Go tell your father

Ekrem Dumanli

An 84-year-old father, an experienced and grieved man, says, meaningfully: "Look, son. Most of the time, I pray to God to help Fethullah Gülen Hocaefendi more than you do.” Ignoring the reactions that appear on his son's face, he then moves on to disclose a well-thought argument: "As a father, I know it hard to raise people. That's why I am telling you this. Hocaefendi has raised millions of people. He sacrificed himself to raise a generation of good people." A profound silence ensues.

There is a resigned smile on his son's face. The white-haired, white-bearded father goes on: "Son, I also pray to God for our Prime Minister Tayyip Bey and our President Abdullah Bey after every prescribed prayer. I believe that them making correct decisions is crucial not only for our country, but also for the entire world." The father's supplication list is a long one. He adds everyone he believes to be doing service to this country to that list. As the son wonders what his father is getting at, the father delivers his final message: "Beware, son. Do not fight each other. If you do, God's blessings on you will go away. We may return to those dark days."

This call is not coming from a single father. It is shared by thousands of fathers and mothers in Anatolia. These frank people are particularly concerned about the provocations which have been marketed during the last few years. Any mention of a quarrel between the Justice and Development Party (AKP) and the Community -- Hizmet movement -- hurts them deeply. Any talk of contention between President Abdullah Gül and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is putting their hearts in their mouths. These worries may mean nothing to lighthearted children. This silent cry coming from the depths of Anatolia may not be heard by the pro-something columnists or so-called refined nobles of political circles who haven't shed a tear for the sake of brotherhood, but this the truth. Those who are fanning the flame of dispute or dissension may ride the winds of popularity in the short term or obtain a transient psychological advantage, but history will not forgive them in the long run. Whoever undermines brotherhood in this land has and will never earn people's respect.

Everyone may not think the same way with respect to every issue at hand. "Disagreement among my umma leads to divine mercy," says the Prophet of Islam, and here, mercy indicates the wealth of ideas that can produce diverse views. Therefore, instead of forcing everyone to think like us, we should try to benefit from diverse ideas and views. Divine mercy can manifest itself if we can create a colorful canvas of diverse ideas and views.

A big threat: The intellectuals and elites of the conservative groups are increasingly alienated from the very environments from which they have sprung. This break-up is accompanied with a sense, or inebriation, of being promoted to a higher class. Therefore, they fail to measure the pulses of society correctly. Worse still, those who view the world from the window of power struggles and mind games and who analyze every incident against the benchmark of "power struggles" are shying away from their essence. The sincere cries coming from Anatolia can hardly be heard in the newly built glass houses. While some warlike members of the new media may perceive such embellished neologisms like "the AKP-Community rift" as an attractive topic for silliness, any attitude that undermines brotherhood is hurting the general public's conscience. This applies to the so-called "Gül-Erdoğan rift" as well. It is quite natural for our president and prime minister to nurture differing ideas about certain matters. What is the use of turning that disagreement into a source of dissension instead of making it pave the way for the new ideas and perspectives?

At a time when there is an ongoing quest for arriving at "conciliation," even with a bloodthirsty terrorist organization, it is nonsensical for certain groups to offend their sisters and brothers and friends and confidants. Who adds coals to the fire of dispute? They are: (i) the evil groups who are determined to incite dissension and quarrel, (ii) the people who have failed to stick to their causes, but opted for being slaves to jealousy and ambitions and (iii) the blithe, carefree and reckless people who are ignorant of past ordeals and sorrows. I can't say anything about the first group as they are doing what their natural disposition tells them to do. What about the others? How can you answer to the Anatolian people if you bicker with each other, try to secure your positions, speak ill of each other or try to destroy each other while there are colossal problems that need to be addressed? Which pious mother or long-suffering father will accept our trivial excuses?

We are talking about people who are closely intermingled at a sociological level. They live in the same houses, in the same neighborhoods, in the same mosques ... Their causes and supplications are common. Any attempt to destroy this fact is sedition (fitnah), isn't it? Our Prophet describes it as follows: "At a time of dissension, it is better to sit instead of standing and stand instead of walking, and walk instead of running." Those who carry fuel to the fire should find a fitting description for themselves from this hadith. Then they should go ask their mothers and fathers how they can make their supplications sincere. And that's the matter in a nutshell!

The sphere of politics vs. the sphere of civil society

There is an urban legend that has been in circulation for a long time: "The sphere of politics is filled by politicians." No other person can meddle with that sphere. Some people go even further and argue that those who have something to say about political matters must set up a political party to do so. This approach is a conceited one, as it banishes the civil society idea and ignores modern administration forms. If you insist that politics are the profession of politicians, then you will have to raise objections even against the comments of columnists. It is funny to observe that politics are now marketed as a sort of secularism.

Of course, politics are performed by politicians. But, non-politicians should be allowed to speak their mind as well. Academics, authors, intellectuals, civil society organizations (CSOs), trade unions, democratic organization, etc., they are all entitled to closely monitor developments and write down their ideas about them. In this regard, democracy is, in a sense, governance by stakeholders; it is open to civilian audit and democratic suggestions. Any other form of governance can hardly be defined as democracy.

Of course, the Community is not a political party. It never was and never will be. Yet, it has the right to express its ideas and views and even form public opinion about the matters that are critical for the country. Any other CSO has the same right as well. For instance, the Community lent critical support to the referendum of Sept. 12, 2010. "Even those in graves should stand up and vote 'yes' for the referendum," Gülen said. Can this be considered to be intervention with politics? No. Is this supporting a specific party? No! Lending support to or raising objection about a project or specific political deed can hardly be labeled as "politicization." Rather, it means participation in the democratic system.

The Community does not see itself as a political party. It takes pains in maintaining equal space for every political movement. Therefore, it has sympathizers from every movement. Yet this does not mean that the Community has nothing to say about the current issues. To consecrate politics and say, "don't meddle with politics, but go open schools" is to misunderstand democracy, as if being unaccepting of others' involvement in the system is a symptom of inability. Then, one will ask, "Why do you think and write about these matters if you are not a politician?" Is there a limit to this? One should be fair and grateful.

Published on Sunday's Zaman, 12 May 2013, Sunday