Academics discussed the socio-cultural, political and spiritual services provided by people and institutions inspired by Gulen. Interestingly, most non-Turkish academics used the name "hizmet" for the services provided by movement participants.
The academics discussed particular instances and general forces that have molded the Hizmet movement. They had visited people and institutions within and outside Turkey to gain a better command of the topics. Many focused on the appeal of the movement for its Turkish, Muslim and non-Turkish and non-Muslim participants and supporters. They argued that the new service models established by the hizmet foundations answer a need in contemporary societies and that in hizmet understanding and action, many people find something that is missing in their own society.
Loye Ashton discussed the criticism directed at services given by the movement. He argued that "the opposition to the movement in Turkey is best understood as emblematic of the larger contemporary cultural struggle within society toward greater openness and freedom found in the tension between military-statist and civilian-democratic control of the government. This larger struggle has surfaced in the debates around political reforms necessary as Turkey pursues its process for membership in the EU. These reforms include moves toward greater democratization, political participation, religious liberty and civil rights, social equality and protection of ethnic and religious minorities, as well as increased economic competition and interaction with the globalized free markets. Since the socio-cultural aspect of these reforms are consistent with the values of the Gulen movement, this provides the motivation for why the movement has become a target of those factions within Turkish society, such as the old establishment of business-banking-media industrialists, neo-nationalist political parties, ruling bureaucracy-military-security elite, as well as religious fundamentalists, who see such reforms as a threat to their own financial, political and ideological interests. Opposition to the Gulen movement has less to do with the activities of the movement per se (interfaith initiatives, educational projects, media, relief work, etc.) than with the values it represents. These values are focused around inner personal transformation, an ethic of individual freedom and social responsibility for the purpose of serving other human beings."
Russell Powell, after mentioning such contemporary conditions as invasion, economic domination or systematic persecution, argued that "the dialogue efforts by the Gulen movement are predicated on tolerance and provide opportunities for forgiveness, reconciliation, solidarity and friendship. Movement participants regularly invite non-Muslims to public events and to their homes. It is hard not to be struck by the sincerity and hospitality of people who may have ample justification for resentment. This example of human warmth and charity has caused me to reflect more deeply on my own religious commitments, particularly my own need to forgive and be forgiven. No religious system has a monopoly on forgiveness. Traditional Islamic jurisprudence values and encourages it. Contemporary Muslim scholars including Gulen place an even greater emphasis on it as a necessary precursor to reconciliation and sustainable, peaceful, intercommunal relations."
The Gulen movement has found new models of peaceful service based on dialogue, cultural events, conferences, schools, festivals and trips to Turkey. These have enabled it to be uniquely successful in reaching and appealing to the wider public and people.
Published on Today's Zaman on 13 December 2009, Sunday
