November 3, 2013

The Gulen Movement: An Islamic Response to Terror as a Global Challenge (1)

Ibrahim A. el-Hussari*

The Gulen Movement: An Islamic Response to Global Challenges

Inspired by the Turkish Nursi Movement, M. Fethullah Gulen was among the few Muslim leaders, across the world, whose response to the challenges posed by global instability had been presented prior to the 9/11 attacks against New York and Washington. In fact, Gulen had already placed his movement in the context of accepting to meet the local and global challenges in a world defined, if not actually controlled, by the worldviews of secularists and their strong hold of the state and its functions in almost all the fields of human activity including: free trade, human rights, democratic institutions, international law (etc). In short, if a state is to be accepted as a sovereign equal, it must ape the Western model of the state or else it potentially faces being labeled ‘rogue.’

In this context, religion would be reduced to an individual practice of worship, to recall Martin Luther’s phrase “Everybody, his own priest,” and not an institutional authority whose impact on the formation of power and government functions could be highly influential. Gulen, who views secularist worldviews as ineffective, and in this he concurs with Rodney Stark who argues that the theory of secularization as a social scientific faith “was the product of wishful thinking” (1999: 269), is cautious not to demonize the state, although he was prosecuted by the secularist state for his outspoken ideas as a religious activist who may have been a threat to the stability of Kemalist Turkey.

Gulen, thanks to his Turkish experience, contends that religion has a significant say in building the spiritual contentment and welfare programs of a society, recalling the successive failures of the three military coups that took place in Turkey during the 1970s and 1980s. In an interview with Nuriye Akman, Gulen commented on the corruption of the secular state by saying that “You cannot call the people in charge to account. They are protected, shielded, sheltered, and thus they have been left alone” (Akman, 2004: 10).

However, Gulen’s Turkish experience cannot be the whole story of the encounter between secularism and Islam when bigger challenges are in wait. This also goes beyond the wishful thinking of Abdul-Aziz Al-Naim (1990) who hoped for some type of “reconciliation between Islamic law and the benefits of secularism within a religious framework”. Yet the Turkish experience has not left Gulen without a vision. His hypothesis of the emerging mode of faith synthesized is quite note-worthy in the battle over the welfare of the Muslim community. It is not a ‘fundamentalist’ version, nor a ‘secular’ model as would be spelled out by modernist paradigms and idioms, but a cultural ideal nourishing on eternal spiritual virtues deriving from Islam as the youngest of the three world major monotheistic faiths. Gulen’s mission to redefine and re-examine true religious values in terms of their relevance and socio-moral character as revealed in Al-Qur’an (the Muslim Holy Book), and preached by Prophet Mohammad’s Hadith, is not an easy task to accomplish amidst countless problems, most of which range from the dire living conditions of the majority of Muslim population to security issues and identity politics.

Within this uneasy atmosphere of the clashing visions and interests trying to shape interconnected societies and cultures, Gulen and his followers have chosen to toil hard, in Turkey and elsewhere, to redefine Islam and reintroduce it to both Muslims and non-Muslims in a world that does not seem to have settled accounts with itself over globalization as a controversial term. To be more specific, since the first Gulf War (1991), and the collapse of the Soviet Union that occurred thereafter, the momentum in search for a new world order in which globalization assumed a prevailing role has not slowed down irrespective of the asymmetric global power relations that ended, unexpectedly, in the interest of the Western world led by the US.

However, a formidable global challenge appeared following 9/11. Terms such as ‘Islamist’ and ‘Islamism’ began to enter daily parlance – thanks to media and film industries – as the equivalent of ‘terrorist’ and ‘terrorism’ requiring international alliances as means of suppression and ultimately victory; militarily, politically and ideologically. Since those tragic attacks – which claimed nearly 3000 civilians and undermined the opportunity for a positive commencement to the 21st century – the entire international community, specifically the Islamic world,has been, in one way or another, embroiled in Bush’s ‘war on terror.’ Most (self-identified) Islamic countries, together with the rest of the international community, denounced the 9/11 attacks as acts of terror. Yet, state policies to combat terrorism have varied greatly despite the official outspoken statements released by various governments. The tides of support turned in response to successive Bush proclamations in the US Congress, and elsewhere, as waging the ‘war on terror’ was presented as a priority for all states, excluding none. The direct result of such a reprioritization was the military invasion and occupation, led by the US and its allies, of Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003) respectively. Despite these actions, terrorism has not subsided, and the two conflicts continue to rage, claiming heavy damages to property and incalculable losses of human life.

…Some Islamic movements, including Gulen’s, responded to the pressures of global challenges addressing terrorism in very different ways than their governments. Such Islamic movements, and the states from which they operate, might have viewed acts of terrorism in a similar way, but part ways over the means to combat terrorism. One of the reasons for the widening gap between secularist states and religious movements is the controversy over the specific meaning and definition of the term terrorism. In this respect, many religious movements, including Gulen’s, have raised doubts about a conclusive definition of terrorism, and whether military occupation, forced expulsions, land-grabs and institutional acts of vigilantism, or sieges conducted by some states are part of the working definition of terrorism. In theory, and as a spontaneous reaction to 9/11, terrorism is denounced by both states and Muslim movements alike. However, when it comes to translating such reactions into a suitable definition of terrorism, states and Muslim movements differ substantially, as each transmits messages on different frequencies either to respond to Western agendas and its ‘war on terrorism,’ or challenge the West for some undeclared or hidden agenda whose emblem is the advancement of Islam.

Among the various responses issued by global Islamic movements that repudiated and denounced terrorism, Gulen’s response has been the most articulate. Its emphasis on both Islamic faith and tradition provides, as he argues, effective transition to the new global era. Gulen’s reaction to terrorism, as a global challenge, is mainly found in two books, one written by Gulen himself in 1993, the other edited by Unal and Williams in 2000: and the same reaction reappears with a little variation in Gulen’s personal discourse regarding multiculturalism and pluralism. Gulen’s followers assert that his vision has a positive impact on contemporary debates which attempt to shape the future of Muslims and non-Muslims alike through advancing inter-faith dialogue among key-representatives of major world religions.

What about the practical side of the Gulen Movement? In this respect, Yavuz (2003) recounts education as the most significant project for the cultivation of religious and scientific truths as well as cultural and humanistic values in younger generations in Turkey, among Turkish-speaking countries of Asia, and in the Turkish exilic communities in Europe and the US. The Gulen Movement has responded to static realities in Turkey for the sake of effecting some considerable change across the community. It has built hundreds of educational centers (schools and universities), social welfare centers and hospitals. Some schools have also been constructed in the Muslim Kurdish community of Northern Iraq. Gulen’s unique leadership in the field of education, being an educator himself, has been highly commended as: a combined ulama-intellectual persona, Gulen not only preaches inner mobilization of new social and cultural actors, but also introduces a new liberative [sic.] map of action…. His goals are to sharpen Muslim self- consciousness, to deepen the meaning of the shared idioms and practices of society, to empower excluded social groups through education and networks, and to bring just and peaceful solutions to the social and psychological problems of society (Yavuz, 2003: 19).
…

*Professor of English and Cultural Studies at the Lebanese American University

Excerpted from the author’s article presented at the international conference entitled: Islam in the Age of Global Challenges, Georgetown University, Washington D.C., 13-15 November, 2008.

Related Articles
Print | Save as PDF