Wednesday, April 27, 2011

Gülen Movement: A Religious Community (cemaat) or a Social Community (camia)?


Hadi Uluengin

Before studying the Gülen movement, first, we must agree on definitions.

Such a consensus will place the discussion on a more appropriate and objective foundation. This lexicon agreement is required first and foremost because of recent claims and accusations—which are perhaps true, perhaps false, or perhaps half true, half false—laid against this very movement.

Here is the question before us:

Do the large masses united around the spiritual and intellectual personality of the opinion leader residing in Pennsylvania feature a 'religious' community, that is a 'cemaat'— the buzzword frequently used here in Turkey? Or is the term 'social community' or 'camia' a better fit? I believe the latter one is more accurate, and let me share my reasons.

As is well-known, both words are derived from the verb 'ijma,' which means to come together. I do not know its evolution in Arabic, but in Turkish 'cemaat' and 'camia' have assumed different meanings over the course of time, although they come from the same root.

The term 'cemaat' usually brings to mind worshipers who place their foreheads on the ground in a mosque, who collectively listen to the Friday sermon, or those who attest their good will for the deceased at funeral.

Occasionally, we may use 'cemaat' in a nonreligious context or more figuratively. For instance, sometimes, we call 'cemaat' those minor and fanatical groups who have taken allegiance to an unqualified leader of a marginal communist faction. In defining the boundaries of a cemaat, first, we identify the time and space. Then, we imply the existence of rules. And finally we narrow down its membership and their circle of influence. However, we have a largely different definition for 'camia.'

This is how it is. 'Camia' as a word does not necessarily have a heavenly or spiritual reference. Compared to cemaat, it implies pluralism in quantitative terms and multiplicity in diversity. We may address a group of workers in a small workshop as a 'workshop cemaat.' But we refer to their trade unions—those overarching organizations that unite larger proletarian groups—as a camia. A better translation of the commonwealth of former English colonies or the federative description of Russia would be 'camia.'

Inevitably, as numbers start growing and body expanding, rigid and central rules that are peculiar to small communities (cemaat) become more flexible and decentralized.

That is, after quantity reaches a certain point, the difference of quality certainly imposes itself, and this is where we should start speaking of 'camia.'

It is true that members of a 'camia' also gather around the same denominator.

But when we refer to the community of a certain sports club or 'camia of ecologists,' partnership in such communities demands only that one be a fan of a club or an environmentalist movement. Those who support the same club would never be expected to vote for the same political party. Ecologists protest the same fish massacre, but some of them are deists, while others may be religious.

Similarly, the larger masses of millions whose common denominator is to 'spiritually' adopt Fethullah Gülen Hocaefendi’s 'spiritual' leadership, or perhaps only to sympathize with his peacemaking and reconciliatory discourse, cannot be identified as 'cemaat' (religious community or brotherhood) today.

The Gülen Movement can only be referred to as a large camia, or social community, for with their virtues as well as weaknesses, they reflect all the social and organic features of one.

It is important to pin on this heterogeneous nature, i.e., to accept the fact that a religious, political, military, or cultural community (camia) that is free from differences, centrifugal elements, or nonconformist components, is simply not possible.

Next week, I will weigh how true or false the above-mentioned claims and accusations are.(*)

* [Hizmet Movement Blog's note: For Mr. Uluengin's next article, the reader may refer to Gülen Community and Gülen's Reminder]

Original article published in Turkish on Hürriyet, 06 April 2011, Wednesday

Gülen Community and Gülen's Reminder


Hadi Uluengin

Last week in this column I wrote that large masses whose common denominator is to adopt Fethullah Gülen’s spiritual leadership cannot be referred to as a 'cemaat' or religious community or brotherhood. (*)

I made this claim because the Gülen Movement’s pluralism in quantity and diversity in quality means that it must now be defined as a 'camia' or a social community. Generating differences is natural, and such is the case in every intensifying body. To cut a long story short, with the exception of loyalty to the charismatic figure who has been compelled to live in the US against his will, participants in thismovement do not act in a monolithic manner. Nor are they part of any centrally organized hierarchy.

Despite the reality that this phenomenon of transition from a religious brotherhood to a community has most definitely occurred—a process of expansion and diversification—the 'other’s' perception of the Gülen Movement has not changed. By 'other' I refer to those large masses who are essentially from secular, urban, and Alevite circles, and who are allergic to the word 'tariqat,' or spiritual order, because of earlier conditioning. It is a fact that these circles consider the community in question to be a 'monster'—a monster who is all-powerful and able to do anything it wants. Imagine a 'monster' (which is a combination of) associations from other cultures: a monster organized in a Bolshevik central discipline, raised in a Catholic Jesuit elitism, equipped with a Protestant Calvinist mission, and kneaded in the secrecy of the Catholic Opus Dei or a secular Freemasonry. And whoever looks cross-eyed at this 'monster' or places an obstacle in its path is doomed to be immediately sent to Silivri Prison!

NO! The Fethullah Gülen Hocaefendi community does not fit in that paranoia! Neither my observations over the last two decades, nor the messages released by the spiritual leader in Pennsylvania contain evidence to verify claims and accusations that this movement is a 'stealthy monster' or a 'genie out of its bottle.'

As a matter of fact, the pioneers who have been generating these claims and accusations from time immemorial are well-known. The flames of this paranoia are being fanned by rigid and classic 'secularists' who have not taken the trouble to analyze the nature of religion-civil relationship in Muslim societies. Nor have they sought to understand the movement by analyzing Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, who is positioned in its origins.

On the contrary, the Gülen Movement is far from being a 'monster.' It has no counterpart in the Islamic world, it is unique to Turkey, and it shines brightly in the Islamic world. Its bright light shines from both its humanistic rhetoric that it has conveyed from the very beginning and its values that mesh well with a secular way of living despite its religious outlook.

Having said that, this does not mean that this community collectively, its varying formations, or its individual members are immune from criticism, and it can never mean as such! From my perspective, for instance, I am very much discomforted by its male-dominance and lack of women—for which one is hard-pressed to find any reasonable explanation—and its general and standard monotony revealed in their suits and the way they all wear mustaches, or even the low aesthetic taste or kitsch one can observe from the TV studios to the design of school buildings.

What is more important and fatal is the movement’s inability to provide a satisfactory answer for claims and accusations with respect to a 'lack of transparency.' This inability provides a fertile ground for the 'monster' fantasy of the above-mentioned circles. To put in a rather modern fashion, the Fethullah Gülen Movement is suffering from an 'image problem.'

Gülen himself said recently as reported by Huseyin Gulerce that 'we should take a look at ourselves,' as to why there is such a perception, thus imparting a lesson of wisdom and responsibility and implying a need for self-questioning and criticism within the camia. In other words, he reminded his followers once again of the principles and rules of the 'path' for the participants in the movement who gather around the spiritual common denominator of his name, but who potentially carry the risk of diverting into different routes because of their 'community' (camia) qualities.

I am faithful that this reminder will be wholeheartedly welcomed by the Gülen camia.

* [Hizmet Movement Blog's note: For Mr. Uluengin's earlier article, the reader may refer to Gülen Movement: A Religious Community (cemaat) or a Social Community (camia)?]

Original article published in Turkish on Hurriyet, 13 April 2011, Wednesday

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Why do they lie about Fethullah Gülen?


Mehmet Kalyoncu *

For many of those who have admired the ideas of the scholarFethullah Gülen and at varying levels took part in fulfilling those ideas for the service of humanity, it has been a lamentable fact that the international community does not know as much as it should about either Gülen or the worldwide Hizmet (Service) Movement he has inspired.

Fethullah Gülen
From a causality perspective, it was he who masterminded the idea of teaching the children of all nationalities, races, creeds and religions a common language of peace, love and harmony, so that as responsible adults of tomorrow they could build a better and more peaceful world. It was this idea and his selfless efforts that have led to the mobilization of millions of volunteers across the world to found modern and secular schools andintercultural dialogue centers as well as humanitarian aid organizations in more than 140 countries, including in impoverished and conflict-stricken places such as Haiti, Darfur and Afghanistan.Gülen was the first Muslim scholar to publicly denounce the Sept. 11 attacks as an act of terrorism, and going even further challenged its perpetrators on Islamic grounds by saying, “A terrorist cannot be a Muslim, nor can a true Muslim be a terrorist.” All in all, given the magnitude of his service to humanity, many believed that Gülenshould have long ago been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Yet, his strict principle of not promoting himself, accepting any credit for the good works attributed to him, and actually giving the credit to the volunteers of those works, has so far kept him away from the attention of the international community. In fact, many have been decorated with such awards for merely dreaming and speaking about global peace, while over the past several decades Gülen has been patiently laying the foundations for such peace to actually come about.

Apparently, this will no longer be the case thanks to his opponents, who have been systematically flooding the Internet and print media with wild allegations about him and the movement. After all, who in his or her sane mind would hear such a wild allegation as Gülen being the “most dangerous Islamist on Earth,” and not bother to do a Google search for “Fethullah Gülen”? Then, what he or she will find, in addition to some more of those allegations, is rather scholarly research on Gülen’s thoughts and practice, some of which include Jill Carroll’s “A Dialogue of Civilizations: Gülen’s Islamic Ideals and Humanistic Discourse,” Helen Rose Ebaugh’s “The Gülen Movement: A Sociological Analysis of a Civic Movement Rooted in Moderate Islam,” Muhammed Cetin’s “The Gülen Movement: Civic Service Without Borders,” and John Esposito and Ihsan Yilmaz’s “Islam and Peacebuilding: Gülen Movement Initiatives.” More importantly one would find Gülen’s very own writings and statements as well as the actual works produced by volunteers inspired by his ideals. So, bringing him to the attention of those who would otherwise not know anything about Gülen and the global civic movement he has inspired,Gülen’s adversaries are inadvertently making him ever more popular and well-known worldwide through their systematic defamation campaign. In this regard, one should expect Gülen soon to be recognized by the international community for his contributions to world peace. Then, one should also expect his adversaries to allege in self-denial that Gülen himself had designed this defamation campaign in order to attract global public attention.

But the question is, why do they make such wild allegations aboutGülen and the Hizmet Movement, which based on all available and credible evidence seem to be unsubstantiated and untrue beyond any reasonable doubt? Subsequently, in what ways do they carry out their defamation of Gülen as an individual and the millions of people from different nationalities, races, creeds and religions, whose voluntary service makes up what is called the Hizmet Movement? At this point, one should note that as Kerim Balcı of Today’s Zaman rightly puts it, those allegations take different, and often self-contradicting, forms depending on the perceived fears of the target audience. For instance, if the target audience is Russian, then Gülen and his initiatives are accused of being the US’s and more specifically the CIA’s designs. If the audience is Americans and Christians, then he is accused of being an Islamist terrorist aspiring to establish a global Islamic empire. If it is the audience is Jewish, then he is portrayed as being anti-Semitic. If it is anti-democratic Arab leaders, then he is argued to be not only a Turkish nationalist bent on reviving the Ottoman Empire, but also an agent of the Greater Middle East Project by the US, that foresees the overthrow of those leaders. In terms of methodology, just like John Mearsheimer describes the different forms of public lies, these allegations too vary from outright false statements to the true facts spun in a way that would lead the target audience to make erroneous conclusions about Gülen and the Hizmet Movement.

In the American context, they lie about Gülen and his work, because the latter stands as living examples that repudiate the deliberately produced stereotypes of Islam being inherently violent and hostile, and of Muslims being a potential threat to the so-called “Judeo-Christian” nature of American society. This in turn threatens the socio-economic and political interests of those who have not only consistently injected such stereotypes into the American conscience, but also cashed in heavily on the fears fed by these stereotypes by manipulating America’s domestic and foreign policies accordingly.

Defamation of Islam and demonization of Muslims in the American conscience

As Edward Said puts it in his “Covering Islam,” for Americans, Islam and Muslims have been no more than mere elements within and of political and security concerns by the US; not because they are indifferent to learning about Islam and Muslims, but because the news coverage and the so-called expert analyses of the incidents taking place within Muslim communities had often engendered too simplistic and rather negative views of Islam and Muslims in the minds of Americans. According the prevailing discourse, Islam was, and according to a considerable number of Americans still is, a heretical religion/cult predominant across regions where the US has massive political and economic interests. It was the system that oppressed women, restricted freedom of thought and religion and encouraged its adherents to fight Jews and Christians. Academics like Samuel Huntington and Bernard Lewis, as well as commentators such as Daniel Pipes, built up such a skewed image of Islam inch by inch over the last several decades.

When Lewis argued in “Islam and the West” that history was simply a struggle between Christians and Muslims for world domination and in “What Went Wrong?: The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East” that Muslims are enraged by the West in general and the US in particular because Islam lacks the cluster of “Western” values such as democracy, human rights and freedoms, he was basically producing pseudo-academic arguments for the disposal of the like-minded academics, policy makers, journalists and opinion leaders. Along similar lines, in his book, “The Clash of Civilizations: Remaking of World Order,” Huntington coined the concept of “the bloody borders of Islam,” suggesting that at any given time most of the conflicts across the globe either involved, or took place within “Muslim” communities, because Islam was inherently violent and not open to pluralism. Following this line, Pipes and many other like-minded pundits/columnists in prominent American newspapers and analysts at influential think tanks have frequently written rather short “opinion” pieces as well as “policy” papers propagating the same argument. Consequently, the American public has to a great extent digested this false image of Islam and Muslims. In his recent opinion piece titled “Ambitious Turkey,” Pipes’ use of heavily loaded and defamatory descriptions such as “the tyrannical, Islamist, and conspiracist mentality generally dominating Muslim peoples,” well illustrates the case in point.

So, for Americans, who have so long been bombarded with the violent images and perceptions of Muslims, Gülen and the work he inspires is an unexpected but most welcome surprise. However, for those who have for decades portrayed Islam as anything and everything that the so-called “Judeo-Christian” nature of American society is not, Gülen, his ideas, the people who are inspired by his ideas and the humanitarian-educational work that they have produced are understandably posing a threat. Such a threat exists not because of the very nature of the work that they produce, but because it defies the deliberately constructed and established image of the “Muslim” as a savage from the Middle Ages who is inherently against the Western way of life and eager to wage a “jihad” against Americans.

Consider the following cases: (1) Following protests and Quran burning in the United States hundreds of “Muslims” in Afghanistan resort to violence, killing seven UN workers; and (2) “Muslim” civil society and humanitarian aid organizations, including both men and women, were among the first to reach “non-Muslim” Haitians immediately after the devastating earthquake, serving 40,000 Haitians hot meals and constructing a hospital in Port-au-Prince to meet the medical needs of impoverished Haitians. Or, (1) An “Islamic” leader vows to wipe Israel off the map (possibly by nuking it), as well as destroying its main sponsor, which he calls the Great Satan; and (2) An “Islamic” scholar publicly suggesting that any humanitarian assistance to Palestinians should be delivered through coordination with Israeli authorities and without breaching international law. Or, (1) “Muslim” children in Hezbollah camps in southern Lebanon are indoctrinated with fundamentalist “Islamic” ideology and receiving armed training with AK-47s in their hands; and (2) “Muslim” students in cooperation with their non-Muslim counterparts from around the world compete in the international science competitions and undertake research in such vital fields as curing cancer, eradicating poverty, preventing environmental pollution and overcoming global energy shortages. The latter example in each pairing is what Gülen and the movement engenders. Quite understandably, in a country like the United States, where the news is more of an instrument manufactured to manipulate public opinion to accept certain socio-economic and political practices, any development that challenges the established “negative” image of Islam and Muslims would be unwelcome by those who have a vested interest in the perpetuation of such a negative image.

How they try to defame Gülen

In this regard, there are two major allegations that are currently employed in the United States by Gülen opponents in order to discredit and cause fear mongering about him: One that the charter schools opened in various states by Turkish-Americans are connected to Gülen, and that they are spreading “Islamic fundamentalism;” and the other that Gülen is behind the ongoing Ergenekon investigation in Turkey, which has led to the detainment of many active duty and retired army officers as well as journalists. The first allegation begs the following question: Would the US authorities that have authorized and overseen these schools, not be aware of any such wrongdoing, if any? The second allegation is a mere distortion of the facts on the ground. Currently there are 26 journalists being detained in relation to the Ergenekon investigation, and none of them are being held because they exercised their freedom of expression, but rather because of their suspected involvement in verified coup plans that aimed to overthrow Turkey’s democratically elected government. In fact, it is similar to the case of The New York Times’ Judith Miller, who was sentenced to 18 months in jail in 2005 due to her involvement in the leaking of an active CIA officer’s identity. One wonders if anybody then opposed the court decision by arguing that she was exercising her freedom of expression as a journalist. Similarly, was a Hutu radio host exercising his freedom of expression when he incited his fellow Hutus to massacre Tutsis ahead of what eventually amounted to the Rwanda genocide? Furthermore, even if a prosecutor or a police officer who happens to admire Gülen and is involved in the Ergenekon investigation went rogue and broke the law, what does it have to do with Gülen himself or the millions of others who admire his ideals?

In the final analysis, the real threat perceived by accomplices of Gülenopponents, in major capitals including Washington, D.C., actually seems to be the possibility of Turkey’s Ergenekon investigationinspiring and encouraging peoples of other countries, as well as investigating deep state arrangements that have long been running in the veins of their own societies. For them, the threat is clear and imminent: Apparently, Turkey is no longer the old Turkey, where it was easy to deal with the “real” owners of the regime, meaning corrupt military generals, bureaucrats and politicians; but with its growing civil society and strengthening economy, it is no longer easy or possible to manipulate Turkey. What if the same happens in other countries that have long been in the orbit of special interest groups within these major capitals? More importantly, what if their own masses mobilize to break the glass ceilings and claim their rightful share of political and economic resources that have traditionally remained under the monopoly of these special interest groups? Speaking of a so-called “Islamist” threat in the United States, the real questions that disturb the adversaries of Gülen are the following: What if Muslim Americans want to serve as judges on the US Supreme Court, and as senators and representatives in Congress? What if they want to command the US armies as generals? What if they want to manage giant American corporations? And, what if, one day, one of them were to become the president of the United States? What is at stake with the democratization of Turkey is quite high and critical for those whose interests have depended on it remaining an anti-democratic satellite state. It is only normal then that in all their despair, hopelessness and panic, adversaries of Gülen both inside and outside Turkey are trying to demonize him, for he and the millions inspired by him are in fact behind the democratization of their country.

* Mehmet Kalyoncu is an independent political analyst and author of “A Civilian Response to Ethno-Religious Conflict: The Gülen Movement in Southeast Turkey.”

Published on Today's Zaman, 19 April 2011, Tuesday

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

Doğan: Gülen stood against anti-cemevi campaigns

Fatih Vural


In thankful remarks to well-respected Islamic scholar Fethullah Gülen, Cem Foundation President İzzettin Doğan has said that Gülensupported the construction of cemevis (Alevi houses of worship) when signature campaigns were launched against the cemevis in some regions of Turkey.

Doğan was speaking during a panel discussion on Saturday at İstanbul’s Aydın University. Stating that nearly 2,000 cemevis have been built in Turkey in the past 50 years, he said that signature campaigns were launched to prevent their construction in the early 2000s. Noting that there were places where more than 50,000 signatures were collected, he said an interview with Gülen featured in an American daily played a positive role in slowing down these campaigns. In the interview, Gülen said cemevis should be built next to mosques and that failing to build cemevis for Alevis was unjust. Doğan said he witnessed that “such negative moves decreased following the interview.”

Gülen is a Turkish Islamic scholar well known for his teachings thatpromote mutual understanding and tolerance between cultures. One of the world’s most influential Islamic scholars, Gülen came out at the top of the list of “The World’s Top 20 Public Intellectuals” by the magazines Foreign Policy and Prospect in 2008. Now residing in the US, Gülen has pioneered educational activities in a number of countries along with efforts to promote intercultural and interfaith activities around the world.

The Alevi community is thought to have between 6 and 12 million adherents in Turkey, which has a population of more than 70 million. Alevis demand that cemevis be officially recognized by the state.

Cem Foundation President İzzettin Doğan
 Doğan regrets that no solution has been found for problems faced by Alevis, although politicians have been discussing these issues for years. “I have explained to all political parties that there may be a Sunni-Alevi clash in Turkey, which would put the country in a difficult situation. They all agreed on that, but I failed to bring them together in Parliament to pass a law [to meet Alevi demands],” he said.

He also commented on the new version of a religious course book that includes information about Alevism. He recalled that Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan had promised that some shortcomings in these books would soon be resolved.

The government launched an Alevi initiative last year in an effort to address problems faced by Alevis. The government’s initiative consisted of seven workshops in six months, along with the participation of 400 academics, theologians, members of civil society groups, politicians, journalists and Alevi and Bektaşi representatives. The revision of the religious course books was also among the steps taken as part of the initiative.

Published on Today's Zaman, 11 April 2011, Monday

Thursday, April 7, 2011

Ergenekon case and some lies

Orhan Kemal Cengiz

Since the beginning of the Ergenekon investigation there has been an intense propaganda war against the case. Some arguments may be changing, but some strategies and tactics have never changed.

There is still upfront denial about the very existence of this clandestine organization called Ergenekon. The very existence of the organization has been denied, while the Ergenekon lobby has found unimaginably shrewd explanations for whatever has been found during operations in this case. Weapons, ammunition, explosives, coup plans, organizational documents -- anything you can imagine -- has been whitewashed by the chorus.

In this propaganda war there are some basic premises they repeat in different forms. I can summarize these arguments as follows: a) In this case only people who are against the government and the Gülen movement are put on trial. b) All evidence is produced by the Gülenist police in the Security General Directorate. c) All prosecutors and judges arrange to put innocent people in prison. There are of course so many sub-arguments. For example, if police unearth large amount of explosives, they claim the very same police buried them. If there is a detailed coup plan and its working papers amount to thousands of pages, they claim every single page was written by the police.

In practice, this propaganda machine works in a talented and sophisticated way that makes it almost impossible for an ordinary person to see through this smoke.

Let us see how this propaganda machine works in practice. Last week police conducted searches in the houses and offices of some theology professors across the country. These people were included in the Ergenekon investigation for their alleged role in the bloody murder of three missionaries in Malatya in 2007. During and after these searches I tried to see how the Ergenekon-friendly press would cover these operations, and I really admired their huge success in creating a smoke screen through which you cannot understand anything.

One bit of news coverage focused on one professor and said that this professor had previously explained that a headscarf is not mandatory for women in Islam. They imply with this news that this professor may have been included in this operation because of his comment. Another very well known professor said he was writing a book about Fethullah Gülen. You could easily get the impression from this news item that this poor guy is just being persecuted for his holy war against Gülen.

What was amazing about all these manipulative news stories is that they do not reveal that these theology professors were very active in the creation of anti-missionary hysteria in Turkey during 2005 and 2006, and they were working in close contact with some JİTEM agents whose task was to create paranoia in Turkish society about missionaries.

In my last piece I tried to explain how a JİTEM officer joined the Protestant community in Turkey, even became a pastor, and then after receiving another order from his superiors he converted to “Muslimhood” once again; at the time he used to appear on TV channels every night together with the theology professors I mentioned above. These theology professors were just a part of the psychological warfare waged against missionaries that resulted in a massacre in 2007.

When I looked at my notes I came across the transcript of the words of the theology professor on TV in 2005, who now claims that he is being included in this investigation just because he is writing a book about Fethullah Gülen. He is talking about Turkish Christians:

“I see this as proof of the claims being made. It is in fact the case that the Republic of Turkey is under attack, and these are people we have lost. ... At this moment in each of Turkey’s provinces and counties, there are three or five or 10 churches that have been started. In these places there are -- not one, two, three, five or 10 but many -- Turks like these who have declared themselves to be priests. These people are undermining the Republic of Turkey. ... Something else: These people are enemies of the Turks. They are undermining us from within. They call Muslims and Turks “the seed of Satan.” In front of Christians, I mean, they are rejecting Muslims and Turks. These people have their roots outside of the country. There is a fifth estate operation directed against Turkey. There is a psychological operation. There is an operation to destroy us, to subjugate us from within. They are also destroying our national identity. They continue to steal our people. They see our people as Satan’s seed, infidels, atheists. The real atheists, the real infidels, the real seed of Satan are those who taunt Muslims; in particular, these renegade converts to Christianity.”

These people were acting like a propaganda machine to raise hatred towards Christians in Turkey, and their actions were coordinated.

But if you look at Ergenekon-friendly newspapers, they are just being investigated because of their moderate interpretation of Islamic rules and their stance against Gülen. That’s really a pity; these media outlets still manage to manipulate public opinion.

Published on Today's Zaman, 06 April 2011, Wednesday