Where is the Gülen of the Christian World?

Last Updated on Saturday, 01 December 2007 04:11 by Abdülhamit Bilici, Today's Zaman Friday, 30 November 2007 21:00

Some so-called intellectuals assert that the Anatolian people are unable to achieve anything great. If there is something huge and it was accomplished by the Turks, their stance toward the success is already apparent: They will allege that the Turks are not capable of having done it -- because they lack the necessary capability, this must have been achieved by others. They will also inquire whether there had been certain actors directing the Turks in that particular endeavor.

Following the defamation, some of them attribute it to the CIA, some to Zionism and others to Russian intelligence, depending on their worldview.

This complex is so huge that it does not recognize any boundaries. It is not limited to current events. Those who hold this perspective also do not see any relation between the 600-year long domination of the Ottoman Empire in world history and the Turkish nation. Instead of appreciating the dynamics behind this impressive model that was able to keep different nations and faiths together for centuries, they claim the Ottoman Empire was a mere imitation of the Byzantine Empire. Those who are aware of the inadequacy of this argument in explaining the huge success of the Ottoman Empire resort to another explanation: that the primary factor behind the success was the strength associated with the recruitment of foreigners taken captive during wars.

They also hold that if there is something that needs to be praised about the Ottoman Empire it was due to marriages with non-Muslims. They even assert that the greatest Sultan of the empire, Fatih Sultan Mehmet, decided to convert to Christianity. The same approach claims that Ottoman architecture was mostly based on the imitation of the Hagia Sophia and that architect Sinan was actually Christian.

Members of these circles demonstrate that they are deprived of self-confidence; but they are unaware that they actually insult this nation. I am not sure whether there is another example indicating that members of a certain nation are committed to insulting their nation. Obviously, these types of intellectuals are now focused on a success story that emerged in Anatolia and spread all over the world. We are talking about the success of a nation. It is a global endeavor that brings service to different parts of the world, ranging from Madagascar to Germany, irrespective of religion, ethnicity, language, color and geography. The same question is asked: Are the sons of this nation capable enough to achieve this? Because if the Anatolian people cannot do it, who are the actual players behind the puppets? How are they funded?

When listening to scholars presenting their papers on this movement at Erasmus University, I wished the so-called intellectuals I was referring to above were in the conference hall. I wish they were there to hear the views from scholars from the US, Lebanon, Russia and other countries on the cultural and educational activities of this movement, influential in different areas from Morocco to Indonesia, from Ireland to Russia, from Mardin to Tashkent. For instance, one scholar noted in his paper that students from 12 different ethnic and religious backgrounds were studying at a Turkish school in Russia. Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish students were studying at the same school in Iraq.

The following interesting idea crossed my mind while listening to scholars in the hall: to invite these scholars who have done research on the movement and those who are skeptical of the movement and its activities to present their views. The scholars have drawn very objective conclusions following their research activities on the movement. For instance, Professor Paul Weller from Derby University in Great Britain admitted that the Christian world should be able to train a great man like Gülen. Professor Simon Robinson from Leeds Metropolitan University noted that the educational institutions in Europe and other parts of the Western world should review and re-evaluate their curricula in light of the activities of this movement. Robinson also proposed a review of the monotonous and mechanical conference format in consideration of the vibrant atmosphere in the conference held at Erasmus University.

Would not the conclusion of this sort of discussion be interesting?