Jan 2, 2012
gulen4peace: Who is Fethullah Gulen? What is Gulen Movement?
gulen4peace: Who is Fethullah Gulen? What is Gulen Movement?: F ethullah Gülen is an authoritative mainstream Turkish Muslim scholar, thinker, author, poet, opinion leader and educational activist who s...
Gulen Movement's inclusiveness and benefits to wider society. Is the Gülen Movement trying to build a separate, exclusive society?
The majority of people who participate in the services are introduced by friends.
The fact that it is not via relatives or through some kind of clan system shows that relationships in the Movement can be inclusive, transformative and lasting. Also, the fact that introduction to and participation in the Movement or service-projects occurs through acquaintances in everyday life and through work colleagues indicates that the cultural perspective or worldview of the Gülen Movement is regarded as legitimate and rational. The participation of individuals who did not grow up within the Gülen community or its networks is also significant: it indicates purely individual choices and a strong subjective identification; people make an active rationalizing and reckoning of the decision to participate in the collective action of the Movement.
How are participants in the Gülen Movement able to establish and retain their links with the wider public?
The dense, strong and multiple affiliations that individuals enjoy within project-networks inspire, motivate and commit them to the services the project yields.
But participants do not separate their private lives from those projects. Rather, they link their private lives to their public activities and their societal environment. This leads to harmonious and peaceful continuities rather than detachment, alienation, frustration and antagonism.
There are also a great number of individuals who are sympathetic to the collective action of the Movement but do not become active in it. This indicates that the Movement is not an isolated actor and is able to establish affective links with and among the wider public. Indeed, there is no expectation in the Movement that participants should sever previous social ties. They are expected to have other ties too, and to make new ties while ‘in’ the Movement. Such multiple affiliations are in principle and practice welcomed: loyalty centers upon effective delivery of service-projects and complementarity between them. It does not center upon the Movement as such. Solidarity among Gülen Movement participants ensues from sharing work effort and from shared experiences and memories; it is not pursued as a precondition of doing the work at all.
In what way are the Gülen Movement's networks beneficial to wider society?
The Gülen Movement has been mainly organized through informal, everyday life cutting across interpersonal relationships.
This links the participants of local communities to each other. Within these networks relationships are embedded in systems of relationships based on friendship, neighborhood, professions, and personal interests. Relationships range through social, cultural and religious, communitarian and humanitarian activities. The activities exceed by far the sphere of overt political activities and link across localities and generations. Participants have proven themselves capable of bridging ideological and social barriers through multiple participations, and capable of strengthening mutual trust.
Although they seem relatively simple, the networks play a significant counseling role that connects individuals to broader social dynamics and diverse SMOs. New potentials in the society that that might be drawn to conflict and violence are thus transformed into productive, collective and useful actions and constructive projects.
The fact that it is not via relatives or through some kind of clan system shows that relationships in the Movement can be inclusive, transformative and lasting. Also, the fact that introduction to and participation in the Movement or service-projects occurs through acquaintances in everyday life and through work colleagues indicates that the cultural perspective or worldview of the Gülen Movement is regarded as legitimate and rational. The participation of individuals who did not grow up within the Gülen community or its networks is also significant: it indicates purely individual choices and a strong subjective identification; people make an active rationalizing and reckoning of the decision to participate in the collective action of the Movement.
How are participants in the Gülen Movement able to establish and retain their links with the wider public?
The dense, strong and multiple affiliations that individuals enjoy within project-networks inspire, motivate and commit them to the services the project yields.
But participants do not separate their private lives from those projects. Rather, they link their private lives to their public activities and their societal environment. This leads to harmonious and peaceful continuities rather than detachment, alienation, frustration and antagonism.
There are also a great number of individuals who are sympathetic to the collective action of the Movement but do not become active in it. This indicates that the Movement is not an isolated actor and is able to establish affective links with and among the wider public. Indeed, there is no expectation in the Movement that participants should sever previous social ties. They are expected to have other ties too, and to make new ties while ‘in’ the Movement. Such multiple affiliations are in principle and practice welcomed: loyalty centers upon effective delivery of service-projects and complementarity between them. It does not center upon the Movement as such. Solidarity among Gülen Movement participants ensues from sharing work effort and from shared experiences and memories; it is not pursued as a precondition of doing the work at all.
In what way are the Gülen Movement's networks beneficial to wider society?
The Gülen Movement has been mainly organized through informal, everyday life cutting across interpersonal relationships.
This links the participants of local communities to each other. Within these networks relationships are embedded in systems of relationships based on friendship, neighborhood, professions, and personal interests. Relationships range through social, cultural and religious, communitarian and humanitarian activities. The activities exceed by far the sphere of overt political activities and link across localities and generations. Participants have proven themselves capable of bridging ideological and social barriers through multiple participations, and capable of strengthening mutual trust.
Although they seem relatively simple, the networks play a significant counseling role that connects individuals to broader social dynamics and diverse SMOs. New potentials in the society that that might be drawn to conflict and violence are thus transformed into productive, collective and useful actions and constructive projects.
Dec 26, 2011
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
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
Nov 29, 2011
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.”
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
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 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
Nov 17, 2011
The communities of many different countries run to help Van - VAN EARTHQUAKE
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)