The Subject of Reviving the Caliphate
What do you think about the subject of reviving the Caliphate?
When the Caliphate was to be abolished in 1924, İsmet İnönü opposed it, whereas Senator Seyit Bey from Izmir, a teacher of the Islamic jurisprudence methodology, did not . He even prepared a booklet relating the history of the Caliphate, based on the verse "I will create a caliph (vicegerent) on the Earth." In this booklet, he emphasized that it was a given by Muslims to the leader of the state. After having underlined that each of the Rightly Guided Caliphs (the first four) were elected in different ways, he said how it would be impossible to turn the method of election back to a single system; he called them the "true Caliphs," for they had carried out their duty within the criteria of justice and righteousness.
Then what he was saying was that the Caliphate had ended in the practical sense after the first four Caliphs?
He said that the real caliphate was represented by them. So, in a way he said that the ones who followed represented what could be called a "relative caliphate." Also, the Prophet said "the Caliphate will last for 30 years after me." This duration was completed with the Caliphate of Hasan, which lasted for six months. Another weak narration says, "If you are upon a straight path, the Caliphate will last for 70 years." Then he states "kingdom and monarchy will follow," adding "tyrants will lead the people."
In other words what Seyit Bey said was: if there is no caliph elected by a majority or by the ashab al-ray (people of esteem), and one who maintains the ideal of the caliphate, fulfilling the duty of a real caliph, then whether or not there is a caliphate is relative. The caliphate was abolished, and was regarded as being maintained within the existence of the parliament. No one rejected this claim.
So you see it as a political issue rather than a religious one?
When a religious subject is mentioned, we should first of all look at the relevant verses and hadiths, find its place among the messages of the Prophet, and find out how much emphasis was put on the issue. For instance, is there anything that suggests "that a state which is not represented by the of Caliphate is not legal"? To what degree was the matter of the caliphate regarded, i.e. was it thought that "it is indispensable."? Here I have tried to present an account of Seyit Bey's perspective; no one rejected his ideas.
When the Caliphate is mentioned, the first thing that comes to mind is Islamic movements. Some even gave different meanings to the events of March 31. (The events mentioned started with a rebellion in the army, and resulted in the dethroning of Abdulhamid II, 1909. Tr.)
What matters is the meticulous practice of Islam. It would not be correct to emphasize historical subjects that are of secondary importance in order to cause polemics; these are always open to debate.
If some fellow Muslims put an emphasis on this issue, I don't know who they are incited by. Can you say that there was a Caliphate in the real sense of the word during the Umayyads and Abbasids, did Yezid or Walid represent the Caliphate properly, allowing us to argue over it now? Deliberately or not, the creation of such debates can be something done by those who don't practice Islam in order to cover up their own flaws.
As you know, this subject is also related to the Great Middle-East project.
I think that some superpowers are trying to prepare ground for strife by causing a dispute about the Caliphate. For example, if this issue is put forth in Turkey, Pakistan, Indonesia or another country, the other countries will oppose it. This is because nation states have been established, and everybody has declared their independence. And some others may have done this with some different intentions. If there are people in Turkey saying "it has to be," I say that they should re-consider their perspectives. I don't want to accuse anybody of being somebody's (secret) agent. If there are any foreign requests on the subject, I look at it with suspicion, as it is a "foreign proposal"; I say this issue must be dealt with very carefully –forgive me– I think that "there is some monkey business going on." If those who are trying to show it as the most important issue are foreign powers and their abettors, then I think we should be more careful about them.
When the establishments belonging to this movement are considered, it seems to be a great financial power. It is suggested that this situation will not cause any problems when you are alive, but there will be a great fuss for sharing it after you. What kind of a structure is there? What will happen after you?
First of all, I would like to state that everyone writes a scenario of his own fancy on some matters, and they try to build lots of ideas on this misconception. When the starting point is a mere fancy, the ideas to follow are doomed to be wrong. The claims put forth about sharing the financial opportunities and electing a new leader after my death are baseless claims derived from mere fancies and mentioned on purpose by those who want to confuse minds. As I have said at every opportunity, these services (for God) are not dependant on any person; they belong to the nation, as do the establishments.
There is neither a formal organization to be shared, nor are there branches, nor a leadership to be fought over. People did respect some of us, saw value in their words, served the nation in parallel with their advice and are still serving.
Even the person who told them what to do did not regard it as a recommendation; people took the ideas they approved of as recommendations, and they practiced them. All of this, in short, is people in different places agreeing on the same feelings and ideals, and performing similar activities. This is only normal; there is a unity of faith, language, and culture between them.
And it shouldn't be forgotten that if the ideals people gather around do have a genuine value, if they are valuable in their essence, and if their value is unchanging, then they will draw people to themselves tomorrow, just as they do today. Our religious and national values do not stem from individuals. So, their existence does not depend on the existence of certain people. They will suffice to keep people together tomorrow as well, without disbanding them. As long as these services are carried out by seeking God's consent, He will not allow dispersions, divisions, or disbanding. We trust Him and seek refuge in Him.
You put a lot of emphasis on the Anatolian people.
Turkey has been shaken by economic crises of serious dimensions, and it cannot be claimed that such crises will not be experienced again. Within the context of today's reality, it may seem that the economy is getting better and things are running more smoothly, but the real dynamic of attaining a steady course is the people's trust in each other–this constitutes the psychological aspect of the issue–and their revival of their perspective of acting with freedom and being enterprising, thanks to this trust.
We have overcome some crises by ridding ourselves of the crisis psychology. As well as being a subject that is open to comments, we hope that the economy improves in reality as well. Now, you just see that the people of a country which went through consecutive crises gives support to the entire world, in spite of their own problems, as if they have no troubles of their own.
My eyes fill with tears when I think about it, there are many unemployed people in need of bread, there are a lot of internal problems, but just imagine: some members of this blessed nation start business enterprises in different parts of the world, they establish educational institutions and reflect a picture, as if they intend to enlighten all the world. While some try to lead people into problems, while others make efforts to cause people to come into conflict, even where they seemingly are working in the name of dialogue, our people just go and try to reconcile between people, virtually teaching a new way to the world in the name of friendship.
Is your relation to Said Nursi to the same extent that you have with the other figures from which you have benefited?
As Zübeyir Gündüzalp (a disciple of Nursi) stated, feeling respect for and gratefulness to somebody is in direct proportion with the degree of benefit (you have received).
I was devotedly attached to the Prophet thanks to the feelings and thoughts I inherited from my parents. But when I saw what the Prophet achieved concerning all humanity in the works of Nursi, be it Prophet Muhammad's Miracles or be it The Droplets, I said to myself as a child: "it seems that so far I have only been looking from afar, those stars twinkling at me in the distance are now nearly so close to my horizon that it is as if I can touch them just by reaching for them."
After having read Nursi, my ideals became far more plausible to me. Likewise, for instance, given that he was the means through which I became certain about the existence of God, just as certain as I am that two times two equals four, and that God lighted the light of faith in my heart with Nursi's guidance, it is a duty for me to be grateful to him.
If a person has benefited from someone whose works he reads, he should be able to express it freely without any concerns. This is the necessity of being human.
- Created on .