Yes, ‘association’ is one thing and the cause is another. You receive a bounty, but the intention of a person to bestow it on you was the ‘associate’ of the bounty, not the cause. The cause was divine mercy. If the man had not intended to give  you the bounty, you would not have received it and it would have been the cause of the bounty’s non-existence. But in consequence of the above rule, the desire to bestow cannot be the cause of the bounty; it can only be one out of hundreds of conditions.

For example, some of the Risale-i Nur students (like Hüsrev and Re’fet) who have  received  Almighty  God’s  bounties  have  confused  the  ‘association’  and  the cause,  and  have  been over-grateful to  their  Master. However,  Almighty God  put together the bounty of benefiting from the Qur’anic instruction which He bestowed on them, and the bounty of  instructing which He had  bestowed on their Master; He

‘associated’ the two. They say: “If our Master had not come here, we would not have received this instruction, so his instruction is the cause of our benefiting.” However, I say:

“Brothers! The bounties  Almighty God  bestowed  on  you  and  on me arrived

together. The cause of both bounties is divine mercy. Like you, I at one time confused the  association with  the  cause,  and  felt  much  gratitude  towards  the  hundreds of Risale-i Nur students with diamond pens like yourselves. I would say: ‘If it had not been for them, how could have a semi-literate unfortunate like myself have performed this service?’ Then I  understood that after bestowing on you the sacred bounty by means of the pen, He bestowed on me success in this service. He associated the two; they were not the cause of each other. I do not thank you, but congratulate you. You too pray for me and congratulate me, rather than being grateful to me.”

It may be understood from this Fourth Matter just how many degrees there are in heedlessness.

T h e  F i f t h  M a t t e r

Just as if the property of a community is given to one man, it is wrong; or if one man lays  hands on charitable foundations which belong to the community, he does wrong; so too to  ascribe to the leader or master of a community the results of that community’s labours or  the  honour  and  merits resulting from its  good  works,  is wrong both for the communit y and for the leader or master. Because to do so flatters his egotism and encourages pride. While being the door-keeper, he supposes himself to be the king. He also does wrong to himself. Indeed, he opens the way to a sort of concealed association of partners with God.