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 gratify them. Anyway, one or two people had been interested in them, and had gathered them together in a book so they should not get lost. In the searches it fell into the hands of the police. Is there any need to put forward absurd suppositions about such letters, make them the subject of interrogation, and try to relate them to politics? Is it not like being blind to the terrible dragons assaulting the Qur’an, and not even looking at them, and trying to combat pestilential mosquitoes?

Does it not infer by ignoring Saraçoglu, who calls religion and the training of Muhammad “poison”, and by disputing The Illuminating Lamp, which demonstrates the Qur’anic reality as clearly as the sun and proves it to be the perfect cure for mankind’s wounds, assisting in the confiscation of that collection? We await from persons like yourselves balm for our wounds, and your insight and assistance, and we are not offended at your minor criticisms.

Prisoner,

S a i d N u r s i

***