250-252

My Final Defence To The Criminal Court Judge

بِاسْمِهِ سُبْحَانَهُ

This is my defence against the twelve-page section about me in the accusatory decree, which consists of over sixty pages:

The conclusive responses to the issues that have been raised in the decree against us are in my recorded defence in the court record. In response to the baseless and imaginary accusation labelled as decree, I am presenting my petition of objection, which consists of nineteen pages, and my final defence, which consists of twenty-nine pages. Both of these defences decisively reject and refute all points of criticism and primary accusations made by the interrogator in their indictment; these demonstratethat their accusations are unfounded. Here, I will only outline the "Five Principles"that demonstratethe foundation of this decree, the sources of the deceit of those making these accusations and the references to the quotations they have used to support their baseless criticism.

The First is a response to a baseless claim and the accusation of opposing the government’s principles, being against its regime and attempting to breach internal security against the Risale-i Nur and me by using as a pretext the fifteen passages taken from two or three sections of the Risale-i Nur, out of the total one hundred and twenty sections. I say this:

I wonder, how my scholarly defence on behalf of the haqiqahs of the Qur'an against the harmful aspects of this civilisation, not its beneficial ones — the civilisation, which is the common property of the entire Europe that the government of the republic accepted due to compulsion of the conditions of the time — can ever be labelled as opposition to the government’s principles, its regime, and acting against the revolutions of the government? Would the government of the republic stoop down to act as a defence lawyer to the harmful aspects of the European civilisation? Was the flawed, anti-Islamic laws of civilisation the main objective the government had been pursuing for so long? How can defending the haqiqahs of the Qur'an in a scholarly manner against some of the flawed laws of civilisation be deemed as opposition to the government? It is such a clear malice and such a baseless suspicion to accuse me and my scholarly defence — that I wrote over the past thirty years against the objections and transgressions of the European philosophers regarding the sacred haqiqahs of the âyahs, such as لِلذَّكَرِ مِثْلُ حَظِّ اْلاُنْثَيَيْنِ ٭ فَلِأُمِّهِ السُّدُسُ ٭ يَا اَيُّهَا النَّبِىُّ قُلْ ِلاَزْوَاجِكَ ٭ فَانْكِحُوا مَا طَابَ لَكُمْ1, and so on, that can be found in millions of tafsirs over the past thirteen hundred years and in all libraries today, and that are based on the definite âyahs of Al-Qur’an Al-Hakîm — of carrying intent to oppose the revolutions, principles and regimes of the government. I would not have considered it worthy of defence and response if it were not connected to this court of justice in here.

Moreover, I wonder how my scholarly defence against mulhids, who spread the seeds of irreligion, conflict and corruption on account of the European irreligious committees and by means of the Greek and Armenian committees that had pursued harming this nation and country for so long, can be deemed to be opposing the government? And for what reason is it interpreted as attacking the government? Is there any fairness in attributing irreligion to the government and accusing of it? While the strong principles of the government of the republic are against such irreligious people, to attribute irreligion to certain principles of the government and to interpret my victorious scholarly defence — against such people who spread corruption — of twenty years on account of this country, nation and government as using religion as an instrument of politics and making provocations against the government, what fairness would ever accept this? Whose conscience would accept it? Yes, I am declaring not only to this court but to the whole world:

I have defended and continue to defend the sacred haqiqahs of îmân against the European philosophers, especially irreligious philosophers, and those who make politics an instrument of irreligion and who disrupt public order in a ma’nawî manner. I consider the government of the republic to be an Islamic government that has recognised certain civil laws due to the compulsion of the time and is not allowing any opportunity for the currents of irreligion that harm this country and nation. I say this not to the interrogators who have carried out their duty, but in response to the suspicion and intrigue of the mulhid tyrants —which some of the interrogators rely upon — in the accusation that was presented as a decree:

You are accusing me of making religion an instrument of politics. In response to this serious slander of yours, I am accusing you of making politics an instrument of irreligion, along with proving with a hundred decisive proofs that the accusation is a clear slander; it is baseless and rotten!

One time, a sultân with jarbaza was committing great cruelty with the intention of justice. A muhaqqîq ‘âlim told him, “Oh Ruler! You are oppressing your subjects in the name of justice because your critical view with jarbaza gathers the faults of a person that occurred throughout time. By imagining those faults to be present now, you deliver severe punishments to their perpetrators. Moreover, in your critical view with jarbaza, you gather the faults that are committed by different people in one tribe. Due to that veil, rancour and rage towards each individual of that tribe come to you. You unjustly strike all of them. Yes, if you release in one day the saliva you release in a year, you will drown in it. If several people were to take all at once bitter medicines, such as quinine sulphate, that you use at different times, it could kill all of them. In just the same way, it is necessary to hide faults that occur occasionally since they are to be found in between good attributes. Without considering the good attributes that eliminate the faults, through your view with jarbaza, you gather those various faults and punish your subjects severely.” Thus, the sultân was saved from dhulm that he had perpetrated in the name of justice, due to the warnings of that muhaqqîq ‘âlim.