2. The Hadith which the prosecution stated was “false” and therefore unscholarly, is said to be “sound” in the books of Hadiths. So having been accepted by the scholars of Hadiths, and the fact that the leading Istanbul scholars both before the Constitutional Revolution and during it accepted Bediuzzaman’s interpretations and replies, which are now found in the Fifth Ray, to the questions they asked of him in connection with the questions asked of them by the Japanese and the Anglican Church, and those prominent scholars did not object to his replies establishes definitely that the Hadith is sound.
Moreover, the truths of not a part of the Risale-i Nur, but of all of it, are so powerful that no true Islamic scholar could object to them, so that foremost the Directorate of Religious Affairs, and true scholars throughout the country since the Constitutional Period, have been compelled to accept and respect them. The objections of one or two individuals who are known as scholars but who are bereft of true knowledge do not refute those truths and powerful proofs. They are merely ridiculous. Is it a betrayal of the regime to write a letter of thanks to the author of the Risale-i Nur because one is captivated by the truths of the Qur’an and belief it contains, the spiritual and material benefits of which have become clear, and which are studied all over the country by every class of person in order to save their eternal lives from extinction, and from which thousands of compatriots have profited and so are eternally indebted to their esteemed author, since he has saved their belief; is it a betrayal, relying on the undeniable truths stated by the Hadith which is deemed to constitute an offence, to consider certain acts and works to have appeared in this country, which are referred to by the Hadith, and supposing it to be thus, relying on the statements of numerous Islamic scholars, to see it as a victory of the Qur’an which will lead to the repairing of certain errors and to be pleased at this, and to privately put this view to a Master from whose works one has received effulgence; and to hope that the country and nation will not fall into anarchy and thus into the embrace of the Red Peril, which causes the whole world to tremble — is this a betrayal of the regime? Is it to malign the reforms? And although several courts of law have acquitted that scholar, who is utterly deserving of commendation and appreciation, and although he is very elderly, a recluse, and has no one, to charge him with the same matters, arrest him, put him into solitary confinement, and send him to trial, and for us too, to consider to be a crime these scholarly views of ours and our working to save our belief, and to put these forward as evidence of our supposed breaching of state security, is the just decision of which conscience? I ask this of your court and leave it to your consciences.