and hadiths pointing to the end times. According to Nursi (2019e, 256; 2019b, 543; 2019a, 714; 2019f, 26), in the face of movements that shake beliefs and values, such as communism, materialism, and atheism that will emerge in the end times, Muslims must ally and cooperate with pious Christians to protect their faith and human values. Nursi, who expressed this openly and clearly for the first time in accordance with Islam’s main sources, attaches special importance to America in this alliance, as we will see in detail below.

The fourth reason that gives originality to Nursi’s views and requires attention is his non-political identity, language, and methodology (Turner 2020, 767). There is no doubt that Islam provides many symbols and slogans for those who need them. The formula in Islamic society is simple for leaders who pursue change through revolutions: they are the infidel enemy/West and its treacherous collaborators in the Islamic world (Lewis 2003, 377). However, far from slogans, Nursi, unlike many contemporary Islamic scholars and opinion leaders, based the reform of society not on politics, revolution, or seizing power, but on the education of the individual and strengthening his faith and morals. Adhering to the understanding of positive action, he rejected violence, in particular changing society through violence (Horkuc 2004, 281). Nursi rejected violence not only among Muslims but also in their relations with other civilizations and religions. According to him, the material sword is sheathed in defending and propagating Islam. The jihad of this century will be done with the “spiritual diamond sword” of the Quran, that is, with the word (Markham and Pirim 2011, 19). ¹ Here Nursi has a message for Muslims. Since diamonds are more valuable than metal, he means to say, “leave the metal sword aside, embrace the spiritual diamond sword consisting of the truths of the Quran” (Nursi 2019a, 881). Therefore, within this methodology, Nursi’s treatment of America also contains a distinct originality.

The fifth issue that makes Nursi's perception of America original is his style of evaluating Western civilization and America, which is far from generalizing and wholesale approaches. As a person from a place where opinions about America and the West manifest themselves as either hatred or admiration, Nursi put forward a very measured and positive thought, and with this attitude, he inspires those who strive for dialogue and understanding others instead of promoting conflict. Because “the time for hostility and enmity is over. The two world wars showed how bad, destructive and terrible oppression the general hostilities were” (Nursi 2019b, 554).

American conception in the Ottoman and Islamic world

In the Ottoman Empire, where Said Nursi was born (1876), the first official contact with the United States probably began in 1800, when a ship under the command of Admiral Bainbridge anchored in the port of Istanbul. After much discussion in the Babıali (the central government) which country this ship belonged to and which flag it would be saluted with, this New World ship and its crew were well received (Finnie 1967, 49). The first official agreement between the two countries was the friendship and trade agreement in 1830, and a year later, the American chargé d’affaires took office in Istanbul (Özmen 2007, 207-209).

America’s presence in Anatolia was achieved through missionary schools. Since 1870, colleges were opened in Antep, Harput, Merzifon, İzmir, and Tarsus, and twenty-one missionary schools were opened in Eastern Anatolia. The policy of the Protestant-based American Missionary Organization to spread its beliefs through schools instead of churches in the Middle East was effective in this regard (Bostanoğlu 2007, 221-222). According to Stone (1984, 120), in the late 1800s, there were around 200 Protestant missionaries in Bitlis, the city where Nursi was born. Considering that the first Muslim Turkish immigrants from Anatolia began to come to the United States at the end of the nineteenth century, it can be said that certain perceptions about America were formed in Ottoman society during that period (Acehan 2005, 223).

The breakup of the Ottoman Empire during the First World War, according to Said Nursi was “the greatest earthquake” in Islamic history (2019c, 465). Despite Britain’s insistence, the United States decided not go to war against the Ottoman Empire. In 1917, it entered the war only against Germany, but its main preference was to put its weight on the table in favor of peace negotiations (Kaya 2019, 557-558). Shortly after this, the war ended and, in Fromkin’s (1990, 3) words, “a period of peace to end all peace” began for the remnants of the Ottoman lands and the Middle East.

Nursi, who participated in the First World War as a volunteer militia commander on the Ottoman side, was captured by the Russians during the war, escaped from the Kosturma prison camp, where he stayed for more than two years, and returned to Istanbul. Nursi experienced a spiritual change and almost a rebirth during the days he spent in Istanbul after the war. He called the period he lived in previously the Old Said period, and the period after that the New Said period (Vahide 2010, 169). While the Old Said had an activist personality in Ottoman-Islamic society, in which he was more interested in social and political events and expressed his ideas at almost every opportunity with his identity as an Islamic scholar, the New Said was rather distant from social and political life, more reclusive, and completely focused on faith and the Qur'an. He preferred a service-oriented life (Markham and Pirim 2011, 14). Therefore, it is necessary to read Nursi's evaluations about the United States by taking into account his distinction between the Old Said and New Said.

In addition to the absence of Ottoman authority in the Middle East after the First World War, another important cause of instability was that Jews began to settle in Palestine with the support of the United Kingdom. While the borders of the Arab states were drawn in line with the interests of the UK and France and their administrations were determined by the same goals, conflicts and attacks continued both between Arabs and Jews (Rahman 2010, 34). However, in the period between the two world wars, the US was not directly involved in the instabilities in the Middle East. The impact of the Great Depression of 1929, which started in the United States and affected the world, along with an isolationist policy, left its mark (Jentleson 2014, 95). Therefore, it seems that America did not play an important role, positive or negative, in the Middle East during the interwar period.

On the other hand, World War II was a turning point for US foreign policy. The advantageous outcome of the war for the US was that it created the illusion of the limitlessness of its power. Unlike other great powers, the fact that the American homeland was almost unaffected by the devastation of war opened a large space for it in the global arena (Goodheart 2005, 125). As the policy of isolation and those who supported it weakened, a period began in American foreign policy that was closely related to world problems and, of course, the Middle East. Three components determined America’s Middle East policy in this period (1947-1991), shaped by the Truman Doctrine: eliminating the communist/Soviet threat and influence on the region, ensuring Israel’s security, and continuing the uninterrupted flow of oil from the region to the United States and the West (Rached and Abdulrahman 2021, 46). Therefore, during the Cold War, American perception of the Middle East oscillated between two ends of the pendulum: positive, with its support for Islamic countries against communism, and negative, with its guarantee of Israel’s security. Especially at the societal level, the 1967 Arab-Israeli War and America’s support for Israel in this war constituted an important break (Parker 1988, 53; Lewis 2003, 367; Leopold 2007, 2; Blaydes and Linzer 2012, 2-3).

Another important source of anti-Americanism in the Arab-Islamic world is Arab socialism. Arab socialism, which was attempted to be synthesized under the names of Islamic socialism or Baathism, had been accepted and institutionalized to a certain extent in Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon and Libya. Socialism, based on Arab nationalism and motivated by anti-colonialism, anti-American imperialism, and anti-Zionism, played an important role in the spread of anti-Americanism (Görgün 2009, 384-385).

Another point that should be emphasized in terms of the relationship between America and the Islamic world is America’s role in the decolonization process. The US policy of supporting Islamic countries against the Soviets encouraged anti-colonial independence movements. Turkey, Iran, and Afghanistan had already emerged from the First World War as independent states. ² Between the two wars, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iraq and Egypt also beame independent. The streak of independence continued during the Second World War and following the Cold War; Pakistan, Indonesia, the Philippines, Libya, Sudan, Tunisia, Morocco, Mauritania, Kuwait, Algeria, South Yemen, and the Gulf states gained independence. Their involvement in the free world bloc was instrumental in the Muslim-Arab countries gaining independence. According to another view, the American tradition, which fought for independence against the UK and developed a natural reflex against colonialism, was decisive in supporting anti-colonial independence movements (Cosgrove 1990, 27-133; Lewis 2003, 357).

Another break in American policy towards the Middle East and the Islamic World occurred in 1991 with the official dissolution of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. In this new period, which Fukuyama (1992) described as the end of history, the transition from two superpowers to one brought about a transition to a new concept in Middle East policy for the United States. The key concepts of the new era are now expressed as democratizing the region and liberalizing economies (Ahmadov 2005, 139-140). Military interventions in the region during the Bush administrations, the 9/11 attacks, the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq by Anglo-American forces, and the developments that followed have dragged the Arab-Islamic region into violence and sectarian conflicts rather than freedom, democracy, and human rights (Bellaigue 2017, 349). All these developments have traumatically and negatively shaped the perception of America in the region. However, according to Ciftci and Tezgur (2016, 20-21), it is not only US foreign policy that shapes the perception of America in the Islamic World, but also the policies of regional actors (such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Iran), sectarian affiliation (Sunni-Shia), religion-state relationships, and the level of individual religiosity are decisive. According to another study, especially in the Middle East and North African countries, anti-Americanism is grouped into three main categories in terms of its reasons: (1) American foreign policy and interventionism, (2) religion and religious affiliation, (3) poverty (Glass and Spierings 2021, 688- 690).

Whichever way you look at it, the post-Cold War Middle East policy of the United States and the reactions to this policy have followed a course that fosters anti-Americanism. It is as if pro-war/occupation politicians and “jihadists” who carry out terrorist attacks on civilian targets have competed to justify Huntington's (1993) clash of civilizations thesis. The events of these few decades have weakened the hand of supporters of dialogue/peace between civilizations and religions in the Western and Islamic worlds while strengthening the position of violent groups. We will now turn to Said Nursi's conception of America.

Said Nursi’s conception of America

Considering that American Protestant missionaries were active and opened a school in Bitlis (Mardin 1992, 102), where and in the same year (1876) Nursi was born, it can be surmised that Nursi had general knowledge about America in his youth. It is unthinkable that someone like Nursi, who observes his surroundings, events, and facts very carefully, was not aware of the origin and nature of missionary activities. However, in Nursi’s recorded works, there is no negative perspective on either these activities in his own city or on missionary activities in general.

On the other hand, Nursi's first mention of America in his works was in Muhakemat, published in 1911. Nursi, who included Thomas Carlyle's complimentary words about Islam with the expression “Carlyle, the famous philosopher of the New World,” followed important names interested in Islam in the West and America and their ideas to the extent that it was possible at that time (Nursi 2019d, 169). However, there is a mistake here regarding Carlyle's nationality. Carlyle was not American, but Scottish.

Nursi’s first concrete, albeit indirect, experience with the United States was within the scope of the Wilson Principles, which came to the fore during the Armistice of Mudros signed after the First World War. Wilson’s principles, consisting of fourteen points, envisaged autonomous administration for non-Turkish minorities in the Ottoman lands. For the Kurds, this brought an independent Kurdish state to the agenda (Aksu 2012, 36). In this context, after it was decided at the Paris Peace Conference to appoint a commission based on the League of Nations’ article on mandate management, the commission formed by the US under the chairmanship of Dr. Henry Churchill King and Charles R. Crane came to Istanbul on June 3, 1919 (Ayışığı 2018, 75). However, Nursi criticized this plan of the United States and the establishment for a separate Kurdish state from the Turks, saying, “The Kurdish cause is a very meaningless claim... There is talk of autonomy to be given to Kurdistan! Kurds would rather die than accept autonomy under foreign protection” (Nursi 1920, 4). Considering that he is of Kurdish origin, Nursi’s attitude says a lot about his non-racist approach (Turner 2020, 770). Because he believes that the common future for Turks, Kurds, and Arabs is not in separation based on nationalism, but in an alliance based on Islamic brotherhood (Nursi 2019b, 574).

On the other hand, Americans first became aware of Nursi’s works (the Risale-i Nur collection) when Salahaddin Çelebi, a student of Nursi, gave his work called Staff of Moses (Asa-yı Musa) to a group of American missionaries. Nursi stated his satisfaction: “Indeed, there were many people in America who were sincerely religious, rather than using it as a tool for politics. God willing, the person who received the Staff of Moses is one of those religious people... American scholars will certainly not remain indifferent to the treatise on the Staff of Moses” (2019c, 207-210). But interestingly, he opposed sending his works to the United States through the American ambassador in Istanbul. Because, according to him, ambassadors will not be able to fully understand the value of Risale-i Nur, which has nothing to do with politics, as they are busy with politics as part of their profession. Moreover, “Because America follows the smallest news of this place with curiosity, it will certainly look for the Risale-i Nur, which is the biggest event of this place” (285). ³ It is understood that Nursi was sensitive about establishing communication and dialogue between Risale-i Nur, the Nur movement, and Americans, not through politics but through civil initiatives. ⁴

Nursi attaches special importance to American society's search for truth and its interest in the truths of the Qur'an. In this context his following statement is noteworthy:

Of course, if all human beings do not lose their minds and if a material or spiritual apocalypse does not befall them; like the famous orators of Sweden, Norway, Finland and England are trying to accept the Quran, and the important society of America that is seeking the true religion, the vast continents and great governments of the world will search for the Quran and embrace it with all their souls after understanding its truths. (Nursi 2019c, 523)

We do not know exactly which society or group is the “important society seeking the true religion in America” mentioned here. However, Nursi went one step further with a determination he made in 1951 about the interest that Islam would receive in America and he stated, “Based on the fact that the fields of America and Europe have produced such brilliant scholars, I say with all my conviction; Europe and America are pregnant with Islam. One day they will give birth to an Islamic state” (526).

How should we understand Nursi's statement here about America giving birth to an Islamic state? Nursi's intention was to provide an environment which upholds the fundamental values of Islam, such as freedom of belief and worship, security of property and life, morality, justice, and the guarantee of a life worthy of human dignity for everyone. This is because, according to Nursi (2019b, 391), 99 percent of Sharia belongs to morality, worship, the afterlife, and virtue. Only 1 percent is involved in politics and the state. ⁵ As a matter of fact, in the 2022 World Islamicity Rankings published by the Islamicity Foundation, the United States ranked 29th among the countries where Islam can be practised most freely, leaving many Muslim-dense countries behind (Islamicity Index 2023). Perhaps for this reason, we see scenes of people from many Muslim countries trying to escape to the United States (and Europe) risking death. As a matter of fact, while Muslims constituted 0.13 percent of the US population in 1950, they reached 1.3 per cent with a tenfold increase in 2020, and the trend continues (Kettani 2010; Grammich et al. 2023, 8). This confirms Nursi's perspective.

Another positive opinion of Nursi (2019b, 538; 2019c, 424) about America for Islam and Muslims is due to the open support of the United States for Islamic countries to decolonize and gain their independence. Again, within the scope of this policy carried out by the US in its struggle against communism, Turkey, together with Greece, became a member of NATO in 1952, in response to the Soviet threat. Despite the opposition of the British, Nursi supported the administration of Turkey’s Democratic Party in its cooperation with America by becoming a member of NATO. He said; “it is always in the interest of America and the American people to be friends with the world of Islam and they do not have a policy against Islam like the British” (Akgündüz 2015, 4:158). In 1955, Turkey signed the Baghdad Pact with Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, and the UK, again with the support of the US (Lewis 2003, 367). Nursi openly supported this pact, which was later renamed the Central Treaty Organization (CENTO). It created both inter-Muslim and Muslim-Christian alliances; Nursi expressed his satisfaction with it (Sarıtoprak 2008, 34). In this process, Nursi advised the Muslim countries that gained independence to unite and establish alliances with themselves and with the United States (2019b, 557).

Another important mission that Nursi expects from the United States is about Muslim-Christian dialogue, unity and alliance. Interestingly, Nursi points to the New World as the basis of this alliance:

As a consequence of these widespread struggles (World War II), a danger more harmful than that resulting from World War I would be born and an antichrist-like savagery would emerge in Europe, which is the source and prop of civilization. The consolation for this anxiety was that with the full awakening of the Islamic world, and the New World and Christianity following the authentic principles of their religion and their uniting with Islam, and with heavenly assistance they might withstand those two awesome future currents and overcome them, God willing. (Nursi 2019c, 88)

Before touching on America’s role in the Muslim-Christian alliance mentioned here, it is necessary to emphasize an important point. Nursi is the first person in the history of Islamic thought to point out the union and alliance of Muslims and Christians with reference to the basic sources of Islam (the Quran and hadiths) and to clearly demonstrate the necessity of this. Nursi’s call for dialogue and alliance dates back to 1911, that is, before World War I, between members of both religions (Michel 1999, 325). First of all, while interpreting the verse of the Quran, “O you who believe, do not take Jews and Christians as friends” (5:51), he states that contrary to many traditional and contemporary interpretations, the verse does not contain a provision that covers everyone without exception (al-'amm), that is, it was revealed absolutely (mutlaq), that is, limited to certain conditions (Nursi 2019b, 472). Moreover, time, as the best interpreter, has judged the absoluteness of the verse. Again, according to Nursi, a person is loved not only for his personality but for his attributes and qualities. Just as all the adjectives of a Muslim may not be good, a non-Muslim may have many good adjectives. Therefore, there is no harm in loving and adopting the good attributes and qualities of a Christian or a Jew. As a matter of fact, here, referring to marrying a woman from the People of the Book, which is permissible in Islamic law, he asks, “Won’t a Muslim man love his Christian or Jewish wife? Of course he will love it?”, and he emphasizes from another perspective that the command with the verse is absolute (Sarıtoprak 2008, 28).

While the Islamic world had not yet recovered from the trauma of the Crusades and the colonialism of Christian Europe weighed heavily on Muslim societies, the members of the two religions experienced their last major conflict during the First World War. In the same years, Nursi’s talk about Muslim-Christian alliance and solidarity could be seen as a pretty bold move. However, Nursi presents this alliance and union not as his personal opinion or wish, but in the context of explaining the famous hadith about Jesus. As stated in the hadith, Jesus and Mahdi (the later who is stated in the hadiths to serve Islam at the end of times) will pray in the same mosque at the end of times (Nursi 2019f, 371–373, 441). Although Nursi does not object to the traditional interpretations of this hadith, he states that it allegorically points to the Muslim-Christian unity at the end of times (Sarıtoprak 2008, 34). Again, with the indication of similar hadiths, at the end of times, pious Christians, worthy of the title of “Muslim Christians,” will once again ensure tranquility, security, and peace in the world by allying with Muslims against the ideological/blasphemous currents that destroy spiritual values (Nursi 2019f, 624).

In this union and alliance that will take place at the end of times, why does Nursi emphasize America rather than, for example, Europe with the statement “the New World and Christianity following the authentic principles of their religion and their uniting with Islam”? In my opinion, there are two important factors, geopolitically and historically, that make it easier for the United States to fulfil this mission. First, the US has not experienced the Christian-Islamic struggle that has been going on in the Mediterranean basin for centuries. Mediterranean countries were ruled by Christian or Muslim states for fourteen centuries. As of the seventh century, when Islam emerged, the Islamic-Christian relationship was shaped by the campaigns that started in the Christian world, attack and counter-attack, jihad and crusades, conquest and reconquests, and colonies (Lewis 2021, 317). ⁶ However, America was born and developed geographically far from this struggle and the prejudices it fostered. It also played a critical role in ending the Christian European colonization of Islamic countries. Secondly, the founding philosophy of the United States promises the most favorable environment for the Christian-Muslim alliance. In this sense, America is based—at least in principle—on equality, independence, and social consent (Lepore 2019, 787). George Washington’s letter to a Jewish community leader gives an important clue as to how the United States reconciled freedom of religion/conscience and secularism in its founding phase:

All citizens of the United States are entitled to the same freedom of conscience and civic immunities. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.” (quoted in Lewis 2021, 316).

To what extent the environment described here was realized in realpolitik and America’s record as an exception to these principles is the subject of a separate discussion. But keeping over 333 million of the world’s most cosmopolitan people in terms of faith, language, ethnicity, and lifestyle together without significant conflict still reflects the spirit of these founding principles, which are also accepted by Islam.

While making his defense in the Afyon Criminal Court, approximately one hundred and fifty years after Washington, Nursi describes the universal conditions of common life with almost the same words:

Mr. Prosecutor and Members of the Court! You are accusing me of holding an idea the opposite of which I have held for fifty years. If you are asking about the secular republic, what I understand by it is that secularism means being unbiased; that is, in accordance with the principle of freedom of conscience, it refers to a government that does not interfere with religiously-minded and pious people, the same as it does not interfere with the irreligious and dissolute. I have withdrawn from political and social life for ten, and now its twenty, years. I do not know the state of the Government of the Republic. If, God forbid, it has taken on a fearsome form whereby, on account of irreligion, it promulgates laws indicting those who work for their belief and lives in the hereafter, I proclaim to you fearlessly and warn you: if I had a thousand lives, I would be ready to sacrifice all of them for belief and the hereafter. (Nursi 2019a, 371)

The successful implementation by the United States of the libertarian and pluralist interpretation of secularism that Nursi describes here must have been influential in Nursi’s positive views about America. This is because Nursi directly experienced the policies that were the product of Atatürk’s strict Jacobin understanding of secularism and closely observed their negative effects on society.

Nursi not only pointed out the necessity of the Christian-Muslim alliance, but he personally sent his treatise named “Zülfikar” to the Pope through the Vatican representative office in Istanbul, and in return, a letter of thanks was sent to him from the Papal office (Nursi 2019c, 433). Moreover, during another trip to Istanbul, he visited the Fener Greek Patriarchate and met with Patriarch Athenagoras (Şahiner 2018, 255). After these steps taken by Nursi towards dialogue, in 1964, Pope Paul VI established the “Secretariat of Non-Christian Religions” for the first time within the Vatican to promote interreligious dialogue at various levels. Again, for the first time, positive words about Islam were included in the 16th article of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Malik 2005, 132).

There were also important developments that confirmed Nursi’s pointing to the United States as the appropriate basis for the Christian-Muslim alliance. In a first in world history, the first official Congress of World Religions was held in Chicago in 1893. To celebrate the centenary of this congress, the Parliamentary Council of World Religions was established in 1988. The Council continues to bring together religious leaders, scholars, students, and activists to ensure the vision of a just, peaceful, and sustainable future by hosting meetings and other forums to promote interfaith harmony. According to the records of The Pluralism Project (2023) based at Harvard University, seventeen organizations such as the World Congress of Religions and the Gülen Movement are actively carrying out interfaith dialogue. However, despite the promising work done, it should be stated that progress in dialogue efforts is quite slow.

Nursi (2019a, 951), on the other hand, in the name of Islam, commemorated with appreciation the struggle of the United States against communism, which he described as one of the greatest mischiefs of the end times (Nursi 2019c, 424). ⁷ In June 1950, sixteen countries, including Turkey, sent troops to the Korean Peninsula as the United Nations Peace Force under the leadership of the United States to help fight against North Korea, which invaded South Korea, with the support of communist Russia and China (Ercil 2010, 1). However, this decision to send troops taken by the Truman administration led to fierce debates in the Turkish public, and propaganda was made that “those who go to Korea and fight on the side of the infidel America will not become martyrs, they will die as infidels” (Öztürk 2021, 47). However, Nursi, countering this propaganda, said “it is necessary to go to Korea against the denial of divinity.” He sent one of his closest students, Bayram Yüksel, with this military force and openly supported this war against communism (Badıllı 2021, 3:2414).

On the other hand, Nursi made a brief but original comment on the Israel-Palestine conflict, which is one of the most important issues which feeds anti-Americanism in the Islamic world. Nursi, who rarely touched on issues related to politics, perhaps put forward the most groundbreaking approach to the subject in the Islamic world with the answer he gave to a student's question. Referring to the disasters that the Jewish people have suffered throughout history, Nursi draws attention to the following point on the Palestine issue:

But in this Palestinian issue, they [Jews] do not act out of greed for life and a sense of worldliness. Since Palestine is the graveyard of the prophets of the Israelites, they have an important national and religious feeling in one respect, since those ancient prophets were of their nationality. That's why they don't get slapped quickly. Otherwise, a small group of people in great Arabia would not have been able to resist. (Nursi 2019a, 629)

As can be understood from these statements, Nursi explains the fact that the Jews were able to hold on to the Palestinian lands with a small population with a different wisdom. They clung to the Palestinian lands not out of greed, but also out of affection and religious feelings towards the graves of their ancestors, the prophets. According to him, for the sake of this love and religious feeling, divine destiny allows Jews to live—with a relatively small population—in Palestinian lands. This interpretation does not legitimize occupation, oppression, and violence, but rather sheds light on the logic behind its rationality. It is noteworthy that a Muslim scholar emphasizes this love of the prophets and the sense of religious belonging in the Jews, without delving into chronic shallow political comments. ⁸ It is almost impossible to find a similar interpretation and approach in the Islamic world, where the debate consists almost exclusively of cursing America and Israel and the problem is handed over to slogans instead of ideas.

While Nursi was still alive, some of his treatises were translated into English and sent to America. Again, according to Nursi’s (2019c, 579, 611, 627) statement, these works showed their influence and were well accepted in America. Already in the 1950s, some treatises were gifted to the Washington mosque and the Muslims there also benefited from these works (Nursi 2019g, 887-888).

As can be understood from his views provided so far, Nursi’s opinion about the United States is generally positive. However, this positive perspective is not absolute, that is, it is not a political or ideological partisanship in the form of support for all kinds of policies and actions of America, but an appreciation of its mission that serves faith and Islam. Because, for Nursi (2019h, 347), the highest truth and highest value in the universe is belief in God. Therefore, everything else gains value in proportion to its service to this higher truth. In addition, methodologically, Nursi carefully avoids using wholesale and one-dimensional language when evaluating a civilization, a country, a society, or even a person and evaluates things and events based on their general situation over a long period of time. For example, the language he uses when evaluating Europe provides an important clue in this sense:

It should not be misunderstood; Europe is twofold. One follows the sciences which serve justice and right and the industries beneficial for the life of society through the inspiration it has received from true Christianity; this first Europe I am not addressing. I am addressing the second corrupt Europe which, through the darkness of the philosophy of Naturalism, supposing the evils of civilization to be its virtues, has driven mankind to vice and misguidance….” (Nursi 2019e, 203)

In terms of Nursi's methodology, it is quite possible to say that the evaluations in these sentences will also be valid for America. Because of course, America, like Europe, is not one-dimensional. Of course, from a political perspective, Lincoln's America and Nixon's America, Bush's America and Obama's America are not the same. When we look at it with Nursi's methodology, we see America, which helped many Islamic countries to get rid of colonialism and protect them from Soviet occupation, as well as America, which invaded Afghanistan and Iraq for self-interested political reasons and caused countless cruelties and deaths. However, thanks to the same methodology, we do not attribute George W. Bush's occupation policy to the entire American people and demonize the entire country with its state and society. This is because good (khair) and evil (shar) are in struggle all over the world and of course in America (Nursi 2019i, 66). Those who work for charity and claim to serve good will try to find ways and methods of unity and alliance with the charitable people of every society. Therefore, if there is a conflict, it is not between civilizations, as Huntington stated, but within each civilization, between the supporters of good/peace and the supporters of evil/conflict. As a matter of fact, in Nursi's (2019f, 669) words, wars between states and nations have given way to the struggle between strata in this age.

Evaluation and conclusion

According to Nursi, the most popular commodity in modern civilization is politics. Therefore, all ideas and views have turned to politics (2019i, 647). Politics, by its nature, is divisive and polarizing. Whatever we consider from a political point of view, we see it as we want to see it, not as it really is. However, some geniuses comprehend things and events with all their truth, without being caught up in the diseases of the age, and call out from a horizon that exceeds their own time. It is precisely from such a horizon that Nursi addresses his age and perhaps the ages after him.

Nursi, who puts belief in God at the top of the hierarchy of values, attributes value to everything else in proportion to their service to faith. That’s why, especially during the Yeni Said period, he devoted all his time and energy to the service of faith and the Quran. He also based his opinion of the United States on service to faith and Islam. In this respect, the mission that America has fulfilled and will continue to fulfil in favor of heavenly religions against the threat of communism and denial of divinity that shakes Asia and Europe is a reason for positive consideration for Nursi. As a result of this mission, America played an important role in the liberation of many Islamic countries from colonialism and their attainment of independence.

With the collapse of the Soviets and the end of the Cold War, America’s anti-communist mission may have ended to some extent. However, according to Nursi, the New World has another important mission to fulfil for world peace and tranquility: to form the basis for Christian-Muslim unity and alliance. Because, according to Nursi, neither Christians nor Muslims can cope with the material and spiritual problems of the age alone. These problems can only be overcome through cooperation and alliance based on divine oneness and the spirituality of the Prophet Jesus, the prophet of the members of both religions. The US, which remains geopolitically and historically outside the Christian-Muslim wars, offers the most suitable environment for this alliance from a socio-psychological perspective. Add to this the founding principles of the United States that guarantee freedom of religion and conscience, and ideal conditions are provided for the fulfilment of this mission. It should also be stated that the union and alliance that Nursi mentioned is not a cyclical dialogue to be established through politics or diplomatic channels, but a permanent cooperation that should develop through civil initiatives and on scientific, moral, and cultural grounds, which are the common values of humanity.

Nursi stated that the United States would one day give birth to an Islamic state, taking into consideration both the role it would play against communism and the mission it would fulfil regarding the Christian-Muslim alliance. This prediction, which at first glance may seem like a utopia in terms of realpolitik, seems reasonable when thought a little more carefully. Because what Nursi means by the Islamic state is not just its shape and name, it refers to an environment where beliefs can be practiced freely, which will result in the happiness of all humanity. In this respect, the United States undoubtedly offers a more favorable environment than many Islamic countries.

At this point, Nursi's perception of the United States can be criticized from two perspectives. Firstly, did this concept of Nursi find a response in the Islamic world and the West and become widespread among the masses? Secondly, does Nursi's perception maintain its meaning and validity today?

For the first question, we can answer partly yes and partly no. Yes, the Nur movement, consisting of Nursi's followers, has brought his ideas to a certain extent with its activities to almost every country in the world. Also, there has been a significant increase in research on Nursi in Western academia in the last few decades (Markham and Pirim 2011, 3). However, it is difficult to say that these ideas are sufficiently recognized or have reached the target audience, both in the Islamic world and the West. Especially and unfortunately, it is not possible to say that Nursi's call for interfaith dialogue, unity, and alliance has received sufficient interest and response from the West and especially the United States intelligentsia—apart from the promising works of the last few decades. We think that Nursi's use of a more cold-blooded and faith-based language, instead of a political and revolutionary style that excites the masses, played an important role in this.

When we look at the meaning and validity of Nursi’s views today, it is necessary to evaluate these views by dividing them into two: conjunctural and supra-conjunctural. The function that America performed in favor of Muslim-majority dominant countries against the threat of communism and the Soviets was largely completed with the end of this threat. Therefore, the conjunctural value that Nursi attributes to the United States in this respect is almost outdated. However, given the mission that Nursi attributed to America to create the most suitable ground for interfaith dialogue, struggling against unbelief, religious life maintains its meaning and value. When the cool-headed, broad-minded, religious, and virtuous people of the West and especially America look for interlocutors among the contemporary representatives of Islamic thought to solve the problems of the century, they will find Said Nursi and his followers as partners with whom they can establish dialogue and contribute to the solution. Because, as we see in his approach to the Palestinian issue, the methodology that Nursi put forward in “understanding the other” transcends all political and ideological polarizations and shows the path and method suitable for the broadest cooperation on the denominators of morality and virtue.

In conclusion, Nursi’s views on the United States must of course be read in their own terms and with subjectivity. However, considering that the discussions about America in the Islamic world, as on many other issues, are carried out in the pro or opponent dichotomy, Nursi’s vision showing different colors continues to inspire rich and broad-minded discussions today.