ties of the sciences of theology (kalam) and the principles of religion. However, never at any time has the need for agreement between the scholars of religion been as great as it is at present, and for them to avoid dispute. Now we are compelled to leave aside conflict in secondary matters and not to make them the subject of dispute.
I have three questions to ask of the equitable hojas of the committee of experts:
The First: Is a person guilty of an offence if someone praises him with a good intention? Especially if he does not want it — could it be thought self-love if as far as he can he either rejects such praise or directs it towards someone else, but in order not to lose his sincere friend, does not scold him, and responds with silence and saying that the praise is a hundred times greater than his due?
The Second Question: At this time of terrible attacks on religion and momentous religious questions, should a lover of the truth from among the Risale-i Nur students be deserving of such blame and insult because of a harmless, minor scholarly error and a mistaken view? Is it permissible that while awaiting from masters like yourselves a gentle warning, the student who wrote the eulogy should be dealt a blow in this way with the hand of the judiciary?
The Third Question: Are these criticisms of yours, related to only one or two matters, fitting for the Risale-i Nur, which these twenty years has never been shaken by its innumerable opponents and has strengthened the belief of thousands of needy people? Also I remind those exact scholars of the following: because they saw a letter of mine at the top of Ahmed Feyzi’s eulogy, they criticize me in their report as though I had written the eulogy to myself. But the letter was written in order not to accept the praises for myself, and to have them cut out of the eulogy, and I did cut out a part of them. Others I was going to modify, but being forced to hurry, I sent the letter to one of my brothers without completing it. He then put the letter at the beginning of the eulogy. Then when it was being sent to a private person, it was seized by the government. Is such a private eulogy, which was purely scholarly and a personal view, and was sent from friend to friend with the idea of consulting about modifying it, deserving of such vehement objections? Moreover, the two small collections bound in red and black consisted of a number of confidential letters written privately to friends in order to congratulate, encourage, and