Fethullah Gulen on Tolerance and Dialogue

Mehmet Gündem: Dialogue and tolerance have been topics that have been much discussed in recent years, but some think that you are not sincere about this matter.

Fethullah Gülen: If the source of dialogue and tolerance were personal, then they wouldn't seem to be lasting, and those who were worried would be right. But my motive comes from religious sources. This is the course we are to follow. As long as religion lasts, dialogue and tolerance will keep continuing.

Is it interfaith dialogue, or intercultural one?

When one talks about interfaith dialogue— one can use a metaphor here, seeing faith as a spiritual person—the followers of that faith are meant. We should not be entangled with what it is called, whether it is more appropriate to call it an "intercultural dialogue" or a "dialogue between different philosophies (of life)." What is meant by these phrases covers a wider range and also takes into consideration members of different faiths, including those other than the Monotheistic religions.

You said the source of dialogue and tolerance is religion. Are there any examples from the time of the Prophet?

When the Prophet came to Madina he issued the declaration of Madina, made a treaty with the people there, and took them under his protection. This made Abdullah ibn Ubay ibn Salul, the leader of the Hypocrites, very angry. He immediately went to Makka, joined the meeting of the Polytheists and provoked them by saying "Look, this man is taking everybody on his side. He will be a great danger to you tomorrow." In other words, there were people who build everything on imagination and fantasy in those times also, just as there are now. Again, there is the instance of the mubahala (invoking God's curse with all one's heart on the party in a discussion who is lying), when he accepted the Christians of Najran. The Qur'anic verse "Say: ' Come! Let us gather together, our sons and your sons, our women and your women, ourselves and yourselves: Then let us earnestly pray, and invoke the curse of God on those who lie!'"(3:61) was revealed. When the Prophet challenged them to invoke a mubahala , they did not agree to do so, fearing the curse of a Messenger of God, and they agreed to pay taxes and live alongside the Muslims. He also made a treaty with the Christians of Taghlib, taking them on his side, and he made treaty that included heavy stipulations in Hudaybiya with the Polytheists.

We can see that the Rightly Guided Caliphs followed the same path. Likewise, we know how Salahaddin Ayyubi, Zengi, and Alparslan behaved. The Ottoman Sultan, Bayezid II, brought the Jews who were persecuted in Spain by ship to Istanbul. The Foundation of the 500th Year was established in memory of this. The same tolerance was found during the Republican Era, and some of those fleeing the tyranny of the Nazis took refuge in Anatolia. This phenomenon exists within our culture. Under our rule, a mosque, a church, and a synagogue are side by side, and people lived without any problems.

Do you think that another meaning will be given to tolerance tomorrow?

To do something like this is nothing less than hara-kiri, committing suicide. Thanks to dialogue, the process of presenting the glorious face of Islam, a face which has been darkened by living-bombs, and people who have been turned into robots through oppression, has started. And it will continue.

God's Messenger said: "My name will reach wherever the Sun rises and sets." I see this as our goal. The fact that the Prophet has been introduced as the founder of a religion whose members are terrorists is a grave injustice to his name. While there is the important duty awaiting the representatives of dialogue and tolerance of introducing God's Messenger correctly, the pursuit of different thoughts would mean destroying the positive impressions that have been created about the representatives, which is tantamount to treason.

Published on fgulen.com, 27 January 2005, Thursday