Giving Precedence to Common Points: The Limits of the Otherness in Fethullah Gulen's Dialogic Methodology for Interfaith Encounters

Irina Vainovski-Mihai*

Gülen’s Constructs of Otherness

In a broad overview of Gülen’s and his movement’s national-security identity, Hasan Kösebalaban (Kösebalaban 2003) distinguishes three perceptions of the Other defined by varying degrees of separation: (1) a strong degree of common identification with the Turkic world (a Kantian Other in which the distinction between the Self and Other is weak, where the Self perceives the Other as part of its own group), (2) a lack of common identification with the West but a desire to integrate with Western institutions (an approximate of the Lockean Other, where the Self perceives the Other as a peaceful rival), (3) a strong lack of common identification with Iran (an identity shaped in terms of a Hobbesian culture of anarchy in which not only the distinction between Self and Other is clear, but also the Self perceives the Other as a security threat).

Although Kösebalaban applies his research primarily on national-security identity, further on, he reformulates Gülen’s Lockean the other with a view to religion and leaves aside the expression of antagonism: “For him [Gülen], ‘it cannot be imagined that a devout person would be against the West’, as the West became supreme following universally applicable rules and principles.” (Kösebalaban 2003:177) Thus, we come upon the following: “To devotees, the value of their ideals transcends that of the earthly ones to such an extent that it is almost impossible to divert them from what they seek – God’s gratuitous consent – and lead them to any other ideal. In fact, stripped entirely of finite and transient things, devotees undergo such a transformation in their hearts to turn to God that they are changed because they recognize no goal other than their ideal. Since they devote themselves completely to making people love God and to being loved by God, dedicating their lives to enlightening others, and, once again, because they have managed to orient their goal in this unified direction, which in a sense contributes to the value of this ideal, they avoid divisive and antagonist thoughts, such as “they” and “we”, “others” and “ours”. (Gülen 2004:100)

Deliberation as social learning is meant to develop an understanding of various ideational worlds. “Once participants acknowledge that they are interacting with representatives of other traditions, the purpose of deliberation becomes one of appropriation and evaluation of other perspectives by mastering the skills of putting oneself into others’ shoes.” (Kanra 2005:516) The awareness with the other, the dialogical approach may transform the experience of the other into an experience of the Self. “Different positions mean different understandings. Once you accept that, you can benefit from others’ thoughts and ideas.” (Gülen 2000a:206) The hermeneutic exercise of accepting the difference, as a prerequisite to communication, broadens one’s ideational scope, without sweeping away the original perspective. “In the fusion of horizons, nobody is fully detached from his/her subjective views, yet arrives at a new juncture…” (Kanra 2005:517).

In today’s global village, differences (beliefs, races, customs, and traditions) increase in visibility and interact more and more. The desire of leveling the differences means wishing for the impossible, points out Gülen, because each individual is like a unique realm unto himself/ herself, therefore a peaceful coexistence “lies in respecting all these differences, considering these differences to be part of our nature and in ensuring that people appreciate these differences. Otherwise, it is unavoidable that the world will devour itself in a web of conflicts, disputes, fights, and the bloodiest of wars, thus preparing the way for its own end.” (Gülen 2004:250) The respect for the other is equaled by Gülen to the respect for the Self: “When interacting with others, always regard whatever pleases and displeases yourself as 426 | P a g e the measure. Desire for others what your own ego desires, and do not forget that whatever conduct displeases you will displease others. If you do this, you will be safe not only from misconduct and bad behavior, but also from hurting others.” (Gülen 2005:59) Frustrations might be a result of somebody’s own (mis)conduct, because “Deserving what we expect is very important.” (Gülen 2004:34)

Common Points and Shared Responsibilities 

“I believe and hope that the world of the new millennium will be a happier, more just, and more compassionate place, contrary to the fears of some people. Islam, Christianity, and Judaism all stem from the same root; all have essentially the same basic beliefs, and are nourished from the same source. Although they have lived as rival religions for centuries, the common points between them and their shared responsibility to build a happy world for all of the creatures of God make interfaith dialogue among them necessary.” (Gülen 2004:231)

Gülen rejects conflicting attitudes, prejudice and half-truths and entirely understands the growing interdependencies of today. Establishing and maintaining dialogue should be rooted in giving precedence to the common points and in avoiding the divisive issues. Completely aware that “globalization is rapidly making dialogue between holders of meta-narrative claims a near existential necessity” (Hunt 2006:6), Gülen invites to an emotional coexistence through dialogue across differences and on the basis of joint ethical criteria. A famous verse of the Qur’an calls the People of the Book to a common ground with Muslims:

“Say: Oh People of the Book! Come to an agreement between us that we will not worship other than God, and that we shall ascribe no partner unto him, and that none of us shall take others for lords beside God...” (Qur’an, 3:64)

All the great universal religions share the same ethical values. “Regardless of how their adherents implement their faith in their daily lives, such generally accepted values as love, respect, tolerance, forgiveness, mercy, human rights, peace, brotherhood, and freedom are all values exalted by religion. Most of these values are accorded the highest precedence in the messages brought by Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad, upon them be peace, as well as in the messages of Buddha and even Zarathustra, Lao-Tzu, Confucius, and the Hindu prophets.” (Gülen 2000b:4) Thus, Gülen limits the distance between the Self and the other and defines dialogue as “an activity that has human beings at its axis” (Gülen 2004:50) forming a bond between people. Meanwhile he rejects confrontational models of dialogue as detrimental. In support of this approach he is quoting Bediüzzaman Said Nursi: “Those who are happy about their opponent’s defeat in debate have no mercy.’ He explains the reason for this: ‘You gain nothing by defeating someone. If you are defeated and the other person is victorious, then you would have corrected one of your mistakes.’” (Gülen 2004:74).

As Hunt aptly remarks, the Muslim Sufi tradition offers Gülen a generous resource for overcoming the problem of competing meta-narratives and “it allows him, and it can allow those inspired by him, to come to fellow humans not just as bearers of truth, but as seekers of truth.” (Hunt 2006:9) Through him, Muslim practice and traditions are preserved and brought into consonance with the timely need for interfaith encounters meant to draw understanding and sharing of interpretations.

*Associate professor in Arabic Literature at Dimitrie Cantemir Christian University, Bucharest

Excerpted from the author’s paper “Giving Precedence to Common Points: The Limits of the Otherness in Fethullah Gulen's Dialogic Methodology for Interfaith Encounters” presented at the international conference entitled “Muslim World in Transition: Contributions of the Gulen Movement" at SOAS University of London, House of Lords and London School of Economics, London, 25-27 October, 2007.

Related Video
Fethullah Gulen as a model and his approach to "the other"