Emphasizing “We” in Gulen’s Thought

Stuart William
While reading an article about Robert Putnam’s ‘hunkering down’ theory, I was struck by how close Putnam comes to one of the most vital points at the core of Gulen’s teachings on dialogue.

‘Hunkering down’ is the phrase Putnam used to describe how people can react when they are exposed to others of different cultural heritage and ethnicity. He developed this idea after extensive observation of what was really happening in urban areas where large numbers of immigrants had settled among the ‘host’ community.

The dominant explanations of what happens in this situation were the contact theory and the conflict theory. The contact theory suggested that the more interactions you have with cultural/ethnic diversity, the more sympathetic you become to those unlike yourself and, therefore, the less obsessive you are about your own cultural identity. According to this theory, with increased exposure to ‘others’, in-group solidarity diminishes, out-group solidarity grows.

On the other hand, the conflict theory suggested that increased exposure to ‘others’ results in stronger identification with your own group, leading to retreat from and suspicion of those who are not from that group. According to this theory, with increased exposure to ‘others’, out-group solidarity weakens while in-group solidarity heightens to the point of turning into ethnocentrism.

Putnam’s observations suggested that what really happens is that both in-group and out-group solidarity suffer when we are surrounded by increased ethnic and cultural diversity. In other words: not only do we become more wary of people who are different from us, we also pull away from people of our own group. Putnam drew a correlation between increased exposure to ethnic diversity and an increase in individual isolation — a ‘hunkering down’: ‘Trust (even of one’s own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer.’

This ‘hunkering down’ constitutes a failure in community and solidarity which greatly diminishes the scope of individual and collective life. He says: ‘my hunch is that at the end we shall see that the challenge is best met not by making “them” like “us”, but rather by creating a new, more capacious sense of “we”, a reconstruction of diversity that does not bleach out ethnic specificities, but creates overarching identities that ensure that those specificities do not trigger the allergic, “hunker down” reaction.’

Gulen’s teachings and the practice that those teachings have inspired over the past thirty years – first within Turkey, then in the neighbouring Turkic countries, and now worldwide – have consistently aimed to build precisely this more capacious sense of ‘we’ that Putnam envisages.

Gulen teaches us, first of all, to respect the differences between ‘us’ and ‘others’, meaning that we must begin from the idea that what everybody stands for is good. Then, on the foundation of that respect, we will discover and recognize the commonalities between ‘us’ and ‘them’. That in turn helps us to build genuinely pluralistic societies, which relish a stronger and wider identity of ‘we’.

In Gulen’s teachings the human person is the primary and most valued identity. In his famous phrase, he said: ‘We are human first and Muslim, Christian, Jew afterward.’ He condemns dehumanizing anybody on any ground, be it community, nationality or ethnicity. He fully embraces the saying of the famous Turkish Sufi poet Yunus Emre: ‘We love the creature because of the Creator.’

Gulen re-conceives attitudes towards human differences from within the perspective of Muslim faith and history. He sees the religion as uniting people, not separating or segregating them. Referring to the Qur’anic commands to seek peace and unity, Gulen noted that the Qur’an refers to the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah as a conquest. Because with that treaty, the ‘door of conflict closed but the door to the hearts opened’. In an interview he explained that he weeps for Israeli children just as he weeps for Palestinian children. It is in this sense that we affirm that the Gulen Movement is strongly faith inspired but this faith serves it as a tool for uniting society and strengthening the resources for peace.

Gulen conceives of good society as one in which one’s main identity is being a fellow human being among others. But the vital spring of that fellowship identity is disabling selfish, self-centred impulses and enabling the impulses to altruism and co-operativeness. It is on that basis that he inspired this ‘movement of volunteers’. Then he encouraged the ‘we’ mentality in those volunteers so that they look for and find commonalities rather than differences. He said: ‘All of us are from Adam and Adam was made out of mud. We are different living sculptures made from the same soil, the same mud.’

He first started the constructing this ‘we’ mentality within Turkey itself. He condemned the separateness and discrimination against different groups living in Turkey. He said: ‘It would be hard to find anybody within Turkey who hates separation, discrimination itself, and words that lead to separation, as much as me.’ In another piece, he wrote: ‘Within the concept of dialogue and tolerance, being a part of social stratum which has good intentions, respects others, accepts the manners that everybody stands for, we should be searching for the ways to sustainable peaceful futures.’

When discussing the conflicts with Armenia he pointed out that we are all people of the same region, we are all connected to the civilizations of Mesopotamia. According to sociologists, behind the various expressions of the Hellenic civilization were people from Mesopotamia. He argued that the history of past problems and conflicts should not become the excuse for conflicts now; that it is not permissible to judge people by the mistakes of their ancestors.

Gulen considers good politics as the kind that strives to unite the society, to broaden the sense of belonging and citizenship awareness. He mentioned that both the right-wing and left-wing groups who were in conflict in the 1980s in Turkey, were patriots, whose hearts were full of love for Turkey. The leaders for their own sake made people turn to fighting and killing each other. He urges whoever is in government to proceed through consultation and strive to be constructive and inclusive in all policies.

Gulen himself initiated dialogue with almost every faith leader, the leaders of political parties, the opinion formers in the worlds of the media and academic institutions, and he conveyed to them the message of building a strong society inclusive of everybody, not leaving out any single person as the ‘other’. His initiatives were welcomed and widely reciprocated in Turkey at the time. Indeed, Turkey witnessed during the 1990s dialogue between figures from distinct groups that had scarcely met each other since the 1800s. This happened thanks to Gulen’s initiative. He explained that this dialogue work can be sustainable if we believe that God is pleased with us when we work to unite the society.

Gulen initiated interfaith and intercultural institutions in almost every country. The movement he inspired become the theory’s living, practical embodiment – its volunteers and sympathizers include people from Sunni or Alawi, Muslim or Catholic, politic or apolitical backgrounds, artists and athletes, professionals and non-professionals, all working together with various level of commitment to the movement.

Gulen also argued that true security for Turkey can only be achieved by interacting closely with its neighbours, not by closing all doors to them. He also stated that governors just after Ataturk misunderstood him and the Misak-i Milli and they kept Turkey within its borders only and never interacted with even its immediate neighbours. Gulen explained that Ataturk’s ‘peace at home, peace in the world’ doctrine can only be achieved by having close, good relationships within the country and with all its neighbours in the region.

Gulen encouraged interfaith and intercultural institutions in almost every country. He always urges people to migrate to other countries in order to establish ‘schools of love’. He believes that ignorance is the main evil behind the separation of groups from each other. Gulen volunteers over the years have opened hundreds of schools in almost every country, even in war-torn places such as Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq etc. In these international schools children from the warring groups are educated side by side peacefully, as an example to the conflicting parties. In every country these schools serve as the representatives of peace. Gulen does not advise the teachers and administrators of these schools to serve for a time and then come back; instead, he urges them to be willing to live and die among the people there.

One of the pillars of Gulen’s dialogue idea is building a more capacious and stronger sense of ‘we’ on the practice of altruistic service of others. This theory and activity of dialogue expects, respects and accepts group differences and thereby creates opportunities to discover common ground between groups. It is the very opposite of, indeed the best possible antidote to, the defeatist mentality of ‘hunkering down’.

Published on A Thought, 05 December 2011, Monday

White House praises Rumi Forum for advocating interfaith dialogue

The White House, on its official website, commended the Washington-based Rumi Forum, an international organization promoting interfaith dialogue and peace, for its work in fostering “inter-religious and intercultural understanding” in a “consistent” manner since its establishment in 1999.

The White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships, in a statement on its blog, said, “We were honored to attend the 2011 Rumi Peace and Dialogue Awards, the Turkish American organization's annual celebration of leadership towards global harmony.”

Rumi Forum President Emre Celik and award recipients (l-r) Nontombi Naomi Tutu, receiving on behalf of Archbishop Desmond Tutu; Diane Rehm; Dr. Alan G. Merten; Karen Chane, receiving on behalf of Rev. John Bryson Chane; and Joshua DuBois

White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships Director Joshua DuBois received the Extraordinary Commitment to Public Service Award for his efforts, the statement read. The Rumi Forum also recognized South African human rights activist Archbishop Desmond Tutu, George Mason University President Dr. Alan G. Merten, leading American radio talk show host Diane Rehm and Bishop of the Episcopal diocese of Washington Rev. John Bryson Chane for their work in promoting meaningful dialogue through media, education, church or government.

DuBois, in his address at the National Press Club on Oct. 25, said: “We are a country of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus and unbelievers. Coming from every corner of the world, we were shaped with every religion and culture. We do not see this as a weakness,” he said.

DuBois continued, “We would like to work together with the Rumi Forum to promote intercultural understanding in our government, in our nation and all over the world.”

Islamic scholar Fethullah Gülen, known for his vision and international efforts to achieve interfaith dialogue and tolerance, is the honorary president of the Rumi Forum.

Published on Today's Zaman, 21 November 2011, Monday

Gulen: Dervish of our times

Fethullah Gulen is a renowned and distinguished scholar of Islam having broad and in-depth knowledge of world history, politics and philosophy, besides having a comprehensive vision of world religions and religious movements. The main theme of his numerous writings and discourses, is interfaith dialogue which has assumed special significance in the backdrop of ideas like the end of history and clash of civilizations.

Gulen’s movement though not the first to sustain multicultural and interfaith dialogue is definitely the most laudable initiative along with a number of significant organized efforts currently at work, committed to world peace, harmony and human happiness. Gulen being highly conscious of his moral obligations is always ready to go extra miles to defuse crisis and to give peace a chance. Visualizing a bright future for the humanity, he contemplates that if we could universally believe in religious diversity as representatives of a single Truth i.e. God Almighty, the dreadful spectre of terrorism and sectarian violence would vanish. He is among those cool headed thinkers who are fully convinced that war is no solution to any of the world’s problems. It only vitiates the atmosphere and instead of dousing the flames, unleashes hostility to cause further flare up with no end to such tragic episodes.

Gulen being a great advocate of interfaith harmony and universal brotherhood has always favored restraint even in the face of the worst kind of hostility revenge and animosity. This high calibre Muslim intellectual who is witness to a number of upheavals in his own native land, Turkey, cites to his followers the example of the prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and his pious companions who never initiated war by themselves, tried their best to avoid wanton killings, worked hard to negotiate and settle scores if any, beyond the zones of battle filed. However, when they were forced to wage war, they fought a few defensive battles ensuring that transgression of any kind did not take place and the war in no case turned out to be a tool to serve some body’s persona! ambitions, pride or prejudice. War is the last resort and the most detested choice for a true Muslim as the holy Quran warns that shedding a drop of blood of an innocent person is like slaying the entire humanity incurring the wrath of the Lord of the universe, inviting severest kind of punishment in the hereafter, while saving a life is like saving the whole humanity.

Gulen suggests that most of the ills of our times including misery, impoverishment, social and moral debasement and a general erosion of values are by and large, the result of mad rush to conclusions and hasty decision to resolve differences through violence, abuse and intimidation instead of patient hearing, compassion and magnanimity. Gulen being a staunch lover of humanity can never approve of such policies which are disastrous and detrimental to human happiness. He believes in the principle of forgiveness and fortitude. He even goes a step farther to affirm in this regard the views of the luminous mystic of his time Yunus Emre, who declares” don’t strike those who hit, not to respond harshly to those who curse and not to hold any secret grudge against those who abuse”

Gulen born and brought up in a traditionally religious Turkish family, who committed holy Quran to memory in a tender age, is a spiritual revolutionary par-excellence. Early influence on his life beside his saintly father, is traced to several luminaries and legendary figures such as Al Hasan al Bash, Shahwalilluah Dehlavi (1703-1762), Jalaluddin Rumi (1776) and Ahmad Sarhindi (1564-1624) etc. His deep fascination and involvement with the metaphysical experiences of Mujaddid Alf-e-Sani of India, and Badiuzzaman Syed Nursi of Turkey, clearly indicate his ardent desire and pious wish to go through a process of spiritual purgation before embarking on the divinely designated mission of transforming the society by dedicating himself to the relentless and selfless service to humanity for the rest of the life.

Why it is that Gulen, despite having been rated by the Foreign Policy Prospect as one of the highly acclaimed 100 top intellectuals of the world is still a lesser known public figure in the Muslim world. It may be because of his low profile and a moderate Turkish version of Islam and too much of his emphasis on the inter-civilization dialogue which is only a recent phenomenon in championing the cause of Islam.

Gulen being a unique example of the modern day Dervish, has successfully maintained the delicate balance between orthodoxy and spiritualism. He has repeatedly and categorically stated that the main source of his spiritual awakening, strength and guidance is the Holy Quran and the sayings of the prophet of God Mohammad (PBUH). He seriously contends that the true followers of Islam cannot abdicate the responsibility of serving the suffering humanity. In his opinion the service to humanity is as good as the sincere devotion to God. Despite being least concerned with worldly pleasure, he is not ready to renounce the world so as to leave it to the mercy of the senseless and wicked people to destroy it. He is a sufi who believes in action, proactive life, ceaseless efforts and perseverance in the face of challenges.

In most of his soul searching sermons, speeches and scholarly writings, he exhorts to his followers not to sit idle and come forward to contribute to the combined efforts for making this world beautiful and a better place to live in. The magically edifying quality of his exhortations have created a very powerful impact on his followers the world over. As a result they have dedicated themselves with utmost sincerely and selflessness to achieving the higher goals in life.

Gulen doesn’t believe in imposing his views on his followers and urges them to critically examine and logically analyze his messages before applying them on their lives. He is a strong supporter of free thinking and scientific outlook based on the universal ethical values which also need to be nurtured and promoted through systematic and scientific method of teaching in the specially designed educational institutions. A number of such ideal institutions established by his followers are being successfully run not only in Turkey but in many parts of the globe, and a large number of students irrespective of caste, color and creed are benefiting from them. These institutions are not merely for religious education. Their main aim is to impart modern education taking care of the overall Personal development and carving a future in the realm of science and technology. Its a purposeful educational project with highest consideration to human values, social consciousness and a responsible behavior toward every individual in the society. Prof. Qazi Obaidur Rehman Hashmi *


* Author teaches at the Dept of Urdu, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi.

Published on Grater Kashmir, 26 November 2011, Saturday

The communities of many different countries run to help Van - VAN EARTHQUAKE

Kimse Yok Mu & EBRU TV
Immediately after the 7.2 earthquake in Van that shook all Turkey, many people and institutions from Turkey and all over the world mobilized to help Van. Ebru TV, broadcasting in the USA, held a live broadcast campaign for earthquake relief.
Login Krefeld and Dayen Bekis hosted the program and the guest studio audience answered the phones and took donations live on TV.

Turkish people living in the USA also showed great interest in the program. In addition, deputies, senators, government officials and leading figureheads of society whom are friends of Turkey connected by phone to express their feelings and to give donations.
Many different communities in the USA, whom are in communication with Turks, rushed to help. One of them being the Bangladesh Youth Association participated as a guest in the studio. Bangladesh young people living in the United States donated 3 thousand dollars collected amongst themselves.

Troubled Nigeria discusses Gülen’s ‘culture of coexistence’

The Abuja-based Ufuk Dialogue Foundation and The Fountain magazine representatives informed the local media about a conference at which Fethullah Gülen’s ideas and activities on establishing a culture of coexistence and mutual understanding will be discussed
...

“Gülen-inspired schools have been operating in Nigeria for over 13 years now. This conference will put Mr. Gülen’s thought on the social and cultural map of this country,” Tamer Çopuroğlu, president of the newly founded Ufuk Dialogue Foundation, told Today’s Zaman.
According to Çopuroğlu, Nigeria, with over 200 ethnic groups and languages, is both a perfect laboratory for testing Gülen’s peace ideas and for putting them into practice, also because Nigeria is badly in need of peace, given recent interreligious conflict in the country.
“We have been contributing to the solidarity among Nigerians with our schools for over a decade now. Last Ramadan our schools provided free iftar dinners to over 3,000 people every day and during Eid al-Adha we distributed sacrificial meat to Muslims, Christians and animists in order to create an environment of peaceful coexistence,” Çopuroğlu said. There are already 17 Gülen-inspired primary and high schools in Nigeria as well as a Nigerian Turkish University and a hospital.
Hakan Yeşilova, editor-in-chief of The Fountain magazine, is particularly impressed with the readiness of the Nigerian authorities to cooperate with the conference. “Nigeria is a gateway to sub-Saharan Africa and we will be hosting several statesmen from neighboring countries. I have been editing a journal on Gülen’s ideas for years now. For me this is like a dream come true and it gives energy for future dreams,” he told Today’s Zaman. The Fountain is planning to organize similar conferences in countries like Pakistan and India, where multiculturalism is a fact of life and where establishing and nurturing a culture of coexistence is a basic necessity.
read more: http://www.todayszaman.com/news-263165-troubled-nigeria-discusses-gulens-culture-of-coexistence.html

Ethics in a Multifaith Society: Muslims and Christians in Dialogue

The conference “Ethics in a multifaith society: Muslims and Christians in Dialogue” [Tuesday-Wednesday, 22-23 November 2011] is held in honour of M. Fethullah Gülen, from whom the Australian Catholic University Chair in the Study of Islam and Muslim-Catholic Relations, established in 2007, takes its name.

For Fethullah Gülen, dialogue between Jews, Christians and Muslims is imperative, not only because of what followers of these three monotheistic religions have in common, but also because of their shared responsibility to make our world a more peaceful and safer place. According to Gülen, the dialogue to which adherents of these religions are necessarily summoned offers “an alliance of the great worldwide faith traditions against the violent abuse of religion on the grounds that ‘Peace is better and is the name of God.’ More importantly, it is a call for a dialogical intellectual encounter among the great cultural and religious traditions to design a common path for a new humanism, consisting of a doctrine of love, humanity, tolerance, forgiveness and compassion.” In Gülen’s view, these values are central to Islamic ethics, at the very heart of which lies humility. For practising Muslims, therefore, dialogue will flow naturally as an ethical imperative from their living faith in God – a dialogue that will form an important stepping stone to a new world order of peace and justice for all.

This understanding of dialogue has its counterpart in the teachings and practice of the Catholic Church since Nostra Aetate (1965). To take just one example, Pope Benedict XVI at his address at the King Hussein Mosque in Amman on 9 May 2009 called upon Christians and Muslims to work together “to cultivate for the good, in the context of faith and truth, the vast potential of human reason.” For Pope Benedict also, as for Fethullah Gülen, dialogue is indispensable, not just as a matter of political necessity, but especially in that it derives from the core of faith itself.

The inspiration for this conference on ethics in a multifaith society derives from the vision expressed by both Fethullah Gülen and Pope Benedict XVI. The challenge to participants will be to put this dialogue into practice so as to enable a well reasoned contribution from Christians and Muslims, working together, toward the development of a durable and sustaining ethics for a pluralist society.

The conference begins with a consideration of the good life from philosophical and religious perspectives. On this basis it will move, in turn, to examine ethical questions concerning the beginnings and end of life, the identification of common ethical goals towards which Muslims and Christians can strive together, how business should be done in a global environment, war and peace, and the place of religious faith in public decision-making. The overall aim is not only to uncover emerging questions but also to recommend new directions for collaboration in promoting the common good of society.

Australian Catholic University - Last Update on 30 September 2011, Friday

Importance and power of the Gülen movement

Cengiz Çandar, Radikal

The Gülen community is currently the most influential Turkish lobby in the US. They work in the right way and obey the rules of the game in the US perfectly.

They are engaged in commercial activities, which have enabled them to develop their relations with state officials, mayors and governors. Islamic scholar Fethullah Gülen had to leave Turkey due to the atmosphere of the Feb. 28, 1997 postmodern coup. He settled down in the eastern part of the United States, in Pennsylvania. He became a more influential global actor after he settled in the United States. Turkey needs the help of the Gülen movement, not only for Turkish lobbying in the United States but also to resolve major national issues such as the Kurdish question and the Armenian question.

Published on Today's Zaman, 12 October 2011, Wednesday
This is an excerpt of the original [Turkish] version. You may click here to read the full commentary.

Hira Magazine – Turkish in the Language of the Qur'an

Hira has been bringing together Turkey and the Arab world for six years. Actually, it would be correct to describe it as a platform, rather than a magazine. However, it is not very popular in Turkey, where only 3,000 copies out of the 40,000 printed are sold.

The remaining 37,000 are distributed to intellectuals in the Arab world via subscriptions. The Arab world has been able to connect with Turkey through Hira magazine for the last five years. With a number of workshops in Arab countries, more than 25 symposia and other similar events, Hira magazine has attracted the attendance and participation of more than 2,500 Arab scholars and intellectuals. We spoke with the editor-in-chief of the magazine, Nevzat Savaş, who spends most of his time in the Arab world, before his departure for a meeting. Hira was launched in October 2005; however, it is fair to say that the foundations of the magazine were laid out well before this date. The magazine’s real story began in 2000, when the Darun Nil publishing house was founded to print Fethullah Gülen’s works in Arabic. In the same year, the publisher participated in a book fair in Egypt, where its stand attracted a great deal of attention. Savaş remembers, “In Egypt, people asked whether we were Muslims -- their perception of Turkey was just inaccurate.” READ MORE AT http://www.todayszaman.com/news-246994-hira-magazine-changes-perception-of-turkey-in-arab-world.html

MORE ABOUT HIRA  MAGAZINE VIEWS:
http://www.fethullahgulen.org/conference-papers/contributions-of-the-gulen-movement/2528-hira-magazine-turkish-in-the-language-of-the-quran.html

"Establishing a Culture of Coexistence and Mutual Understanding"

Despite widespread globalization in every aspect of life, we witness that local traditions, cultures, religions, and national values – all preserve their existence and maintain their respective qualities and nuances. The dilemma of globalization is that while many seek to value these differences, these differences are also manipulated as catalysts for violence, bloodshed, and social trauma around the world. These contradictory phenomena are undeniable and frame the central challenge of coexistence in an increasingly globalized and fragile world.
Today, we face many questions and challenges as to how we can coexist in peace with contemporary neighbors—neighbors who are now greater in number than before yet less familiar with our culture and beliefs. How can we transform our encounters with one another into enriching experiences, rather than as hateful gatherings? Is sincere understanding of the “other” ever possible? Can “dialogue” bring satisfaction or has it simply become a formality to bear? What sorts of methods can be implemented to achieve tangible results out of theoretical discussions and good wishes uttered all over? How will our generations respond to the rise of global dynamics vis-à-vis local identities and cultural riches? And how can education and cultural activities play a role in this response?

Considering the risks and challenges that accompany these questions, it is crucial to delve into the thought and actions of Fethullah Gülen, who has pioneered a global educational and cultural initiative—frequently referred to as Hizmet (serving humanity)—in the 21st century on a scale and nature not frequently encountered around the world. The conference titled “Establishing a Culture of Coexistence and Mutual Understanding” aims to explore Gülen’s ideas with the goal of contributing to a sense of understanding and respect between cultures and to work towards global peace. Nigeria sets an interesting stage for this conference not only because of its cultural and religious diversification, but also because volunteers, inspired by Fethullah Gülen’s ideas, have established quite a number of schools in this country during the past fifteen years. The conference will feature distinguished scholars and intellectuals from around the world.

Fethullah Gülen calls for ‘bridges of peace' in Eid al-Fitr remarks

Sezai Kalaycı
Turkish Islamic scholar Fethullah Gülen, currently residing in the US, has issued a call for peace and dialogue, warning that failure to address enmities through dialogue could lead to a large-scale devastation for humanity.

Gülen, speaking at a breakfast with members of the Turkish community visiting him on the first day of the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Fitr on Tuesday, said some people nurture hostilities towards other people because these people happen to be Christian, or Jewish or Muslim and underlined that such approaches will never bring peace or friendship to the humanity.

He said occasions such as Eid al-Fitr when hearts are filled with warmth should be used as an opportunity to improve dialogue, warning that the humanity would otherwise have to pay dearly. “At a time when … nuclear bombs are used against humanity ... if [dialogue] is not established at a world scale, if those who endeavor for peace in the Muslim world and the world in general do not address this problem, half of the humanity may die,” Gülen said.

He reminded the atomic bombs dropped on Japan at the end of the First World War and said there was the risk that cluster bombs used only recently against Palestinians could well be used somewhere else, against other people. “Unfortunately there are places where oppression still goes on,” he said.

“Bridges of peace should be built,” said Gülen, adding that occasions such as Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha could be used for such a purpose. “We need to show that we have no prejudice against anyone. We ought to respect all,” he said, emphasizing that this is an obligation under Islam and that this is what humanity needs.

The revered scholar also called on believers to constantly renew themselves. “Appreciating [the holy month of] Ramadan and the Eid al-Fitr depends to a certain extent on one's faith. And faith depends on whether or not one constantly renews himself or herself. If a person can renew himself or herself in regard to his or her faith and thoughts, then they can feel the freshness in everything.”

Published on Today's Zaman, 30 August 2011, Tuesday

gulen4peace: Somalia and other Arfican countries in need waitin...

gulen4peace: Somalia and other Arfican countries in need waitin...: http://hhrelief.org/

The Concepts of Tolerance and Dialogue within the Context of Gülen’s Thought

Darian C. De Bolt
Fethullah Gülen sums up some of his central ideas when he writes, “Throughout the four corners of the world, people of truth and love…are carrying messages of love, tolerance and dialogue with everyone”(2004, 174). These three concepts, love, tolerance, and dialogue, show up again and again throughout Gülen’s writings, speeches, sermons, and interviews. What I would like to do is to examine particularly the concepts of tolerance and dialogue within the context of Gülen’s thought. I will concentrate particularly on the concepts of tolerance and dialogue because it is these ideas that personally attracted me to his thought. Although it is obvious I will relate these concepts to the Western tradition, you must understand that Gülen grounds these notions firmly within his own deep commitment to and knowledge of his faith tradition of Islam. However, let me begin in reverse order starting with dialogue.

Gülen writes, “Dialogue means two or more people coming together to talk and meet on certain subjects and, by means of this, to draw closer together to one another” (2004, 171). He amplifies this by stating, “The ways to explain things to people without making them hostile and frightened should be sought. For this reason, at whatever cost, the road to dialogue with people must be kept open” (Gülen, 2004, 140). Gülen also recognizes that dialogue and tolerance are interrelated concepts. Dialogue is only possible if one is willing to be tolerant about what may be said. This does not mean that the parties to the dialogue need agree. Gülen states, “Tolerance does not mean being influenced by others and joining them; it means accepting others as they are and knowing how to get along with them” (2004, 157). He reemphasizes this point when he writes, “Being tolerant does not mean foregoing our traditions coming from our religion, our nation or our history, because tolerance is something that has existed since olden times” (Gülen, 2004, 158). The alternative to dialogue and tolerance is unpleasant. Each person, community, and nation is faced with a genuine moral dilemma between dialogue and tolerance and their alternatives. Gülen states this dilemma clearly when he writes, “People with different ideas and thoughts are either going to seek ways of getting along by means of reconciliation or they will constantly fight with one another” (Gülen, 2004, 157).

The responsibility for being tolerant and engaging in dialogue is not just the personal responsibility of the individual. Gülen notes, “At a time when the world has become like a big village and at a point when our society is on the verge of great change and transformation, if we are talking about dialogue with other nations…[then] tolerance is a matter that needs to be rewarded and for this reason it must permeate all society” (2004, 157). Thus, “universities should breathe it, politicians should frequently talk about it, people in the music world should write lyrics about it and the media should give support to positive developments on this subject” (Gülen, 2004, 157). Gülen also observes, “In countries programmed for corruption, intolerance, and mercilessness, such things as freedom of thought, polite criticism and exchange of ideas according to norms of equity and fair-minded debate, it would be meaningless to speak of products of logic and inspiration” (2004, 37). It is obvious here that Gülen is upholding the values of tolerance and dialogue. Furthermore, he maintains that dialogue itself is a logical process because it is only meaningful to speak of the products of logic out of this process.

As I noted before, Gülen bases his notions on Scripture. He writes, “The Qur’an is the source of leniency and tolerance, and because these concepts have flowed to us like an exuberant stream from the Conveyor of the Qur’an, upon him be peace and blessings, we cannot think any differently on this matter” (Gülen 2004, 155). He continues, “From this perspective, because tolerance derives from the Qur’an and the Sunnah, it is a Muslim’s natural virtue and, because of the sources it derives from, it is permanent” (Gülen 2004, 155). Now as I reflect on the religious foundation of Gülen’s ideas and the fact they solidified in his mind in reaction to the stresses that he observed in his own society, I cannot help but be reminded of the fact that John Locke’s first Letter Concerning Toleration arose in not too dissimilar a situation. Locke was all too familiar with the terrible conflicts that had beset the Christian West after the Reformation. He also found that toleration was an alternative to those conflicts. He too grounds his notion in his own religion. Locke states, “…I esteem that toleration to be the chief characteristic mark of the true church” (Locke 1955, 13). The fact that two men so far apart in space, time, and religion could arrive at roughly similar conclusions gives me great hope for the future of their ideas.

Gülen writes, “The Qur’an urges peace, order, and accord. It aims at universal peace and order, and opposes conflicts and dissensions. It is interesting that the Qur’an calls actions acceptable to God ‘sound actions to bring peace and order’” (2004, 214). This raises the question about the relation between peace and the key notions of tolerance and dialogue. Well, all too often in human history, dialogue has only begun after people have exhausted themselves in war and conflict. Gülen calls for us to begin with tolerance and dialogue because in such an atmosphere peace follows of its own accord. In fact, Gülen envisions a world and a new civilization growing towards global tolerance. He writes that, “Instead of a world kneaded with malice and hatred, a surprising world shaped in a climate of love, tolerance and forbearance will appear before us” (Gülen 2004, 194).

As can be seen from Gülen’s characterization of dialogue, his conception of dialogue differs in only one important respect from those of Plato’s and Habermas’. While both Plato and Habermas hold that consensus is the ideal product of dialogue, Gülen explicitly denies this. The only consensus Gülen implicitly calls for is mutual tolerance, that is, that we agree to be tolerant of each other’s views and values. In that tolerance, we need neither agree to the views of others nor accept the values of others. What he does call for is for each of us to understand the other as he or she is as a result of dialogue.

A Problem and a Solution

Fethullah Gülen is one of the few thinkers to link explicitly toleration and dialogue. Toleration has long been a topic of exploration for Western religious, philosophical, and political thinkers. We need but think of Richard Hooker, Benedict Spinoza, John Locke, François-Marie Voltaire, John Stuart Mill, and many others who have addressed the issue of toleration. But none of them tie the two notions of tolerance and dialogue together as closely as does Gülen. As we have seen, even Plato only implies that something like toleration should be a condition of dialogue; he never makes it explicit. Toleration calls for people with fundamentally different beliefs and values to coexist peacefully with each other. The main philosophical issue attached to the idea of toleration is how that principle can be reconciled with genuine moral and religious convictions that are significantly different. Of course, history teaches us that those different convictions need not be very significant, at least, from a longer perspective. But even if one is tolerant why should that person engage in dialogue with those of whom she is tolerant. In other words, what is the link between toleration and dialogue?

This problem is compounded once we realize a further dimension to the issue. The nouns ‘toleration’ and ‘dialogue’ have corresponding verb forms, ‘to tolerate’ and ‘to dialogue’. Furthermore, both verbs have illocutionary force. If we classify them according to Austin’s system, we get the following results. ‘To tolerate’ has commissive force. Austin writes, “The whole point of a commissive is to commit the speaker to a certain course of action” (1975, 157). To tolerate others is, quite bluntly, to commit oneself to put up with others who differ from us in such matters as beliefs and values. ‘To dialogue’ has expositive force. Austin asserts, “Expositives are used in acts of exposition involving the expounding of views, the conducting of arguments, and the clarifying of usages and of references” (1975, 161). These are all illocutuionary acts among a group of such acts that may occur during a dialogue. The two verbs thus reflect different illocutionary acts that are not necessarily linked to one another.

However, Gülen does provide us a link between the two notions. Out of his own experience of tolerance and dialogue, Gülen observes,

…I have had the opportunity to speak with and get to know many people from different segments of society. The most important observation I have personally made from these dialogues is how closed we are to our own society. Many times when I encountered someone who did not think as I did, I thought unpleasant things would ensue. But it is interesting that in hardly any group did I see a sour face. We were able to draw close to one another quite comfortably, and everyone who thought they were very different from each other actually warmed easily to one another. In fact, when embracing one another, everyone’s eyes were full of tears. There was no feigned flattery here (2004, 81).

This passage indicates that Gülen finds the link between tolerance and dialogue in our shared humanity. He writes, “Remaining respectful to others’ thoughts and feelings because ‘they are human’, we must accept all people in their own special circumstances and with their thoughts” (Gülen 2004, 83). Furthermore, Gülen grounds this shared humanity in Islam. He notes, “God created humanity as noble, and everyone shares in this nobility to a certain degree. His messenger once stood up out of respect for humanity as the funeral procession of a Jew passed by. When reminded that the deceased was a Jew, the Prophet replied: ‘But he’s a human being’, thereby showing the value Islam gives to human beings” (Gülen 2004, 65).

Gülen’s message of tolerance and dialogue originally started as a response to certain specific tensions in Turkish society. The notions that he developed of both tolerance and dialogue fit well within the traditions of ancient Greek thought as well as more recent developments in the application of speech act theory and the conception of communicative rationality. By linking these notions as he does, Gülen supplies a unity of the two notions that has application on a global level.

References (for the excerpted section only)

• Austin, J. L. 1975. How to do things with words. Urmson, J. and Sbisà, M. (Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Gülen, F. 2004. Love and the Essence of Being Human (2nd ed.). Tuncer, F. (Ed.). Ünal, M. and Korkmaz, N. (Trans.) Istanbul: Journalists and Writers Foundation Publications.
• Locke, J. 1955. A letter concerning toleration (2nd ed.). Popple, W. (Tran.). Romanell, P. (Ed.). The Library of Liberal Arts. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.  

Excerpted from the paper (Dialogue: Greek foundations and the thought of Fethullah Gülen and Jürgen Habermas) presented at the conference, “Fethullah Gulen Conference - The Gülen Movement in Thought and Practice”, Houston, TX, November 12-13, 2005

Somalia and other Arfican countries in need waiting. Helping Hands Relief Foundation taking action

http://hhrelief.org/

Toward A Global Civilization of Love and Tolerance - Book of the Week Fethullah Gulen

This book has a double purpose. On the one hand, it is a call to Muslims to a greater awareness that Islam teaches the need for dialogue and that Muslims are called to be agents and witnesses to God's universal mercy. On the other hand,the book is an invitation to non-Muslims to move beyond prejudice, suspicion, and half-truths in order to arrive at an understanding what Islam is really about.

The more we learn, the more we are the same

Amanda McGill *
Turkey. A cradle of civilization and religion. On a recent trip with the Niagara Foundation’s Nebraska Chapter, I walked the streets of St. John, Trojan warriors and sultans. History was everywhere I looked.

But Turkey is not just about the past. Some 60 percent of the Turkish population is under the age of 35, making it a young nation with minds ready to learn and lead in the 21st century.

This boom in youth coincides with Turkey’s economic boom. Its private sector has grown dramatically over the last eight years, as has per capita income. Many business leaders now have vast profits, which they are choosing to invest in the education of their nation and in religious acceptance.

This charitable mindset is part of a growing movement started by Muslim scholar Fethullah Gülen. He believes education and interfaith/intercultural dialogue can bring about a more peaceful world. While Gülen and most of Turkey are Muslims, the movement incorporates all faiths as well as atheists and agnostics.

During my stay in Turkey, I met with many business leaders and academics that provide funding for schools and universities based on this philosophy. As one businessman told me, “Educated people can understand each other.” They believe ignorance is what is holding back the Middle East and that education can bring an end to Islamic extremism. Gülen was the first Muslim leader to speak out against the 9-11 terrorist attacks 10 years ago with this statement: “Islam abhors such acts of terror. A religion that professes ‘He who unjustly kills one man kills the whole of humanity’ cannot condone senseless killing of thousands.”

Turkey has a strong separation of church and state due to fears of religion being used by a political faction to manipulate power (like the Taliban). Gülen followers stand behind the separation. However, they believe that all faiths can work together to develop society. It is because of the Islamic faith of these businessmen that they are trying to spread their peaceful movement within Turkey and to other countries in the region. Their faith teaches them that they are responsible not only for themselves but for all people. “Life is short and we must do as much as possible,” chimed in another business leader.

As I listened to them talk about charity and bettering our world, it felt just like the values I learned in Catholic school not so long ago. Their interest isn’t to convert people to Islam, but to use the common foundation and values of Christianity, Islam and Judaism to educate and work together towards peace.

I’ll admit that as I learned more and more about this movement and life-view, I was embarrassed by my own ignorance in terms of the Islamic faith, an ignorance shared by most Americans. All I had known before my trip was that the Quran shares some stories with the Bible, Muhammad is the chief prophet, Muslim women dress conservatively and prayer is done facing Mecca. That was it.

On my visit to Turkey, I was enlightened by the values of Islam and the history and traditions surrounding it. I visited mosques and the tomb of Rumi. I learned that there is a chapter in the Quran dedicated to the Virgin Mary and as our host said, “she is the most important woman” in the religion. I had no idea Muslims shared many of the same beliefs towards her that I was taught as a Catholic. In the moment I learned that, the world became a lot smaller to me. Through education, I realized we had more in common than I could have imagined.

While I still have a lot to learn about the faith, I have a better understanding of the Muslim world and therefore am better equipped to help the movement towards a more peaceful world.

I left Turkey encouraged by the values I found in this ancient, yet transformative, country and felt more connected to the people than I anticipated.

We all laugh at the same things.

We all love our children the same way.

And we all pray to the same, one God.
*Amanda McGill is a state senator from Nebraska.

Published on Today's Zaman, 31 July 2011, Sunday

Book of the month: A Dialogue of Civilizations by Jill Carroll

Fethullah Gülen is a Turkish intellectual, scholar, and activist whose influence over a new Islamic intellectual, social, and spiritual revival is revealed in this insightful book. Readers will gain a fuller understanding of where Gülen stands on issues of inherent human value and dignity, freedom of thought, education and taking responsibility for creating society and the world. In addition, readers will also see how different perspectives across time, geography, and worldview can still find points on which to engage in dialogue and find a deep resonance.

Era of dialogue will never be over

Kerim Balcı
It was in 1994 that I read Fethullah Gülen's declaration of all the ages until the resurrection to be an “era of dialogue.” At that time, I was surprised to hear such decisiveness in the voice of a Muslim scholar, in labeling the ages to come as an especially peace-seeking era.
Mr. Gülen is the kind of scholar who believes in the “soul of history and time.” We are all children of our times and Gülen was declaring our time, as well as the times of our children, great-grandchildren and so on, to be a time of peace-making, peace-seeking and peaceful coexistence. This observation was not borne out, in my understanding then, by our historical experience with the West. If any single word were to be chosen to characterize the thousand-year-old relationship of the Muslim and Western worlds, it would be “war.” Look back into our common history, and you will see hatred, conflict, denigration, defamation and demonization. But Gülen was asking us not to look back into history, but to look to the future.

Many people are stuck in time. The future, for them, exists only as a projection of the past and any prediction about the future can only be based on the observation of past experiences. Gülen, on the other hand, believes that the future is a potentiality vested in the human will.

Reading Anders Behring Breivik's self-proclaimed “European Declaration of Independence,” I saw, once again, what it means to be “stuck in time.” Breivik looks only to the past and disregards the potential for the human will to create change. He claims, in opposition to Gülen, that the time for dialogue is over. “We gave peace a chance. The time for armed resistance has come,” he declares.

Despite his rejection of dialogue, Breivik is also obsessed with dialogue. The word appears more than any other word in his “Declaration,” obviously in a critical way. But he does not reject dialogue on ethical grounds; rather, he claims that Muslims do not deserve dialogue. “No more ‘dialogue',” he says. “The only way to deal with a bully is to punch him in the nose, and make him back down. That's the only appropriate way to deal with Jihadists.”

Breivik quotes a person named Fjordman (probably Breivick and Fjordman are one and the same) who wrote several articles on JihadWatch.com comparing Western and Muslim understandings of dialogue, and claims that Islamic dialogue differs sharply from that of Westerners, the Socratic dialogue. “For them, ‘dialogue' does not mean an attempt to rationally debate a topic in order to arrive at the truth. Truth is already a given: It's called Shariah, and the only ‘dialogue' that is acceptable is one that will lead to the implementation of Shariah, one way or another. When they invite us to a ‘dialogue,' they actually mean that we should negotiate our surrender, or else…,” Fjordman-Breivik says.

This description of Socratic dialogue is rather misleading. In fact, it is precisely in Socratic dialogue that the truth is already a given and the “master” leads the students to that truth through questions. Socrates believed that everything is known beforehand and that learning is a process of remembering what we already knew. Philosophers such as Mikhail Bakhtin have criticized Socratic dialogue for being a monologue through and through.

Of course it would not be wise to expect that a mind like Breivik's, stuck in past experiences and obsessed with a new era, should be well read in philosophy and literary criticism. In fact he abhors literary criticism as an academic manifestation of cultural Marxism. But this readiness to accept a misreading as the single truth is exactly what intercultural, interreligious, interfaith, inter-ontological dialogue is trying to do away with.

Breivik is himself strong proof that the era of dialogue will never be over. There will always be some minds stuck in history and we will always need open-minded, future-oriented people like Gülen to save these minds from the long sleep of “The Matrix.” The era of dialogue has just begun. Breivik, hopefully, was the last nightmare in this lengthy sleep of the Western mind.

Published on Today's Zaman, 27 July 2011, Wednesday

Four Frontrunners in Peace - Thomas Michel

Thomas Michel

People who Have Devoted Their Lives to Peace

Peace has many sides, and peacemakers are not all of one type. What peacemakers have in common is their willingness to put into action the thirst that all good people have for peace: to put their desire for peace into words, and to match their words with deeds. Peacemakers are those who are ready to work for change in society in non-violent ways, who protest injustice without acting unjustly toward those who perpetrate wrongs, who try to reconcile those involved in conflict without themselves becoming part of the conflict.
Peacemakers take risks. They risk losing the life of tranquillity, comfort, and complacency that is often mistaken for peace. They risk losing the esteem of family and friends by taking on unpopular causes and by associating with unwelcome people. They risk their freedom of movement, of speech, of association, especially when their efforts at peace bring them into confrontation with governments and powerful forces in society. They risk their very lives when their message of peace is an obstacle to the plans of the violent.

For religious believers, our faith shapes the way we understand peace. As a Christian, I find the teaching and example of Jesus compelling. “Peace I leave with you,” he said, “My peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.” Even though our inspiration for peacemaking is formed by our respective religious faiths, honesty and human fellowship demands that we recognize that, just as all religions teach peace, so have all faiths produced outstanding examples of peacemakers.

It would be a good exercise for each of us to make a personal list of frontrunners for peace, simply in order to undertake the discipline of asking ourselves, “Who are my heroes of peace, and why?” In drawing up a list of peacemakers, we engage in a process of defining our own values and asking ourselves what peace means to us. In my short presentation, rather than repeating some of the great names like Gandhi, the Dalai Lama, Albert Einstein, and Pope John XXIII, I would like to mention four people - two Christians and two Muslims, who exemplify for me the spirit of peacemaking.

1. Rosa Parks: an ordinary person who brought about big changes.

The first person I want to mention is a woman from my native country, one whom I have never met but who has greatly influenced the direction of my life. This is Rosa Parks, an African-American, a Christian, member of the Baptist Church, who is still living and 90 years old this year. In 1955, I was 14 years old. To appreciate the achievement of Rosa Parks, you have to understand the racial situation in the United States at that time. In many places, African-Americans could not use the same restaurants, parks, or toilet facilities as other Americans. They could not send their children to the same schools, live in the same neighborhoods, or sit in the same seats in buses or trains.

Dramatic changes have taken place since then, and the catalyst for these changes was an ordinary 42-year-old woman who did not have the benefits of higher education or a position of power in society. Rosa Parks received her high school diploma by taking classes at night after working as a seamstress by day, sewing clothes at a large shop in Montgomery, Alabama. On 1 December 1955, when Rosa was returning home from work, seated in the first row of the “colored” section in the back of the bus, a white man got on. There were no more seats, so the bus driver asked Rosa and other African-Americans to move farther back so the man could sit down. The others moved, but Rosa stayed seated. The bus driver said, “I’ll have to arrest you,” she answered simply, “You may go on and do so, ” and Rosa Parks was arrested for her non-violent protest.

The young pastor of a Baptist parish in Montgomery heard about her arrest and organized a boycott of the bus company, and in this unassuming way the American civil rights movement started. The movement grew and came to include not only African-American but various sections of society. There were marches, demonstra­tions, letter-writing campaigns to politicians, sit-ins at bus stations, police headquarters, airports, and universities. Some of the civil rights activists were brutally killed, and usually the killers were not brought to justice.

In 1963, I was in the seminary studying theology. We weren’t much affected by the civil rights movement. My state had repealed its discriminatory laws, so the issue seemed distant from our daily lives. The movement was going on and we knew about it, but we weren’t really part of it.

Then in March, 1963, Martin Luther King, the young preacher who organized the bus boycott, called for a nationwide meeting to protest racial discrimination. Over 250,000 people gathered in Washington to hear him speak, and on that day Martin Luther King gave his famous, “I have a dream” speech. He said, “I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the children of former slaves and the children of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.” The civil rights movement, and Dr. King’s speech in particular, changed my life by offering me a new set of priorities and a sharpened commitment to social change.

I’ve learned several things from Rosa Parks. I learned that a peacemaker does not have to work from a position of political or economic power in society. A peacemaker need not belong to the dominant social, racial or ethnic majority. A peacemaker does not have to be equipped with the tools of formal higher education. A peacemaker who is convinced of the rightness of her or his cause and has the courage of his or her convictions can, by seizing the right moment and responding to it firmly and creatively, accomplish much. For me, Rosa Parks is evidence against the cynical commonplace that “The problem is too vast. There’s nothing we can do.”

2. Said Nursi: a Muslim thinker who advocated dialogue.

The next peacemaker I want to mention is Said Nursi. I do not think that I need to go into the details of his life, since many of you know much more about his life and thought than I do. Although I hope to focus mainly on Said Nursi’s ideas and actions as a peacemaker, it might be helpful to review a few basic facts of his life in order to situate his thought in its historical context.

Said Nursi was born in 1877 in the village of Nurs in the province of Bitlis in eastern Turkey. He studied the religious sciences in various medreses in Eastern Turkey, where he claims to have been influenced especially by the Islamic reformers such as Namik Kemal, Jamal al-Din Afghani and Muhammad Abduh. He became interested in politics and favored the views of Afghani concerning the unity or ittihad of the international Islamic community.

During the middle years of his life, Nursi’s thought underwent a radical change and he decided to devote his life to a study of the Qur’an in the light of modern sciences. His voluminous writings together form a comprehensive Qur’anic commentary called the Risale-i Nur (the Message of Light). Nursi’s basic intuition was the clash of world views represented by materialism, on the one hand, and by religious faith, on the other. He believed that the natural sciences, if divorced from a moral vision that could hold them together and give them direction, led inevitably to egoism, violence, and destructive behavior. It was the role of revealed truth to form people with a moral vision in which, as he states: “Conscience is illuminated by the religious sciences, and the mind is illuminated by the sciences of civilization. Wisdom occurs through the combination of these two.”

Nursi’s criticism of materialist tendencies in society and politics, and his opposition to Turkey’s engagement in wars and unholy alliances, caused him to be repeatedly put in prison or confined to house arrest. Although he lived in a period when Turkey was being torn apart by civil strife, revolution, war and a clash of world views, Nursi’s message was always of peace. The “Old Said” knew the ravages of war first hand, having taken part as a young man in the First World War, commanding militia forces in the Caucasus in defending his homeland against the Russian invasion. Even then, his religious commitment was foremost, and he dictated Qur’anic commentary to a scribe in the midst of battle. He was taken prisoner and transported to Russia as a prisoner-of-war, where he lived through the Russian revolution.

By the time of the Second World War, the “New Said” had undergone a spiritual pilgrimage, and the worldly events erupting around him hardly penetrated his awareness. He devoted his days and months in prison to the study of the Qur’an and, as he states, “In these last four years, I have known neither the stages of the war, nor its results, nor whether or not peace has been declared, and I have not asked, I have not knocked on the door of this sacred sura to learn how many allusions it contains to this century and its wars.” There is no doubt that Nursi’s transformation from activist to contemplative student of the Qur’an was influenced by the horrors of war that he had seen and experienced as a young man.

In his writings about peace, Nursi focuses on three aspects. Firstly, peace is the ultimate goal and reward of those who study and practice the Qur’anic teaching found in the Risale-i Nur. Secondly, peace is the serenity granted by God to faithful believers that enables them to bear hardship, injustice, and opposition with equanimity and forgiveness instead of seeking revenge. Thirdly, peace is a mission, a solemn duty, entrusted by God to the Islamic community. Muslims are to be peacemakers and builders of peace in this world. Nursi sees the task of Islamic civilization as one of striving for truth instead of force, establishing justice and harmony, attracting others by the power of love rather than by selfish ambition, strengthening the bonds of unity across religious, national and class lines rather than falling into divisive racist or nationalist attitudes (cf. The Damascus Sermon, p. 106.)

Said Nursi notes (The Flashes, Sixteenth Flash, p. 144) that he was often criticized because of his commitment to peace. At the time of the British and Italian invasions of Turkey, Nursi proposed prayers for peace and negotiated settlement and was consequently accused of indirectly supporting the aims of the aggressors. Nursi replied that he too wanted release, but not by using the same methods employed by the assailants. He stated that Islam teaches people to seek truth and uprightness, not to try to achieve their aims by use of force. He was asked whether freely relinquishing one’s rights for the sake of peace should not be considered a kind of compromise with wrongdoing. In response, he drew upon his experience in prison, stating: “A person who is in the right, is fair. He will sacrifice his dirhem’s worth of right for the general peace, which is worth a hundred.”

In his analysis of society in his day, Nursi considered that the dominant challenge to faith to be the secularist ideology promoted by the West. He felt that modern secularism had two faces. On the one hand, communism explicitly denied God’s existence and consciously fought against the place of religion in society. On the other, the modern capitalist systems, in their brand of secularism, did not deny God’s existence, but simply ignored the question of God and promoted a consumerist, materialist way of life, as if there were no God, or as though God had no moral will for humankind. In both types of secular society, some individuals might make a personal, private choice to follow a religious path, but religion should have nothing to say about politics, economics or the organization of society.

In response, Said Nursi held that in the situation of this modern world, religious believers face a similar struggle, that is, the challenge to lead a life of faith in which the purpose of human life is to worship God and to love others in obedience to God’s will, and to lead this life of faith in a world whose political, economic and social spheres are often dominated either by a militant atheism, such as that of communism, or by a practical atheism, where God is simply ignored, forgotten, or considered irrelevant.

Said Nursi does not advocate violence to oppose militant secularism. He says that the most important need today is for the greatest struggle, the jihad al-akbar of which the Qur’an speaks. This is the interior effort to bring every aspect of one’s life into submission to God’s will. This involves acknowledging and striving to overcome one’s own weaknesses and those of one’s nation. Too often, he says, believers are tempted to blame their problems on others when the real fault lies in themselves - the dishonesty, corruption, hypocrisy and favoritism that characterize many so-called “religious” societies.

He further advocates the struggle of speech, kalam, what might be called a critical dialogue aimed at convincing others of the need to submit one’s life to God’s will. Where Said Nursi is far ahead of his time is that he foresees that, in the struggle to carry on a critical dialogue with modern society, Muslims should not act alone but must work together with those he calls “true Christians,” in other words, Christians not in name only, but those who have interiorized the message which Christ brought, who practice their faith, and who are open and willing to cooperate with Muslims.

In contrast to the popular way in which many Muslims of his day looked at things, Said Nursi holds Muslims must not say that Christians are the enemy. Rather, Muslims and Christians have three common enemies that they have to face together: ignorance, poverty, dissension. In short, he sees the need for dialogue as arising from the challenges posed by secular society to Muslims and Christians and that dialogue should lead to a common stand favoring education, including ethical and spiritual formation to oppose the evil of ignorance, cooperation in development and welfare projects to oppose the evil of poverty, and efforts to unity and solidarity to oppose the enemy of dissension, factionalism, and polarization.

Said Nursi still hopes that before the end of time true Christianity will eventually be transformed into a form of Islam, but the differences that exist today between Islam and Christianity must not be considered obstacles to Muslim-Christian cooperation in facing the challenges of modern life. In fact, near the end of his life, in 1953, Said Nursi paid a visit in Istanbul to the Ecumenical Patriarch of the Orthodox Church to encourage Muslim-Christian dialogue. A few years earlier, in 1951, he sent a collection of his writings to Pope Pius XII, who acknowledged the gift with a handwritten note.

3. Oscar Romero: a peaceful defender of the poor.

My third example is a Christian, the former Catholic Archbishop of San Salvador in Central America. To those acquainted with the patterns of Catholic ecclesiastical careers, there was nothing exceptional in the early years of Oscar Romero: born in 1917, worked as a carpenter’s apprentice, entered the seminary, was ordained a priest, studied in Rome, appointed rector of the national seminary, secretary of the bishops conference, assistant bishop and then, in 1977, named archbishop of San Salvador, the capital of El Salvador.

In 1977, the population of El Salvador was highly polarized. The peasants had organized themselves and were striving to overthrow the oligarchic rule that had governed El Salvador for more than a century. The wealthy, powerful families that controlled the politics and economy of the nation had employed the army and paramilitary “death squads” to terrorize the population in order to put an end to the camposinos’ uprising. Geopolitical interests exacerbated the tensions, with the American government involved in training and supporting the Salvadoran military to counter the Marxist ideology proposed by some of the popular leaders.

At first, Romero’s consecration as archbishop of the capital city was welcomed by the ruling elites, as he had been seen as theologically and socially conservative. However, a short time after he became bishop, the murders of two priests brought about a change, or as Romero put it, an evolution in his thinking. He demanded an inquiry into the murders and set up a permanent commission for the defense of human rights. People began flocking to his Masses on Sundays and his sermons were printed and distributed throughout the country. He became the voice of the oppressed people crying for their rights and dignity. His championing the cause of the people also engendered criticism against him on the part of the ruling elite and even some of his fellow bishops. He was accused of “inciting class struggle and revolution” and of being infected with Marxist ideas.

The social situation continued to deteriorate, with mutilated corpses left hanging from trees, bombs detonated in newspaper offices, churches, and government buildings, and massacres of peasants occurring on a weekly basis. In this context, to those who were trying to put down the rebellion with terror tactics, Romero spoke of the qualities of true peace. He said, “Peace is not the product of terror or fear. Peace is not the silence of cemeteries. Peace is not the silent result of violent repression. Peace is the generous, tranquil contribution of all to the good of all. Peace is dynamism. Peace is generosity. It is right and it is duty.”

Some accused Romero of meddling in politics and demanded that he confine his preaching to “spiritual” matters. Romero responded: “A church that suffers no persecution but enjoys the privileges and support of the things of the earth - beware! - is not the true church of Jesus Christ. A preaching that does not point out sin is not the preaching of the Gospel. A preaching that makes sinners feel good, so that they feel secure in their sinful state, betrays the Gospel’s call.”

Romero began to receive death threats and, as time went on, it became more and more clear that his life was in danger. However, he was not deterred by the threats and, in fact, his own preaching became sharper and more difficult for those in power to ignore. On 23 March 1980, Archbishop Romero made the following appeal to the men of the armed forces:

“Brothers, you came from our own people. You are killing your own brothers. Any human order to kill must be subordinate to the law of God, which says, ‘Thou shalt not kill’. No soldier is obliged to obey an order contrary to the law of God. No one has to obey an immoral law. It is time you obeyed your consciences rather than sinful orders. The church cannot remain silent before such an abomination. ...In the name of God, in the name of this suffering people whose cry rises to heaven more loudly each day, I implore you, I beg you, I order you: stop the repression.”

The following day, Romero was shot dead while leading the congregation in worship of God.

From Oscar Romero, I learned, first of all that making peace does not mean a passive acquiescence to injustice or oppression. It does not demand that one remains silent when some are suffering at the hands of others. It does not mean that one should become a “doormat” for others to walk over or put up with wrongs and violence in order to “keep peace at any cost.”

Our religious faith does not teach passivity, but teaches us not to respond to violence in kind. Romero resolved this seeming paradox by his insistence on the truth. For him, to preach a comfortable message that did not call upon wrongdoers to confront the true nature of their violent deeds would be to preach a perversion of the Gospel. Violent situations require peacemakers speak the truth and call sin by its name. We all know how difficult this is to do, especially when the violent are people of power, prestige, and influence. We can find in Oscar Romero a martyr to the truth, one who dared to speak his faith even when he knew it would mean his death.

4. M. Fethullah Gülen: an activist who teaches peace and practices dialogue.

The final peacemaker I will speak about here is Fethullah Gulen, a contemporary Turkish thinker, spiritual leader, and creative educator. Living in the next generation after Said Nursi, Gülen took up Nursi’s call for an effective dialogue between believing Muslims and believing Christians. What form should such a dialogue take? What are the priorities? How can Said Nursi’s directives to struggle together against the common enemies of ignorance, poverty and disunity be put into practice in a world which has continued to evolve in ways that are sometimes encouraging, but in other ways, quite disturbing? This is the challenge taken up by Fethullah Gulen, affectionately called “Hoca Effendi” by his associates and students. Gülen never met Said Nursi and, while he speaks highly of him and claims to have been greatly influenced by his writings, he denies being a follower of Said Nursi in any sectarian sense.

Some scholars consider the movement associated with Gülen to be one of the transformations that have occurred as Said Nursi’s thought continues to be reinterpreted and applied anew in evolving historical and geographical situations. One scholar to study the movement, Professor Hakan Yavuz, notes that “Some Turkish Nurcus, such as Yeni Asya of Mehmet Kutlular and the Fethullah Gulen community, re-imagined the movement as a ‘Turkish Islam’.” Another scholar, Dr. Ihsan Yilmaz concurs: “Nursi’s discourse ‘has already weathered major economic, political, and educational transformations’... Today, the Gulen movement is a manifestation of this phenomenon.”

Where Gülen most clearly answers the call of Said Nursi is by taking up the challenge to combat ignorance. There are now over 300 schools around the world inspired by the convictions of Mr. Gülen, set up, administered, and staffed by his circle of students and associates. The schools try to bring together educational objectives that are too often dispersed among various school systems. They seek to give a strong scientific grounding, together with character formation in non-material values, which includes cultural, ethical, religious and spiritual training. In addition to the formal education carried out in schools, Fethullah Gulen’s movement has pursued non-formal education through television and radio channels, newspapers and magazines, cultural and professional foundations.

Fethullah Gulen and his movement have also been active in the area of interreligious dialogue and peacemaking. Four years ago, Mr. Gülen traveled to Rome where he was met by Pope John Paul II. He has met the Ecumenical Patriarch of the Orthodox Church numerous times. His interreligious activities have gone beyond Muslim-Christian relations to include meetings with Jewish leaders at the national and international level. In connection with the Parliament of the World’s Religions, held in Cape Town, South Africa, Mr. Gülen delivered a major address on the theme: “The Necessity of Interfaith Dialogue: a Muslim Approach.”

Mr. Gülen’s was one of the first Muslim voices heard in condemnation of the terrorist acts committed on 11 September 2001. Within 24 hours of the tragedy, Mr. Gülen wrote an open letter in which he stated: “What lies behind certain Muslim people or institutions that misunderstand Islam getting involved in terrorist attacks that occur throughout the world should be sought not in Islam, but within those people themselves, in their misinterpretations, and in other factors. Just as Islam is not a religion of terrorism, any Muslim who correctly understands Islam cannot be thought of as a terrorist.”

Conclusion

As a Christian involved in working with Muslims and other religious believers for peace through interreligious dialogue, I am grateful for the insights of Said Nursi and for the leadership in this field provided by Fethullah Gülen. What Said Nursi and Fethullah Gülen have in common with Rosa Parks and Oscar Romero is a strong religious faith which has shaped their thinking and their commitments to stand for peace in a violent world. All four have met rejection, not because they had committed or advocated criminal activity, but because they upheld religious values and taught a non-violent activism. Together with many other peacemakers too numerous to mention, they have shown, in the words of the recent World Social Forum, that “another world is possible.”

Bibliography

Rosa Parks

• Rosa Parks, Quiet Strength, Zondervan, 1994.
• Grace Lee Boggs, Rosa Parks, Penguin Books, 1990.
• Rita Dove, On the Bus with Rosa Parks, Norton, 1999.
• Beatrice Seagel, The Year They Walked: Rosa Parks and the Montgomery Bus Boycott, Simon & Schuster, 1992.
• Rosa Parks and Jim Haskins. Rosa Parks: My Story, Dial, 1992.
• Kai Friese, Rosa Parks: The Movement Organizes, Burdett, 1990.

Said Nursi

• Said Nursi, Risale-i Nur. Most of this immense Qur’an commentary has been translated into English by _ükran Vahide and published as separate volumes (“The Words,” “The Letters,” “The Flashes,” “The Rays,” “The Damascus Sermon”). Perhaps the most approachable version is that on CD-ROM, “The Risale-i Nur collection.
• Şükran Vahide, Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, Izmir: Sözler Publications, 1992.
• Sherif Mardin, Religion and Social Change in Modern Turkey: the Case of Bediüzzaman Said Nursi, New York: SUNY Press, 1989.
• Camilla Trud Nereid, In the Light of Said Nursi: Turkish Nationalism and the Religious Alternative, Bergen: 1997.
• Hamid Algar, “Said Nursi and the Risale-i Nur”, Islamic Perspectives Studies in Honour of Sayyid Abu’l-A'la Mawdudi, Khurshid Ahmad and Zafar Ishaq Ansari eds., Leicester: The Islamic Foundation, 1979, pp. 313-333.

Oscar Romero

• Carmen Chacon, Salvador Carranza, Juan Macho, Inocencio Alas, Carmen Elena Hernandez, Maria Isabel Figueroa, Jorge Lara‑Braud, “The Reluctant Conversion of Oscar Romero
• Memories of the Archbishop on the 20th Anniversary of his Assassination,” Sojourners, March‑April 2000.
• Anna L. Peterson. Martyrdom and the Politics of Religion: Progressive Catholicism in El Salvador’s Civil War, SUNY Press, 1997.
• Oscar A. Romero. The Voice of the Voiceless: The Four Pastoral Letters and Other Statements, Introductions, commentaries and selection of texts by R. Cardenal, I. Martín-Baró and J. Sobrino. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1985.
• James R. Brockman. Romero: A Life., Maryknoll: Orbis, 1989.
• Oscar Arnulfo Romero. The Church is All of You: Thoughts of Archbishop Oscar Romero. Compiled and trans. by James R. Brockman, S.J., Minneapolis: Winston Press, 1984.

Fethullah Gülen

• M. Fethullah Gülen, Essays, Perspectives, Opinions, Rutherford N.J.: The Light, 2002.
• M. Fethullah Gülen, Key Concepts in the Practice of Sufism, Fairfax, Va.: Fountain, 1999.
• Lynne Emily Webb, Fethulah Gülen: Is There More to Him Than Meets the Eye? Patterson, N.J., Zinnur, n.d.
• M. Hakan Yavuz and John L. Esposito, eds., Turkish Islam and the Secular State: the Gülen Movement, Syracuse: Syracuse U.P., 2003.
• Ali Ünal and Alphonse Williams, Fethullah Gülen, Advocate of Dialogue, Fairfax: Fountain, 2000.

Published on Thomas Michel's Website,