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