M. Fethullah Gülen and His Movement: A Common-Sense Approach to Religion and Modernity

Last Updated on Thursday, 21 September 2006 06:26 by Enes Ergene, fgulen.com Thursday, 21 September 2006 05:57

The following article by Enes Ergene, the author of the book Gelenegin Modern Caga Tanikligi (Tradition Witnessing the Modern Age) in Turkish, analyzes the basic dynamics of the Gülen Movement under twelve titles.

1. Globalization, modernity and the human condition

Some of the fundamental issues that have colored the 21st century are modernization, pluralism, the individual and religion. As modernity began to be perceived as having changed the whole of life, in both its individual and social aspects, it gave rise to new forms of religious, cultural, and political pluralisms. Though modernization may be defined in various ways, it has undoubtedly given us two ideological by-products, as it were, and these are progress and globalization. Many theorists have defined modernization in terms of the "sovereignty" man has gained over his environment and the rise of his "knowledge" of the environment. The connection that came to be forged between "knowledge" and "power and sovereignty" offered the power and opportunity to super-states to formulate new forms of imperialism over distant lands and peoples. In the modern age, imperialism gave way to subtler and more encompassing consequences. Consequently, even though, strictly speaking, it did not have its causal origins in a desire to cause a shift in philosophical substrates, globalization nevertheless quickly acquired an ideological role.

Due to this ideological aspect, globalization is seen by many as being imperialism under a different guise. Ideologically-founded or not, globalization has led to fundamental transformations in all areas from the economy to sociology, from communications to politics, and from law, history and geography to state governance. The revolution in new financial relationships and communications has turned the world into one vast market in which everything is interconnected. But the effects of the revolution reach far beyond just the market; the world has become, for many people at least, one global entity. Globalization has become, in effect, not just an economic phenomenon, but a truly multivalent phenomenon that has subtle and not-so-subtle political, ideological and cultural dimensions. It is true that globalization has paved the way for the dissemination of wealth, technology, democratic pluralism, production and consumption. But it has also been instrumental in the dissemination and acceleration of a multitude of insidious corrupting influences on society, the environment, and politics, the effects of which touch the whole of humankind. Poverty, ecological pollution, weapons of mass destruction, terror and communal violence have now become truly global. Together with the globalization of information, power and technology, anxieties about a "clash of cultures and civilizations" have haunted our imaginations and fuelled our fears. Globalization has caused a raft of concepts within the framework of modernization, democracy and pluralism to be re-defined again and again: man; individual; freedom of thought and belief; political, social and cultural tolerance; conflict or reconciliation; and dialogue or fight-the meaning and value of everything is now up for question.

At first, some political paradigms purported that the instituting of a multicultural, participatory and plural democratic system would, in time, be the solution to all social problems. For according to these paradigms, virtually all problems that came about at the social level sprung from the lack of such a system. That is to say, the basic problem was the inadequacy in democratic and legal systems. The conviction was simple: get the system right and the society will be right. The conflicts that came about concerning these inadequacies manifested themselves in the guise of ethnic, cultural, communal, political, ideological and similar requests. Therefore, should the democratic rights and institutions be soundly established, and given to the service of all citizens, then people would no longer be moved to action based upon ethnic, communal, cultural or any other social affiliation.

For two centuries, most political and sociological paradigms that dealt with social problems have generally supported such expectations (even if some demanded that there first be a revolution!). Once people had internalized "tolerance and mutual respect" in a culture and system of democratic practices, and once they had made these principles sovereign in their personal and public relations, there could not be many more problems left-or so it was hoped. But even after the widespread adoption of democracy, it is all too clear that religious, ethnic and cultural differences continue to be a source of conflict. Today, western democracies offer a model for society that is pluralist, participatory and wealthy in economic terms. But social conflict is never entirely absent. Today, pluralist democracies are faced with a cultural attack composed of minority and immigrants rights, requests from religious communities, non-governmental organizations and other pressure groups that voice various social requests. It appears that even the free-reign of democracy cannot defeat the spirit of conflict which always lies in hiding. There are now attempts to redefine the concept of a democratic state, with a basis in differentiated cultures and identities.

Today, the number of nation-states in the world is in excess of 180, and there are more than 600 major language groups and 5,000 ethnicities. In only a very few countries do all citizens speak the same language or belong to the same ethnic-national group. This political, social, cultural, military and religious pluralism harbors potential dissenting and divisive problems on the international scale. And these numerous potential sources of conflict make the democratic assumptions that guide the political scene in many countries uncertain and debatable. Especially with the end of the Cold War, ethnic and cultural conflicts have become the centre point of political violence.

These issues threaten the future of peoples all over the world. Therefore, it is necessary to work to establish the foundations of a culture of "tolerance and dialogue" that are wider and more encompassing than the narrowly constrained foundations that are associated with old democratic practices. Naturally, there is no simple answers, no single formula that will cure all these ills. We shouldn't fool ourselves. Many suggestions may work under specific conditions but they can hardly be consistently applicable on a universal scale. But at all events, if we succeed in shedding our prejudices, and in taking into consideration the different experiences gained by many different people, we see that many local movements contain elements that show promise in providing some solutions to certain universal problems.

Many thinkers, including many religious thinkers, find solace in the hope that the new emphasis that is being laid on universal issues such as democracy, human rights, religion, morals, and so forth, may help solve the problems that spring from the roots of "culture and difference."

Recently, there have been several historical, social and economic developments which have put religious life and conceptions on the agenda of all societies in the world. Western democracies which seemed to offer a whole "world view" to man have, within the span of one lifetime, come to doubt their own ideological, philosophical and political foundations. The lifetime of the ideology of modernization and progress also turned out to be quite short. It had to be short. For the "man and society" model that is built has a "political and materialistic" world view to the extreme. Since the 18th century, political theorists and philosophers have put all their brain energy into building "a political society." The melting pot of modernization was "urban culture" and the "political society" model. This society was locked into rational values, and it had removed all values related to the divine from the public sphere.

On the other hand, modernity quickly gave rise to truly frightening weapons technology. Ideological manipulation of information, technology and globalization threatens religious, cultural, societal and local differences in all parts of the world. All over the world, mass reactions against "globalization" are on the rise. These reactions cannot be read simply as resistance against modernization. On a greater scale, these movements consider the ideological aspects of globalization as a threat directed at their own religious, national, historical and communal cultures and identities. And this, in turn, could bring about insidious conflict-generating myths.

The field of international relations has become the scene for discussions revolving around dangerous and important theses, such as the clash of civilizations. The political and ideological associations that these theses bring to mind undoubtedly cause serious concern for the thousands of scholars, thinkers and politicians who contemplate the future of mankind. Huntington's Thesis of the Clash of Civilizations has made such a great impact in international thought-circles that it has taken its place as one of the most acute global discussions of recent decades. Its repercussions and influence on world politics continue unabated.

But can we not read modernization and globalization from a better angle? Could not modernization and globalization be formulated with more constructive, humane and moral concerns? Had the human and moral aspects of religion been incorporated into the modernization process, would modernization have yielded different social results? Undoubtedly, secularist views and currents which argue against religion have interacted with enlightenment ideas in ways that are frequently cynical and destructive. It is as if some thinkers were actually hoping for a merciless conflict between religion and modernism; for this would be in keeping with their secularist arguments. But that is not what happened. Religion demonstrated that it was not a given that it should always be in conflict with modernism. Was it then, more a question of grasping the meaning of modernism? Are modernization and globalization simply facts that can be reduced solely to a problem of understanding and reading? For those from different cultures and civilizations, the ideological meaning of globalization and modernization calls to mind, in many aspects, a reckoning, a conflict. And the theories of those who are in the "clash" camp, like Huntington and, to some extent, Fukuyama, find plenty of evidence in recent developments to support their positions.

Even though modernization and globalization may contain threatening aspects, they also trigger other developments. Along with global terrorism, violence, and the spreading of weapons of mass destruction which serve the theories of conflict, serious efforts which highlight consensus between communities that belong to different cultures, religions and civilizations are developments that have also left their mark on the last quarter of a century. These efforts do not enter into a reckoning or a conflict with modernization or globalization in any direct or indirect way. These efforts produce universal, human and basic ethical values and dynamics that can remedy the destructive effects of globalization and modernization. Even though these initiatives for dialogue between civilizations and cultures are welcomed more widely, the choir of elements that are in favor of conflict and inherently destructive make much more noise. Accordingly, the international media often seems to disturbingly free of humane or moral concerns, perpetually keeping these elements on the agenda, adding to the already loud ruckus. The serious objections raised against Huntington's theories express, in truth, the desperate need for reconciliation and dialogue. However, active efforts directed at forming a basis for dialogue and consensus are very few indeed. And those that do exist are not of a sufficient scale to have global impact. The roots of this general lethargy and indifference can again be sought in the transforming effect of modernity, transforming man and society.

There is no denying that modernity has encouraged man's innate egotism. It has seduced him into a position of such overweening confidence that he can no longer properly appreciate the deep truths of life. It has ignited his individual, material and personal instincts against the society. It has freed him from the divine, from being the inheritor of the world, from all that is human and from ethics, love, compromise and altruism. It has, thus, constructed a man very small in size, a man who lives solely for his egotist instincts. And a man who lives solely for his egotist motives is a very mean creature indeed. All "religions of the Book" were revealed to save this small, lost creature. But modernity struck the most lethal blow to the character of man and his cosmic integrity by making him the slave of his personal instincts. Naturally, I will not go into a thorough interrogation of modernity. My aim is not one of comprehensive interrogation or reckoning. When we look at the breakages that modern human civilization has been subjected to, we see that, once again, all things converge on the element of man. The more he is destructive, adversarial and aggressive, the more he makes the human and social system that he lives by a slave to the very same instincts. Then, it is clear where the standard of humanity has fallen. The way to save modern civilization from imminent destruction is through educating and organizing human beings, once again, on the basis of love, tolerance and dialogue.

M. F. Gülen's call to humanity is a timely and profoundly helpful one, rich with potential. His call is not one of passive or purely philosophical humanism; and it does not promote an elite platform where only intellectual discussions are carried out. He has a vision for social projects realized in the realm of daily life itself, in hundreds of educational establishments within and outside of Turkey. Here, he lays the foundations of dialogue and tolerance, and also tries to remedy the lack of a "model human"-a lack that is a fundamental problem of contemporary civilization because it has now become clear that human beings need a model to live by, and not simply the freedom to do whatever works for each of them.

2. The Gülen Movement Represents a New Expression of Islam

Western paradigms view the history of social movements through a particular matrix or schema. This stems partly from the course that the history of political thought has taken in the West. There, the history of political thought has been formed through the combination and procession or clash of various sects, schools and movements. That's why western understandings of social sciences tend to view contemporary social movements in the light of western historical developments. It considers them to be successors of one another, or differing experiences that vie with one another. However, neither the theoretical framework, nor the social and political reading methods of these analyses, provides us with a basis upon which we can analyze the social changes in Islamic society. Even if these analyses may be systematic, this does not prevent them from becoming mired in contradictory interpretations. If there is one thing that can be said about the analyses that western paradigms give rise to, it is that in these analyses, Islam is considered exclusively to be a political power and that all movements are then reduced to a political power struggle. It is true that in the Islamic world there have been groups that were organized with the concerns of a classical political Islamism. Even though these movements have now and then found some ground to grow on a wide scale, they have, in the long term, been unable to infuse themselves into any social practice in Islamic society. That they should rise only in connection with certain periods shows that they do not have a base among a constant member group. Yet, the lure of an ideology can be measured, to a degree, by the extent to which it integrates with social practices. Islamism has not enjoyed a constant or long-term effect on the central values of Muslim societies. Even though it voices a longing for an "Islamic society" that lives in unity and harmony, it has never been able to relieve itself from social vagueness. While it hopes to electrify and unite different social classes-rural and urban masses, students, political elites and the middle class-its ideology and its social vagueness become apparent. And as these different components start to differ, clash and separate, it all begins to fall apart, such that it becomes impossible to define the social bases of Islamism in class terms. In different countries, in different social and political constellations, it has gained very different social aspects.

On the other hand, there have been religious orders and movements in the Islamic world which were totally independent from political concerns or organization methods. Even though these movements acted more in the civil society and social spaces, and even though they always had a greater and constant basis in the society, more so than the political movements, western media and social science paradigms never took sufficient notice of these movements. This is not to say that individual scholars did not appreciate the religious basis of these social movements but they were generally exceptions to the rule. Perceiving Islam as a source of political power always attracted more attention from the West. Perhaps, one of the most fundamental reasons for this is that political movements of this kind produced a form of identity and politics that was alternative and opposing vis-à-vis western values, contemporary democratic practices, and the western civilization as a whole. From another perspective, such movements offered an easier frame of analysis for the western political thought tradition and systematic. The West, by perceiving and depicting Islam as being opposed to all kinds of modern human and social relationships, and by reducing Islamic social activism to radical and aggressive action, was always able to find examples that supported its inherently prejudiced understanding of western superiority over the Muslim orient. As a consequence, such analyses always attracted more attention than those which sought to understand Islam and Muslim society empathetically.

After September 11, the dawning of a new period of crisis in the relations between the West and Islamic world, attention was turned towards other movements in the Islamic world. It had become clear that a long-term crisis in these relations would threaten the political, cultural, military and economic expectations that the West had concerning the region. In the Muslim world, this new level of interest was viewed with considerable skepticism. That the West should now be interested in the formulation of a "Moderate Islam" was met with general suspicion in the Islamic world. For my part, I see such a search as a long-overdue initiative. But both with regard to our international political moment and with regard to the religious and political well-being of Muslims in the region, the timing of such an initiative must inevitably cast a shadow over some of those involved and call into question the motives behind it. For centuries, the peaceful face of Islam was present all over the world. If only western political sensibilities had taken note of this fact earlier! To be fair, there has never been a consistent and sustained effort in the Islamic world either, neither on the political, nor on the socio-cultural level, to engage in a sound relationship with the West. Be that as it may, if there will be new bridges built between the West and the Islamic world, both sides have to revise their religious, political, cultural and historical attitudes and legacies and do some soul-searching.

International political paradigms have to be found in order to formulate a new basis for dialogue between different cultures and civilizations, and to find an answer to theories that threaten the future of humanity, such as theories about clashes of civilizations. Otherwise, the myths and theories about such clashes, which are now burgeoning and circulating, will continue to get stronger. Huntington's theories concerning the clash of civilizations led to a great flood of discussion and touched on various sensitivities around the world. In the face of such developments, formulating an appropriate political and social attitude and sensibility will require a wave of synergy on a global scale. In that respect, M. Fethullah Gülen's movement is one of the precious few social movements and intellectual initiatives in the Muslim world that looks for a new manner of encounter between the West and Islam, offering social, non-military and cultural possibilities. The Gülen movement is a rare development that brings the social and cultural components of the Islamic tradition face-to-face with modern values and encourages engagement in a positive interaction. It has produced a wide process of dialogue in educational, religious, and social arenas, throughout regions with different cultures and civilizations. In that respect, M. Fethullah Gülen can be considered to have successfully developed a positive and dynamic expression of Islam which is able to face the modern western world and engage with it as an equal to the west's leading social and religious movements. Its emergence in the international community of discourse represents a new development with enormous potential for the building of bridges, one that can help the West to successfully form new neighborly relations with Islam and the Muslim world, based on sincere and profound engagement. For that reason, it is vitally important that the movement is not misunderstood and that it is recognized as a sincere and serious initiative. This, by no means, solely depends on whether this movement is seen to be in keeping with the West's apparent ideological preference against moderate Islam as a political power. Rather, I believe that it has to be read through the necessity and importance of this project for humanity in general, a project which has been formulated within the framework for dialogue and tolerance between different cultures and civilizations, and that has excited intellectuals, politicians, philosophers, clerics and media members on a global scale.

Gülen has indeed produced a social and civic organization that clearly differentiates itself from the largely Islamist political movements in the Islamic world. He has never supported any political initiative or lent his support to attempts to form a political party, and it is certain that he never will. He was never, personally, or communally, involved in any direct political activity. Political initiatives tend to be short-lived adventures. Instead, Gülen focuses on long-term contributions to the social and cultural life of a believing society, on ideals that will make an already faithful people sincere believers who are open to all sorts of human, ethical and positive social interaction, open-hearted, and full of love and enthusiasm. As a simple man and citizen, he long ago firmly resolved to direct himself exclusively towards non-governmental and social endeavors. Working in these areas requires genuine self-sacrifice and giving up long years without expecting anything, and it calls for dedicated individuals who devote themselves to the greater good of society and the making of a better future. Political concerns, in the name of whatever it may be, are always bound up with some sort of expectations. But Gülen teaches his people that a Muslim, a genuine believer, should not expect any compensation from the society. For this reason, Gülen's movement distances itself from all direct or indirect political agendas, both in the present and in the future, and it is completely non-partisan.

3. Gülen's Humanist Foundations

Gülen's model is the essence of the synthesis brought about by the marriage of Turkish culture with Islam, focusing on humanitarian concerns, the development of the individual, tolerance, and reconciliation. Turkish Muslims have been putting tolerance and reconciliation, values which are the essence of contemporary democratic culture, into practice for many centuries. The warp and weft of Turkish Islam that was first woven by Turkish Sufis has a long history and great complexity and subtlety. It has been incorporated into the very fabric of this nation from the very beginning, from Yesevi to Rumi, to Yunus and Hacı Bektaş Veli. Starting from this foundation, Gülen has rebuilt that eminently tolerant and gentle tendency and understanding of Turk-Islam Sufism and fitted to serve contemporary society and meet its needs. But his understanding points to a wider, more active and socially involved vision. In Rumi, Yunus and Hacı Bektaş Veli, there is more of an introvert's understanding that calls the believer to the school of learning. And whereas in these schools, tolerance and dialogue are limited to the code of the school and its social environment, Gülen opens up and transforms this framework and vision to include all peoples of the world, Muslims and non-Muslims alike. In a sense then, his mission is a transformative activity, such that he unifies his mission and movement with man's existential aim in the world. While, on the one hand, organizing the meeting and dialogue of people coming from many different cultures of the world, he urges, on the other hand, the spiritual as well as intellectual development of the individual, who has grown to be selfish through modernity inside and out, and to transform him through a sense of service and devotion. In his worst aspects, the man of modernity is one that is passive, lethargic from his burden of individualism, unwieldy, and selfish. In such a man, the capacity to carry such weighty matters as religion, culture, dialogue between civilizations, tolerance, and reconciliation is limited and must first be developed if he is to become a contributor to society. The people who can shoulder such a load have to be self-sacrificing, sincere, and altruistic, and they require a wide and open heart. Even people who are out to strike, to break and to destroy should find new life in him, should find their own human foundations in him. For this reason, the individual whom Gülen places at the base of dialogue and tolerance has to be-in action, attitude and thought-always positive. He must not act according to other motives or reactions, nor be subject to inner or outer reflexes. He has to be constructive, not destructive. Such a man should be ready to bear hardships. This cannot be achieved through simple religiosity, just staying in one's quiet corner, but rather through leaving oneself in the social current. Gülen's model promises active engagement with life and with its hardships. It is a model with both ends open to eternity. Neither spiritual transcendence, nor material self-sacrifice, nor altruism can have limits. They are all open to eternity. Whatever you do in the name of the public, humanity and divine love can never be enough.

Looked at through the viewpoint of general human and universal concerns, the vision that Gülen offers has an effect that can encompass all human and social processes. For he leaves all ideological concerns aside and proposes a model that is based on man being the basic element of all ideologies. The man or woman in this model is an altruistic person who has been created by God to inherit this world, who can put aside all his personal needs and desires in the name of divine love-love for mankind and all of existence. As a result, this person can be put at the basis of all sorts of interaction, societies and leadership. You can form all sorts of societal models based on such a person. The spiritual, intellectual and social nature of this individual is to act favorably and positively in all situations. Everywhere, people who have become devotees of Gülen's voice and thoughts are striving to act in such a way. In different parts of the world, under various ideological, political, religious and socio-cultural climates, they are most welcomed. They lay the emphasis on human, social and ethical values that can whole-heartedly be shared by all.

Modernity aimed first to abolish the traditional model of man. To be able to achieve this, it invented political, social and cultural means. Traditional man was a public model. In theory, if not always in practice, he did not live solely for himself. He was self-sacrificing when it came to the society, nation, religion and humanity. He did not act with concerns for his own interest and benefit. He helped and supported his fellow man, sharing with him his religious conviction. He was not blind towards the poor, his neighbors, or those who were in need; he could even see the human and moral problems suffered at the other end of the world and condemn the perpetrators. But the ideology of modernization had no value within which to incorporate such a model of man-decent, welcoming and gentle. It is materialistic, and its model for man was not "man" but rather "the individual." He lived in his own corner, alone in a world of self-interest. His ideology was that of constant progress-to earn, and earn more, to exhaust all the limits of riches and welfare. In some sections of the modern world, this model did take root. But people were quick to see that even when they reached the spatial limits of riches and welfare, the political, economic and socio-cultural problems had not ended. While their material riches had increased, their spiritual poverty had increased likewise. The point they reached was a state which bred only material and spiritual dissatisfaction. Individuals and communities started to question the system they lived under and made themselves heard through pressure groups and social organizations.

In this historical, concrete and socio-cultural moment, we see the importance of new ways of living religion and new practices which are on the rise in all peoples of the world. As the basis of new social and political crises, we see the element of man in the foreground. Man's existence on earth and his way of self-realization is being questioned once again. This is a question that has occupied the minds of great thinkers of all ages, beginning with the early naturalist philosophers, right through to philosophers of today. The broadest and most satisfactory answer given to this question was given by "the religions of the Book." After the adventure that man found himself in during the process of modernization, and after the required social, economic and politic prices have been paid, man turns once more to the divine, to the sacred and heavenly values that make man the aim of the universe. The "Man of virtue" that "religions of the Book" put special stress on is precisely the ideal individual whom social paradigms are in search of today.

Inevitably, there was a need for sustained new efforts developing such individuals. This effort is nothing other than reproducing the public man, the self-sacrificing, loyal and spiritually equipped man. This calls for the building up of a generation that devotes itself to, as the old saying goes, "the service to the people, for the Lord, All-Truth." Having freed its mind and conscience from it, this spirit of devotion is a way of life that contemporary mentality cannot grasp. Yet all great past civilizations, all successful empires and states, and all values pertaining to civilization, have been established by people who posses such a spirit. Now, sociologists and social engineers are striving to bring about just such a man. New models, methods and projects are being developed. They fear the destruction that contemporary civilization will succumb to, should they not succeed in this project. Indeed, modern civilization is in dire need of both individuals who are self-sacrificing and who have devoted themselves to the community, and genuine dialogue and consensus. The feverish activity that M. F. Gülen and his movement have accordingly engaged in the field of education has a lot of importance at such a moment.

4. The Modern and Social Aspect of the Religious Basis of the Gülen Movement

M. F. Gülen has a distinctive Sufi religious background. These spiritual foundations have clearly affected all his activities in the personal and social arena. The fact that religion today remains a vital part of the life of man, society and education is a demonstration of the fact that-despite everything-it has a remarkable organizing and heartening power and a motivating force that reveals the hidden potentials of man. For at least a couple of centuries, humanity has neglected this strong motivational aspect of religion. This was, at the same time, a conscious choice of the extreme secular and materialist understanding of the time. Since the 1700s, from T. Woolston to Frederick the Great, from Voltaire to Comte and F. Engels, from M. Müller to Freud, Marx and A. E. Lrawley, and then the through the 1960s and 1970s, with Peter Berger and Bryan Vilson, many thinkers convinced themselves that the end of religion was at hand. In effect, they had lost themselves in the illusion of their own intellectual, philosophical and scientific premises.

Secularist ideology's "idée-fixe," that religion would disappear, was based upon the rise of industrialization, urbanization and rationalization-these being the basic components of the process of modernization. This reflected the essence of the theories of modernization. The founding principle of modernization was the ideology of secularization-in short, the ideology that religion would be cleansed of all social practices and that a material and worldly way of life would rule the fate of societies.

Well before we reached the end of the millennium, there were warning signs that the ideology of secularism was in trouble. The dynamics of social transformation and mobility had veered off the straight path laid out by the positivist expectations of the enlightenment. Religiousness had realized itself in the heart and centre of modernism and secularism, gaining new and vital forms that had begun to make themselves felt. This was interpreted by many social scientists as "the return of the divine." But still some other social scientists assessed the situation by saying that "the divine had not left us in the first place!" The fact that religiosity had taken new and fresh forms demonstrated that the theory about religiosity and modernity being incompatible did not hold. Modernity gave rise to many anti-secularist currents which were not exclusive to the religious arena. The most obvious proofs and examples for this were the religious movements and identities, and the new social movements. Today, throughout the world, religion is not something solely concerned with the unsophisticated needs of the rural population and uneducated villagers; on the contrary, it exhibits a picture of youth, educated and successful urbanites, and sections of society which have been raised upon rationality. Today, brand new automobiles are being blessed in splendid Shinto temples. In the land of Karl Marx, Russia, people flock to the church under a much more relaxed regime, just as they do in communist China. And despite all the secularism and modernization, if not on the decline, atheism is certainly not a rising value.

When we look at the theories developed by Weber about the positive motivation that Protestant ethics provided for contemporary capitalism and man's commercial and financial working instincts, we can observe the rational basis for the rise of religion in late modern societies. But in Weber's system, religion, while spurring on financial relations, is paradoxically itself subjected to a rationalization by the values of modern society. I believe that the tendency of religion to become a rising value in recent times is more all-encompassing, consistent, balanced and positive than in Weber's period. In movements such as the Gülen movement, the balance between religion, science, education and social relations is clear proof of this fact.

In this long-winded preface, I have tried to sketch a panorama of modern times contending with religion. The picture depicted naturally does not include all the socio-cultural transformations of the age. However, I have tried to show, through the modernization process itself and its elements, how this process could give way to a tendency whereby cultural and ethnic differences could transform into a clash of cultures and civilizations which would threaten the future of humanity. I also wanted to point to the historical and social foundations of the dialogue and tolerance initiative of the Gülen movement which perceives religious, ethnic and cultural differences as a valued richness. Let us now have a brief look at the life-story of this individual who has given this movement its global identity.

5. Who is Fethullah Gülen?

Gülen was born in 1941 in the Pasinler district in Erzurum. He was raised in a conservative family of five boys and two girls. His father, Ramiz Efendi, was a government-employed Imam. Erzurum lies in the north-east of Turkey, and it is socially very conservative. It is a town that has for long centuries reflected basic religious and national values in its social make-up.

Fethullah Gülen's childhood was spent in this area, where conservative values were shared and reproduced, in a rather closed atmosphere of dervish orders and madrasas (religious schools). But he had an insatiable curiosity and love for knowledge. Thus, it was impossible for these limited surroundings to satisfy all his desires and interests. For this reason, already at a young age, he had directed his mind and attention to the cultural, political and social events of the outside world. In his words, he began to focus on social problems as early as his first years in the madrasa. As his young mind began to grow, he came to know the art, literature, film, drama and intellectual activities in his vicinity. He completed his madrasa education in a short time, but he never had the opportunity to receive an education in official establishments. Those years were the years when the Turkish Republic had just lost its founder and the new republic had not yet fully built its institutions and establishments. Since the Ottoman Reformation (Tanzimat) period, the country had been, and still was, witness to many political, economic and socio-cultural problems, some of which were still to hatch. The intellectuals of the country felt acutely the fall from grace of the defeated and lagging Islamic civilization. There were dozens of intellectual problems that had been discussed over and over again with no obvious resolution for their troubled state, so much so that the intellectuals of the country were too tired to speak of even the simplest of matters, and they had left many issues stewing or "on the shelf." While many issues had to do with religion, Islam and religious social life seemed already to be dead and buried. Turkish democracy presented a very fragile thing oscillating between a single-party and multi-party system. Political and sectarian fights, inner feuds, one economic crisis after the other, poverty, and many other causes for instability got hold of that fresh mind in its early years. Even at that age, he started to think of the demise of Muslims in the last two centuries and the remedies that could reverse the process. M. F. Gülen interpreted the whole of this aged burden through the perspective of contemporary cultural values. He rejuvenated an intellectual movement that had been laid to rest for almost two hundred years and he strove to put it back at the forefront of the Muslim agenda. He thought that it was imperative to filter the most essential elements of issues that had been lost in detail, to organize them once again, and to form new areas of will and enthusiasm.

But here is the difficulty in all this: the search for the reasons for the decline in both the intellectual and religious fields, and the intellectual and political efforts that were produced in solving this problem of participation in contemporary civilizations, followed two separate lines of thought. One of them was conservative to the extreme, while the other rejected the whole of the historical legacy of tradition and social practices, preferring to join the world of western civilization with no questions asked, without bringing anything into it from our own identity. The former interpreted the dynamics of progress totally within the tradition, within the conservative mindset that was shaped through historical and social givens; the latter defined it through the material and cultural values that the western civilization and way of life produced. Naturally, there were those who proposed a third and a fourth way, and there were also those who practiced a synthesis of the first two. M. F. Gülen emerged from a conservative community. Accordingly, he was initially to progress on a path defined by ready-made models and traditional tendencies. New interpretations would, in a way, be considered "out of order" within his close vicinity. Therefore, his first initiatives gave rise to such a reaction. Certainly, M. F. Gülen is a man devoted to traditional values. However, he has not shied away from bringing the traditional cultural values face-to-face with contemporary western civilization. In that respect, his enterprise contains elements that bring new openings for the contemporary and the traditional alike, in both theoretical and practical terms. He has wanted to show, in a clear and practical fashion, both through the first period of his religious and social activities and later through his educational activities, that religious and traditional cultural values and scientific facts do not contradict one another. Further, these support one another and they can be put to the service of mankind in genuine harmony. Gülen has never hidden his religious identity; he has realized his aim of existence within a great and deep religious experience, with total self-confidence. He does not approve of compartmentalizing religious identity, experience and existence, or of thinking of these separately from man's social aspects. In that respect, he has a complete and holistic world-view. He puts the stress on the idea that a genuinely sincere and religious character would benefit the state and the society. Contemporary thinkers have generally concentrated on state, city and economy. Gülen, on the other hand, has directed his attention to the element of "man" which is at the heart of all this. According to him, the most important problem of contemporary civilization is the problem of educating man. If the individual is virtuous, he will be virtuous in all things-the state, the city and the economy. Besides, Gülen has not considered the issue of man as a purely intellectual discussion. He has transformed his considerations into a serious project in social practice itself.

Those with conservative attitudes tend to believe that following the precepts of tradition in the face of new issues gives one more confidence. New ways of looking at things can be beneficial to the extent that they are in keeping with the accepted arguments that have been formed in the past, in the light of traditional values and norm. Traditionally, one abstained from adding new interpretations and experiences onto that. And yet Gülen has tried to formulate a new way of proceeding with a firm hold on both the confidence that tradition gave and on the other new social values. This is a substantially incorporative attitude.

Gülen found himself between two traditions of civilization where he grew up: the madrasa and the Islamic culture, and western culture and European civilization. Starting from three generations before him, people had been living in a constant search for identity between these two cultures and civilizations. In fact, this two-fold line is not a struggle or search for identity which is particular to Turkey. All countries and cultures that are outside the realm of western civilization have lived through this experience of identity debates. Gülen had a good view of the transforming cultural view of the age. His conservatism was not a conservatism that satisfied itself with solely watching the developments and social changes and leaving them to time, or one that is shaped through pure reactionism. Rather than falling into emotional or ethical despair in the face of the social and institutional transformations which took place, he set about organizing an active interaction that did not shy away from putting the personal, the traditional, experience, legacy and observations face-to-face with these transformations. He preferred to include a credit for traditional values that had been formed through past experience and practices in the spirit of the time, as well as current social transformations through consciousness, awareness, and participation. He had developed a perspective that fed his personal, ethical and cultural ideals with new repertoires of knowledge. Even at the age of 15, Gülen had entered fully into the thick atmosphere of such thoughts. Thus, when he reached 15, he was a young man with a substantial level of intellectual maturity. Both the environment of his family and the conservative madrasa circle he grew up in contributed to this early maturation. Within himself, he already had spiritual experience, and his mind was filled with enthusiasm and a spirit of activism.

6. Gülen as Traveling Religious Lecturer and the Tradition of Public Oration

A better comprehension of the Gülen movement and its mission is very much dependent on comprehending the sohba (oratory) tradition in the Islamic world. Since the advent of Islam, oral (shifahi) tradition has been one of the most significant means for cultural nourishment and communication of traditional values. While the madrasa has been the means for systematizing religious thought, public speaking and oratory have served as channels to convey it to the public. The pulpit in the mosque has been the natural podium for these channels; the pulpit was the center for the production of popular Islamic culture and the site where the Islamic art of oratory came into being in its original form and style. The mosque has been the most pivotal element of Islamic civilization and urban culture. It was at the cross-section for the town dwellers or huge urban crowds who went out for business, shopping, or for other purposes. The mosque has been positioned in a central location in the shaping and molding of Islamic culture.

The cultural environment from which Gülen originated was situated at these traditional crossroads. He is primarily a madrasa product. He pursued a life that was very much interconnected with the mosque and the masses. The social manifestation of experiencing religious thought and the form of belief orbited around this centre. When he first climbed the stairs to the pulpit in his early madrasa years, he was "not tall enough to reach over the pulpit," in his own words. The madrasa was very much related to the mosque and to the social life of the community. From his early childhood Gülen displayed very sensitive conduct which was full of enthusiasm, and which later helped him develop a special oratory tradition peculiar to himself. His initial experience in his first sermons led him to realize how effective the oratory tradition had been across centuries, as well as its positive and substantial influence upon the masses. He devoted himself to this art of oratory as an instrument for communicating faith (tabligh and irshad), and this would shape his entire commitment and lifestyle, encouraging and triggering charity (himma^[1]) as an endeavor towards capacity and the full potential of the society, religion, state, and nation. He seemed to have adopted the Qur'anic verse, "Encourage the believing masses"^[2] as a mission and symbol. In the historical sense, the "power of the word" would manifest itself once again in his elevated and spiritual power of oratory.

His public speaking is probably what reveals itself most prominently among his many aspects. In fact, many people have come to know him only through his fervent oratory. His knowledge and scholarly interests with respect to Islamic studies and modern Western sciences have been overshadowed for years by his mastery of oratory. His scholarly aspects were somehow hidden, although his articles and poetry were being published in various magazines. For long years, he studied not only religious fields but also history, philosophy, sociology, literature, and art. However, all aspects of this absorbed knowledge would come to the surface either in molding the masses and transforming them into "teachers" (muballigh), or in other instances when they could be practically used.

Many things can be said about Gülen's oratory; just as a brief comment, we could easily say that the dead or long dormant "power of the word" has been once again revived by his enthusiastic and sincere style of speaking.

His official post commenced in 1959 after he won an examination by the Turkish Directorate of Religious Affairs, and lasted for about 30 years during which he served as an imam, a preacher, a teacher at Qur'anic schools, and in various management positions. He preached in many cities, including Edirne, Kırklareli, Izmir, Edremit, Manisa, and Çanakkale. His entire individual accumulated experience, as well as his close contact with the masses, was formed during his professional career as an official preacher. In the true sense of the word, the art of oratory, which had been dead and forgotten for almost 1.5 centuries, was granted a revival thanks to his high enthusiasm, profound soulful and spiritual experience, vast knowledge, and comprehensive cultural grounding. In a most sincere fashion, and by virtue of his willingness, he activated the religious, patriotic, and benevolent emotions of the masses by making use of all the delicate aspects of this skill. Hopes and enthusiasms have found a safe ground upon which to be rejuvenated with his sermons. Thousands, even tens of thousands of people, have rediscovered themselves in his religious/national addresses, and they have developed a feeling of confidence in themselves as well as in their societal values.

Gülen's first activity was characterized by his services as a traveling preacher moving from one city to another. Therefore, his preaching and his engagement with crowds have always been the most observable aspects. His style was shaped in accordance with the socio-psychological demeanor of the society he was addressing. He would filter all his actions and words through the most sensitive screens before he revealed them. He observed a most careful life, as if he were always under scrutiny. This alertness was a consequence not only of a concern for deserving the goodwill of the faithful community, but more due to his firm commitment to the dervish tradition in which it is observed, with a strong conviction and utmost sensitivity, that every word and action is under divine supervision. He has been a real modern servant (abid), zahid (ascetic), and dervish, and this accounts for the major motivation behind the sensitivity in his words, conduct, and personality, and his acute alertness. The prudence, insightful character, stillness, and calmness which suffuse even the most insignificant of his actions, and perhaps even his inner soulful experience, are based upon his profound and conscious understanding of servanthood. One would notice how relevant his actions are to their context; nothing seems to stand unfitting in his life. Through years-long observance of spiritual practices under strict discipline and training, he has been subdued, purified, and calmed against any possible inclinations towards the indulgences which are prevalent in human nature. All his emotions are revealed only after they have undergone this discipline. While delivering a sermon, even at a peak level of emotionalism, he seems to possess a prudent mechanism and a form of consciousness which controls his conduct and inner excitement. In contrast, many preachers are inclined to lose control over their actions and words in such emotional states, as in tidal waves, and they find themselves detached from their positions, simply flowing with the emotional flood of the masses. Normally, when the tide of emotion is over, these sorts of preachers find themselves with the burden of countless unintended words and uncontrolled behaviors. But the prudence and seriousness of Gülen dominates the space in which he is preaching, and he would never allow an uncontrolled action neither from himself nor from the audience. He would establish such a level of consciousness with his speech that his life before and after the sermon would take form accordingly. Appearing before an audience would be like a birth pang for him. He would be very much attentive not to expose any statement, thought, or even a breath if it were not the right time for its birth. It is necessary to digest his oratory power and the delicate life he has threaded around it in order to get a complete picture of the influence of oratory culture upon the essential dynamics of the Gülen community. This movement has produced and developed its own cultural traditions, in both religious and socio-cultural terms. The cultural codes of this community have their own unique origins, although very much tied with the traditional system of values.

As Gülen extended his social contacts with the masses, he became more familiar with their social and cultural problems. This close contact placed him in a position where he had to encounter these problems and seek solutions.

In the meantime, he analyzed all ideological and political currents of Turkey, studied pertinent programs and projects, and investigated how consistent these were.

He later turned his attention to the problems of the Islamic world and nourished his knowledge with this broader perspective. As a result of this ideological, philosophical, thoughtful, and intellectual journey, he reached the conclusion that the major problem of this country (Turkey), and perhaps the Islamic world, or perhaps of the entire human civilization, is the "human being" and the education of humanity. Having reached this analysis in the early 1970s, when he first became a director of a Qur'anic school, he began to attempt to practice a different method of education, which would later spread worldwide.

He was officially a preacher, on the one hand, but on the other, he organized classes and summer camps for students. In his sermons, he taught that, in our time, it was more significant to establish schools rather than mosques, and he channeled the spiritual enthusiasm of the public. However, this policy was soon to be opposed by some conservative elements who were simply more concerned with short-term projects. Education and schools-these were long-term projects which were not within the area of direct concern for many conservatives. Thus, they were unable to calculate the long-term social results of educational projects and opening schools. Even if they did not present a staunch opposition, they still did not take these endeavors very seriously.

For many years, from the pulpits or by other means, Gülen strove to illuminate these conservative circles through new projects. At the same time, he established, in the eyes of government officials, that these were civil initiatives, each a product of societal and national spirit with no political or ideological objectives. The institutionalization process for these projects has been totally a civil activity. It has never been in the form of ideological or political opposition. It has never inclined to collide with the current state and its official values; all efforts have been devoted to the education of the masses and the youth.

In 1970s and 1980s, Gulen was probably one of the rare preachers whose sermons were attended by an educated audience in large numbers, and with a far-reaching diversity.

By the beginning of the 1990s, the first educational establishments (primary schools and high schools) started to show their capacities, accruing scientific successes in school Olympiads both in Turkey and throughout the world. This was proof that these establishments now had solid bases and that they had become institutions practicing scientific truths. In other words, they had become the manifestation of the essentiality and consistency of Gülen's education mobilization.

On the other hand, Gülen became the focus of attention for politicians who were free of state bureaucracy, of people involved in fields ranging from academia to the art-world, and from the media to intellectual circles. The 1990s were the years of opening up to the outside world, and years that triggered a wide process of dialogue with people who are in the limelight in various fields. This effort started a process of dialogue the like of which had not been seen in recent history. Before the 1980s, Turkey had long been a battlefield of intellectual, political and ideological currents. In such youth movements and conflicts, tens of thousands of young people had lost their lives. In the 1970s, the ideological fights that shook the whole world affected Turkey deeply as well. Gülen managed to keep his followers and the great masses that he addressed away from all these fights with great care and patience. Then the 1980 coup brought a great atmosphere of silence. The country lost three generations through the 1960s and 1970s. People appeared tired and disaffected. The 1980s then saw the intellectual and ideological movements starting to deeply question themselves and their positions. But the conflict had been resolved only in part. Each current of thought was isolated from the other, and individual intellectuals lived in tight little boxes cut off from contending points of views and convictions. There was peace, of a sort, but it came at a considerable cost, not least in the diminished vitality of intellectual life. It was in such a context that Gülen started to build the foundations of a culture of dialogue and consensus. He was credible, for he was the architect of a project that had proven itself to be valid on the world scale, and there was no doubt he would be on the agenda of many.

7. The Principle of Positive Action as Basis

One of the most basic dynamics of the Gülen movement is that an individual's guiding principle should be one of formulating a positive attitude in all areas. One should stay away from all attitudes and behavior that might lead the public to fight, conflict, pessimism or tension. A man might have genius-like qualities and capabilities, but if he does not enter these into a harmonious relationship with the society, there is no way to benefit from them. When one expects individuals to be capable and skilful, one also expects them to be of accord, as well. This does not have to mean that an individual has to disregard or forget his preferences and experiences. On the contrary, this is the portrait of a person who is at peace at once with the society and himself.

Gülen has a model for man whose social aspects have been brought to the fore. But on the personal level, he advises people to be "complete" individuals. For it is impossible for someone who has not acquired an independent character, with intellect, thought, experience and personal abilities, to make a quality contribution to the social sphere. He has brought an opening to the "perfect man" (insan al-kamil), as that high human character is named in classical Islamic Sufi literature, an opening that looks upon the social arena. In fact, in his system, this is the opening that spells his ideal model for man who sacrifices his own life's pleasures-who, in a way, lives for others. Such a man can take as his basis only positive action and carry it further.

Already, in the 1970s Gülen, gave examples from the lived experiences of the Prophet Muhammad's Companions and Jesus' Apostles, the first generations of Islam and Christianity. He offered unadulterated and pure faith motifs from both periods to his audience. There is no political, ideological or fundamental rigidity in these generations. These are honorable generations which led an average life in society, and which were usually poor but always consenting. These were centuries where the self-sacrificing, altruistic and unpretentious were like pearls in a row. These unpretentious, simple but self-sacrificing people, who verged on the ascetic and were yet joyful, emotional and loyal to religion from the heart, found the ideal foundations in Gülen's movement. These people shone like pearls among the cold-hearted, ignorant, bigoted and stiff traditions; their humanity and ethical feelings were not tainted by this stiff ignorance. They were positive in all their actions; there was nothing that jarred the eye. They were the loyal followers of Jesus and Muhammad, peace be upon them.

In fact, positive action harbors no postponed nor whetted feeling in its core. The Age of Happiness (The period of the Apostles and Companions) is the ideal that Gülen carries within him. At the basis of this ideal, there is no nostalgia or defeatism concerning being the mouthpiece of a group of people who no longer exist. The defeatism of the saying, "The good men have mounted their horses and gone," has shaped the longing for the past in many movements. But in the Gülen movement, the stress that is laid on the Age of Happiness is both an ideal example and a model after which people live today. Many people who are the followers of this movement have engaged in self-sacrifice to such a great extent the like of which can be seen only in the Age of Happiness. They have shown a loyalty and altruism in their understanding of service which is comparable to only the one in that period. In this, the outlook that Gülen has brought to contemporary humane behavior, and the positive action principle that he has developed, have both played a great role.

This sensibility of the movement differentiates itself from movements which purport to represent a return to the Islamic way of life and the slogan-based approaches which are the norm of contemporary movements. Slogans of this kind lay the stress of a sort of political program that deepens starting from the top, going towards the lower orders. In other words, they approach a model that correlates with classical Islamism. They argue that if there is no transformation from top to bottom, return to a truly Islamic life-style is virtually impossible. However, the Gülen movement does not focus solely on the Age of Happiness. Gülen constantly emphasizes the horizontal as well as the vertical-that is to say, the axis of individual and social progress as well as the axis of spirituality. According to this, there is no such thing as a "return to Islam." Rather, it has to be understood that if the person believes, he or she is a Muslim under any condition, and has to act like a Muslim. He or she is the one who feels Islam genuinely and lives in joy, without harboring any other claims. The most basic example of this is the Age of Happiness and the practice of the apostles and the Companions. Above anything else, the Companions lived Islam with unadulterated, pure loyalty. When living thus, they had no political or ideological concerns. They tried to communicate the Islam that they felt and lived without pretence. Despite the rigid social conditions that surrounded them, they insisted on their Islamic and moral standing, and on acting favorably; they did not wait for a political or ideological period to dawn. In the pure life of Islam, Gülen argues, there is no space for such a case or claim.

In the Gülen movement, the ideal of the "Age of Happiness" does not correspond to a return to Islam nor to postponed feelings; it expresses a life of awareness within Islam. The Companions represent the living of Islam in an ordinary daily life, with conscience and heightened awareness. For this reason, the ideals of returning to the early Islamic examples, which are deemed to be the indicator for radicalism and Islamic fundamentalism in the analysis of social movements, are in no way in accordance with the "ideal of the Period of Happiness" that is in the Gülen movement. Gülen has tried to formulate a model for man which takes the positive action from these examples as its basis. He has tried to do this throughout his position as a religious lecturer in the 1970s, with his addresses, writings, articles and conversations, and with the education establishments that he has encouraged-a life of service spanning more than three decades.

The dynamic of positive action is one of the spiritual foundations at the heart of the success of the activities of education and dialogue that Gülen's movement has engaged in. If we don't grasp the enthusiasm and love for service that this movement lends to an ordinary individual, we would have great difficulty in understanding the mysterious power behind the industrious and successful tasks that members of the movement carry out in all sorts of regions of deprivation in the world. Positive action encompasses almost all the activity of the movement. In contrast, ideological movements take fighting, conflict, confrontation and dialectic as their basis, and thus take all their enthusiasm and energy from producing tensions within man and the society. They cannot perform their actions and achieve their aims unless they have put in place a negative way of action, unless they have played with the life-blood sources of the society. Naturally, each movement has a system of positive values that it hangs on to. Otherwise, it would not be able to gain a broad base. But if positive action does not span all the internal and external dynamics of the movement, it is not possible for such a movement to develop strong, long-term consistent relations with the public. That's why positive action is among the basic dynamics of the Gülen movement.

8. First Experiences on the Way to Dialogue and Reconciliation

Initially, Fethullah Gülen undertook a series of dress-rehearsals for what was to become a vast project which would transform into a dialogue between religions and civilizations in Turkey, gathering together people who represented different intellectual and living styles. People who belonged to different political and ideological camps and who had fought each other physically in the 1960s and 1970s, and on an intellectual and social level in the 1980s, now found the opportunity to come together at these meetings and kind invitations. Perhaps many were facing each other in close contact for the first time. People who had perhaps drawn guns at each other, or at least had directed different political youth groups, now ate at the same table and exchanged pleasantries. The first gatherings did not go further than polite meetings. Undoubtedly, though, they felt the excitement of laying the intellectual, philosophical and social foundations of this togetherness. Soon, this wave of excitement resulted in the momentous "Abant Meetings" and then the creation of the "Abant Dialogue Platform" within a framework of scientific, academic and intellectual action. These meetings were no longer meetings simply of polite company. Here, a cadre of intellectuals and leaders from different universities in the country, from different fields of study, and from different intellectual tendencies, were brought together for fellowship and dialogue. The struggle now continued completely on a scientific and intellectual plan of action. These people, who had in them different cultural, ideological and political tendencies, were now together, in one great intellectual effort, to form a mutual living and sharing space inside Turkey. This was indeed a remarkable and unparalleled project. Through this platform, the basic initiative was at first with Gülen and his team, but later it turned into a program shared by leaders in science, thought, law and politics. As a result, M. F. Gülen is the honorary president of the "Journalists and Writers Foundation," the organization established to manage and finance this platform and its meetings. That is to say, the search for dialogue and reconciliation has been institutionalized with the initiative of academics, and thus has gained a significant character.

9. Dialogue Between Religions and Civilizations

The Journalists and Writers Foundation was founded in 1994. The opening ceremony for this association had a wide coverage in the media. It started off with only expectations of goodwill and reconciliation. This was the first capital of the association. The first dinner meetings gave birth to the Abant Platform and intellectual efforts within the association, with the launch of a publishing house and two magazines.

Apart from this, those who had participated in the first dinner cocktail started to make new personal friendships, although they were members of different contingents within society. The sides were quick to realize the richness of this variety. In particular, representatives of different religions formed complete harmony, as the first warm dialogues took place between these representatives. Maybe for long years, or even centuries, they had not seen such a platform for dialogue, and they supported the opportunity open-heartedly. Perhaps they did not expect such a warm welcome at their first invitation. I guess they did not even hope that these dinners could transform into an attempt at dialogue between religions and civilizations.

Modernism brought many conveniences to the life of humanity. But it also heaped the same amount of problems in front of it. Maybe the most important of these is the triggering of political and imperial desires that could provoke the clash of civilizations. International relations became more and more fragile due these desires. Global peace-something that has never been realized though many speak about it-is always under threat. For this reason, religions and dialogue between civilizations seem to be the only hope for mankind.

The response of sincere public masses to Gülen's emotional speeches developed in this way. Undoubtedly, without his vast horizon, broad tolerance and foresight, and without his reconciliatory attitude, such a wave of excitement and hope could not have developed. Here we cannot disregard the powerful spiritual effect of sincere religiosity and the religious cultural core on the people. Be it in the media or in political and intellectual circles, Gülen's religious identity was made a subject of discussion. In some ways, it seems it had never occurred to them that such a conservative character could lead such a social opening and activity. Who knows, maybe they had not yet accepted such a religious identity. But their fundamental error was that they had thought of Gülen as coming from the mould of a classical mosque imam. And they did not know that in addition to basic Islamic sciences, he also possessed interest in and knowledge about western philosophy and new social sciences. As well, they had not taken into account his ability to bring together all different cultures in an attempt to find solutions to contemporary social problems. Thus, they saw this aspect of Gülen as well. In short, Gülen, with his great scope for understanding and his Islamic and social activities on a world scale, had started to enter into the analyses and academic studies of social scientists.

10. Is the Gülen Movement that of a Religious Order?

The fundamental dynamics of the Gülen movement are similar in many ways with that of classical Islamic orders; however, it differentiates itself from the organization of religious orders with its way of producing civil initiatives and its way of acculturation. The concept of "worldly asceticism" that Max Weber has developed in his analyses on Protestantism and Asian religions can help analyze the Gülen movement to a degree, but still it is a movement that has been organized by civil dynamics. Modesty, self-sacrifice, altruism, a spirit of devotion, being with the Lord although among people, living for the good of others, being of service without expectations, and depth of the spirit and heart with no anticipation for reward for any intention or deed-all these concepts which are in Sufi culture are also among the intellectual and active dynamics of the movement. But these concepts are not directed toward man's own inner world, as they are in religious orders. Rather, effort is directed as much to the outside, to what is social. In that respect, the awareness of religious depth and being a subject under God has more all-encompassing and social aims. Weber looks at this through his concept of the "rationalization of religious and social relations." Yet even this cannot encompass fully the rational and social dynamic of the Gülen movement.

Religious orders are directed towards the personal and the private. It makes the individual grow cold towards the world and directs him/her to the more individual and spiritual experiences and hardships. Even if he/she should not be cut away from social life completely, the religious order has to continue with more rigid disciplines which allow no space for new openings. In this way, Gülen's movement is more along the line of Rumi, Yunus, and Yesevi, rather than being a religious order, and it carries a wider social content. In effect, it is like a contemporary version of these movements. Here "religious feeling" and "social action" work in great harmony. Just as elements of mortification mature a person, they make him/her a participant in shared aims in the social sense. Gülen's understanding of service requires a genuine spirit of devotion. This fits in with the ascetic definition of Weber, and yet is a dynamic that is broader and with greater continuity.

Ordinary religiosity cannot shoulder such self-sacrifice, for the limits of ordinary religiosity are well-known. Daily prayer, fasting, giving alms, the pilgrimage, all have limits and a particular measure. But Gülen's definition of "service" is a broader situation and presents continuity. It hangs onto not just a religious foundation, but also national, human, moral and universal values. It presents a rational attitude towards the basic values of the state and the nation, and social relationships. When one speaks of a "person of service," what is meant is such a person with a gentle heart who can embrace a wide perspective, self-sacrifice and devotion. And this requires a transcending love for religion, nation and humanity. That is why the people who are in Gülen's movement are people who are have a full commitment embracing this transcending love.

11. Gülen Movement, Dialogue, Tolerance, Mutual Respect and Understanding

Tolerance and dialogue are the two most basic and broad dynamics of the Gülen movement. These two concepts, which were first developed on a small scale, have turned into a search for a culture of reconciliation on the world scale. Today, the idea of living together is an issue whose philosophical foundations modern states are trying to formulate. Dialogue, tolerance and reconciliation have never been as essential as they are today. For past empires used to be founded not on reconciliation but on conflict and war, in terms of their international, political and legal relations. Different civilizations were separated from one another with thick walls which were supported by political, ideological and religious content and identities-and this led inevitably to conflict. During the long Middle Ages, the concept that reigned in international law was the "law of engagement." This was not so only with respect to international law, but also with respect to domestic law and the order of states and empires. There was no allowance for the existence of religious or racial differentiation. For that reason, throughout the Middle Ages, mankind's struggle for civilization found expression in aggressive and conflicting passions and strife. Today, with new concepts brought about by globalization, the search for dialogue between civilizations and cultures continues.

Gülen's movement is a clear example of this search, one which has reached international proportions. Gülen strengthens this search with religious, legal and philosophical foundations. One of the basic aims of the educational activities he has started on a global scale is to form the bridges that will lead to the dialogue between religions and civilizations.

According to him, today's Muslims cannot shape their own cultural, social and existential identities on destructive values like conflict and confrontation. This is not in keeping with the human and universal values of Islam. The long-lasting wars of the past had to do with the problem of power that reigned in the international relations of the day. This could be the case for all political empires and religious formations. But today, humanity is not in a position to shoulder such a conflict on the global scale. The universal value system of Islam is founded on the principle of "peace, dialogue and tolerance." This is the principle that the Prophet practiced in Madina. The people of Madina were composed of groups belonging to different religions and cultures. Prophet Muhammad acted with a system of values which transcended even the universal human rights declarations of today-for the first time in history. What these historical documents show us is that the reciprocal rights and responsibilities of different religious and cultural identities were clearly defined and a consensus was reached. According to this, non-Muslims would be free to exercise their religions and views, their ways of life and worship, No one was to interfere, and they were to live as partners in a pluralist organization that catered for religious, legal and cultural autonomy. In a letter that Ali, the fourth Caliph, sent to the governor of Egypt, Malik b. Ashtar, he formulated this in a systematic legal expression. According to Ali, people who lived in regions ruled by Muslims were divided into two main groups: 1) "our brothers in religion, the Muslims" 2) "our equals in creation, non-Muslims." They both have a right to protection. No other culture in history has been able to place "the other" on such an ontologically humane basis and thus to exalt them. This definition of Ali's laid the stress on the Prophet's saying that "All men are the children of Adam, and Adam, he was of the earth."

The interaction of early Muslims with neighboring nations and cultures ran completely on human and moral principles. We can see this Islamic sensibility in the following event which took place six centuries after the advent of Islam. The Mongolians who reigned in the Damascus region in the 13th century had taken the Muslims, Christians and Jews who lived under their protection as slaves. A scholar went to speak to the Mongolian commander, Kutlu Shah, for the release of the slaves. The Mongolians refused to release the Christian and the Jewish slaves along with the Muslim ones. The scholar asserts with a more serious tone this time: "The war is not over until all the slaves are free. The Christians and the Jews are under our protection, and we cannot accept a single one of them remain a slave." Upon this determined manner, Kutlu Shah agreed to set all the slaves free. ^[3]

This was the attitude of Islam concerning the relations between people, and during the periods when they kept to these principles of tolerance and dialogue Muslims developed a broad and freedom-providing perspective which guaranteed the life-styles and freedoms of all the religious and cultural communities they lived together with. This broad perspective helped develop a pluralism based on socio-cultural givens in Islamic societies.

Today, the Gülen movement is trying to spread social pluralism based on the principle of tolerance on a global scale. Undoubtedly, the pluralism of the past was limited to religious principles. But today, we need broader cultural and political bases. In order to produce such a culture of reconciliation, members of different civilizations have to make a positive contribution to these efforts. There are humane and universal values in the past and cultural legacies of all nations that advise tolerance towards the ways of living of different cultures. These have to be brought out and organized so that a shared and livable pluralism can be established on earth. Only then will the efforts of the Gülen movement meet with the expected response on a global scale.

12. The Basic Dynamics of the Movement

Analyzing the inner dynamics of a movement is important for two reasons: firstly, it enables one to grasp the spirit of the movement, starting from these dynamics. Secondly, it prevents one from falling into the error of missing the whole picture by doing a partial analysis. In a way, dynamics are the key concepts of the movement, and the intellectual and social attitudes of the movement always shape themselves around these dynamics. Knowing these would prevent the analysis from making general mistakes.

The Sufi, moral and spiritual depths in Islam requires each believer to be modest and patient in his familial and social relationships. This aims the individual's personal virtue and maturation, and the maturation of social relations. In order to understand the broad effect that Islam has on its members' moral and social attitudes, with its spiritual depth and experience, one has to know its basic spiritual dynamics and the degree of its penetration into the lives of its members. It is impossible to analyze the intellectual and social attitudes of even an ordinary Muslim without understanding the vast spiritual life of Islam. When we speak of "Cultural Islam," this gives us a general picture of Muslim's interaction-faith-related, spiritual, moral and social-with Islam. For this reason, when we look through the window of basic dynamics, we can have a general perspective of Muslim's individual, spiritual, moral and social self-positioning. Undoubtedly, here, as well as their deep meanings, it is also important how these subjects and concepts are interpreted and transferred to social practices. Gülen's importance is in that he successfully transforms these dynamics into activity in socio-cultural life. These cultural and religious dynamics have anyway existed in books and primary sources for almost fifteen hundred years.

On the other hand, laying the stress on the inner dynamics of a movement helps point to the traces and influence of these dynamics in all the arguments and social attitudes of that movement. Each action and attitude of the movement, each relationship it enters/forges with a different cultural environment, and each initiative directed towards dialogue between civilizations are, at all events, dependent on these initiatives. Any attentive reader or interpreter can see this easily.

Another thing I can say about the basic dynamics of the Gülen movement, and one I find particularly important is the following: when we look at the dynamics with a general and overall view, we see that it is always surrounded on all sides by a higher argument and ideal. That is to say, the most obvious characteristic of this basic dynamic is its identification with the ideal of eternity by which Islam directs itself as a divine revelation and religion. Islam takes on the task of leading man beyond the world of relative and passing beings, into eternal and absolute truth. This ideal of walking towards eternity can be seen in all the inner and social dynamics of the Gülen movement. It can be seen as a known truth, for it is an ideal that is in the essence of almost all religions. But this does not remain as an abstract ideal in the Gülen movement. It has been transformed into an active program that surrounds all its internal and social relations. For that reason, Gülen's model for man requires self-sacrifice and altruism without end. The ideal of eternity widens the meaning and importance of all dynamics once more. This understanding produces a strong metaphysical force in the Gülen movement. Gülen himself often speaks of this metaphysical tension, such that this principle is reproduced with all new acts and initiatives. This concept produces a high voltage in people who can bear hardship and deprivation under difficult circumstances in the four corners of the world. Otherwise, without this metaphysical tension, it would have been impossible for many people to go to remote distances even as tourists, let alone with a mission to stay for years.

There are concepts and dynamics upon which M. F. Gülen has built many of his activities and which he has stressed again and again in his writings and articles, or in his conversations throughout his entire life, in his intellectual and active struggles. In many instances, he speaks of these concepts, and he expresses his message and social teaching through them. Among them, the following seem to be more outstanding: broadness of conscience; the ideal of making others live rather than oneself; the spirit of devotion both to Almighty God and to people; self-sacrifice; loyalty; modesty; brotherhood; material and spiritual goodness; relationship with God; unity with prayer and remembrance; being a person of heart; and taking positive action as a principle.

On the other hand, the way M. F. Gülen handles and interprets these dynamics are also worthy of note. Just as in the general Islamic attitude and perception, Gülen can be said to have a conservative tendency in active dynamics as well. But he has an active and practical sort of perception which keeps renewing all his views, thoughts and actions. His conservatism never harbors rigidity. Both his system of thought and his way of action makes one feel the vitality of his views. The general framework of the basic dynamics and sensibilities remain the same, and yet it has a liveliness and activity in its core. By bringing different interpretations to the dynamics at different times and places, he seems to expand their content, forming a systematic that renews and reproduces itself. He has a way of address and an attitude that makes references to all the finer points of art, literary finesse and criticism, and a style which organizes all content and richness of vocabulary in intellectual, philosophical and literary fields. This broad spectrum renews and ripens the content of his philosophy without affecting its basic characteristics. Naturally, the task of bringing Gülen's movement's internal dynamics to the fore and of interpreting them systematically is not limited solely to the elements we have spoken of here.

In Conclusion: What is the Gülen Movement?

Frequently misunderstood, the Gülen movement is not a political or ideological movement, either in social action or in its underlying philosophy, and is therefore sharply different from all Islamist movements. Unlike the Islamist movements, with their mantra of perfecting society through enjoying political power, it is committed to changing society by developing the individual through education and is opposed to attempts at effecting changes by force of law. In its origins and operations, it is a movement entirely produced and directed by civil society initiatives.

It is important that this movement is studied around the world for it is indeed of global importance for the way in which it demonstrates Islam's capacity and dynamism to produce rich social and cultural responses to the challenges of modernity, built on tolerance and sound intra-communal and inter-communal relations. One aspect of the movement that can be readily understood and appreciated in the west is the way that it has developed a new model for the individual and backed it up with a social system of self-sacrifice. It is a self-sacrificing and altruistic movement that has, as its basic principle, giving to the society rather than taking from society. In its structure and vision, it embraces all sections of the society and accords a high value to the sharing of wealth, natural gifts and time to help the less fortunate. In its character, it is a movement that brings together and unifies religious values and social ideals wherever they might be found, and as such is inherently reconciliatory and unifying. The culture of the movement is such that it is careful not to give undue emphasis to individual capabilities, and it lends a wide social identity and character to its members.

It is crucially important that it is understood as a uniquely modern social movement that is not a religious order in the classical sense, and certainly not a Sufi order (tariqa) or brotherhood. But neither is it a wholly secular movement in the contemporary sense, for although most of its activity, such as schooling and education, is secular in content, the motivating force that energies its philanthropic activities is religious. Being essentially forward-looking and optimistic about the potential to develop individuals-and through them, the society-it is a progressive movement that emphasizes the inherent compatibility of all spheres of knowledge, including science and religion, and of the mind and heart. At its very core, it is a movement that promotes tolerance, love, reconciliation and dialogue in the social sense, and one that takes positive development as its basis in both attitude and action.

At the same time, it is clearly not a movement that has worldly expectations, nor does it have a hidden agenda to produce a political force. The national and international relationships of trust that are created and developed by the movement are certainly conducive to business and economic development, but they are never to be subordinated to or distorted by business interests. And on the political front, the movement is unambiguously apolitical and disapproves of any of any of its members forming party-political links.

---

[1] Himma: endeavor of any kind for helping others, engaging in charity.

[2] Nisa 4:84

[3] See Qaradavi, Yusuf, Gayr al-Muslimin fi al-Mujtama al-Islami, p 10.