G’ P

XX
952005
Blackwell
Oxford,
The
MUWO
©
0027-4909
3 Muslim
Hartford
UK
Publishing,
WorldSeminary
Ltd.

Gülen’s Paradox:
T
G 
M
’ P
W V 95 2005

Combining Commitment
and Tolerance
Lester R. Kurtz
University of Texas
Austin, Texas

“The conscience is illuminated by the religious sciences, and the mind is

illuminated by the sciences of civilization, and wisdom occurs through
the combination of these two.”
— Said Nursî1

M
ax Weber argues in his famous analysis of The Protestant Ethic
and the Spirit of Capitalism2 that the foundations of the modern
socioeconomic order were facilitated by the synthesis of two
contradictory impulses — economic acquisition and religious piety. The
consequences of that union were unanticipated in nature and global in scope,
resulting in a transformation of society and culture, first of Western Europe
and then most of the planet. As suggested elsewhere,3 Weber’s insights imply
a theory of cultural innovation: when opposing tendencies or cultural themes
are paradoxically fused, the process unleashes creative energy that facilitates
the construction of new paradigms, movements, and institutions. This paper is
a case study of that process. The paradoxical fusion by Turkish sage Fethullah
Gülen of intense faith commitment with tolerance results in a paradigm of Islamic
dialogue. As a movement founded to foster spiritual commitment to a faith
tradition, it now reaches out to non-Muslim believers and even non-believers.
As Emile Durkheim demonstrates in his foundational work on the nature
of religion,4 religious belief is usually bound up with social organization.
A confession of faith in a belief system is a simultaneous proclamation of
solidarity with a social group. A particular religious belief system emerges from
and acts back upon a given social organization such as a tribe, ethnic group,
or a people.5 The fact that particular religious beliefs and practices are socially
constructed and intimately bound up with the social institutions where they
originate is what facilitates the use of religious beliefs, rituals, and institutions

373
 T M W • V 95 • J 2005

for the perpetration of violence and intolerance. The development of new

technologies of destruction since the twentieth century has amplified the
legitimation of the various holy wars and terrorist attacks that continue to
plague human society.6
Belief systems provide paradigms for a people’s understanding of the
cosmos and consequently blueprints for how one is to view oneself, what must
be done to prevent the diffusion of evil in the world or the reversion to chaos,
and how one is to behave in reference to others. Most political elites attempt
to link particular concepts of collective identity and authority to a broader view
of the world so that their power appears to be inherent in the very nature
of things and thus “God-given” and “natural.” One challenges the social order
only at the peril of one’s own soul, according to this theory, and the social
construction of evil labels a particular power elite’s enemies as cosmic and the
allies of a given political authority as having sacred legitimacy.7
What is surprising, if one examines the comparative history of human
religious organization, is the sharp contradiction between the universality of
many religious teachings, on the one hand, and the mobilization of religious
sentiment to support particular regimes, on the other. Virtually every religious
tradition, for example, has some version of a “love your enemy” ethic,8 as well
as other less radical ethical teachings about living for others as a primary norm
for spiritual well being.9 Nonetheless, faith traditions worldwide are habitually
hijacked to serve the political purposes of particular regimes at the expense of
the universality of religion.
Human history in recent millennia is thus replete with the cooptation
of religious institutions and their rhetoric by political authorities — from the
incorporation of the early Christian pacifist movement into the Roman Empire
down to recent efforts to justify everything from state terrorism and warfare to
suicide bombings as God’s will.
Although the combination of religious tolerance and commitment are far
from rare in the teachings of the world’s spiritual prophets, that phenomenon
is seldom witnessed in the pages of popular newspapers and other publications
of record around the world or on the screens of CNN and its counterparts.
The purpose of this article is to explore the extent to which Fethullah
Gülen has managed to synthesize these disparate concepts in both theory and
practice. We begin with a brief review of his religious commitment and then
move on to discuss the nature of his advocacy of tolerance and dialogue.

Gülen’s Religious Commitment

Born into an Anatolian village family of considerable spiritual fervor within
the Muslim tradition, Gülen’s parents raised him with a pervasive spiritual
perspective on life. Gülen recalls that his mother “taught the Qur’an to all the

374
 G’ P

village women and me at a time when even reciting Qur’an was prosecuted.”10
It is possible that the rural environment of his childhood facilitated the life of
prayer and meditation that marked his adulthood. “A pleasant silence and calm
always dominated the old villages,” he remembers.
The morning sunlight, the mewing of sheep and lambs, and the cries of
insects and birds would strike our hearts in sweet waves of pleasure
and add their voices to nature’s deep, inner chorus. . . .
In this world — the next-door neighbor to the next world — the
call to prayer and the prayer litanies, the language of the beyond would
call us to a different concert and take us around in a deeper and more
spiritual atmosphere.11

He memorized the Qur’an at a young age and testifies that he “began

praying when I was 4 years old, and have never missed a prayer since.”12 He
dedicated himself early on to a simple lifestyle devoted to prayer, meditation,
religious writing and teaching. Eschewing family life, he chose an ascetic’s
path, devoting his life to prayer and religious pursuits and owning virtually no
possessions. His ubiquitous writings cover a wide range of spiritual topics from
questions put to the faith by the modern world to basic introductions to the
teachings of Islam and Muhammad.13
Gülen’s work in Turkey was notable in that it was highly religious in a
secularized context as well as apolitical in a highly politicized environment.14
In this national context — as well as an international environment in which
Islamic and other religious rhetoric took on the character of diatribe and
ideological denunciations of others as infidels and traitors — Gülen managed
to move back and forth between the religious and the secular, between the
Islamic and the non-Islamic, promoting his Sufi-inspired emphasis on love
of humanity and the compatibility of Islam with “modernity, democracy, and
progress.”15

Gülen’s Advocacy of Tolerance

The Prophet, upon him be peace and blessings, defined a true Muslim
as one who harms no one with his/her words and actions, and who is
the most trustworthy representative of universal peace.16

For Fethullah Gülen, tolerance of others and genuine interfaith dialogue

are not simply a pleasant ideal that will be fulfilled in some future paradise,
but is something at the core of what it is to be Muslim in the here and now.
Indeed, he asserts that the very nature of religion demands this dialogue.17
It is possible that Fethullah Gülen’s vision of tolerance goes far beyond what
is ordinarily understood by the term.18 According to Gülen, one cannot be a Muslim
unless one believes in pre-Islamic prophets: “As a Muslim, I accept all Prophets

375
 T M W • V 95 • J 2005

and Books sent to different peoples throughout history, and regard belief in
them as an essential principle of being Muslim.” In this context he explicitly
notes not only the traditional foci for interfaith dialogue in the West — Judaism,
Christianity, and Islam — but “even adherence of other world religions.”19
Muslims from the time of the Prophet onward have — in their more
generous movements at least — affirmed believing Jewish and Christian
believers as having a special status alongside followers of Islam (which is
often, however, seen as the culmination of its two incomplete predecessors).
Gülen takes this notion much farther, defining religion metaphorically as
“a symphony of God’s blessings and mercy.”20 It is, of course, the diversity of
a collection of notes and instruments brought together in a collaborative unity
that characterizes a symphony. Musical harmony cannot consist of people
playing the same notes and a symphony cannot be played by a collection
of people all playing the same instrument.

Commitment and Tolerance: Defining

a Peaceful Islam
Applaud the good for their goodness; appreciate those who have
believing hearts; be kind to the believers. Approach unbelievers so
gently that their envy and hatred would melt away. Like a Messiah,
revive people with your breath.
— Fethullah Gülen21

The process of fusing commitment and tolerance requires that Islam be

defined as a peaceful tradition that advocates tolerance rather than setting
up the barricades and fighting off anyone who does not ascribe to the same
institutional formulas and dogmas as one’s own sect. Gülen not only advocates
approaching believers with kindness and unbelievers with gentleness, but
he apparently does it.
In the final analysis, what religion does is to elevate an individual soul to
a higher plane so that he or she can live a life with attention to higher values.
As Gülen puts it,
Regardless of how their adherents implement their faith in their daily
lives, such as 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.22

Gülen’s definition of Islam has a number of components that we will

examine in the remainder of this paper, notably his reliance upon the Sufi

376
 G’ P

tradition to highlight the spiritual aspects of the Islamic tradition, the theory
and practice of dialogue, his cultivation of a holistic peace through his
nonviolent lifestyle, the condemnation of terrorism and violence, and his
mobilization of a movement for spiritual and social change in the world.

The Sufi Solution

One of the keys to Gülen’s ability to combine commitment and tolerance
is his emphasis on Sufism as the spiritual side of Islam, or its “inner life.”23 It
is not surprising that Gülen’s vision of the Islamic tradition has a strong Sufi
flavor — as that has been characteristic of much of Turkish Islam in general.24
Islam is seen as having various spheres — the institutional, the political,
the personal, the spiritual, etc. The spiritual is viewed as the most important
and equated with the widespread mystical tradition of Sufism. Because of
these spheres, the Muslim path leads to a kind of openness to others that the
institutional aspect of the faith cannot embrace. Whereas it is an institution’s
task to set up boundaries and emphasize difference, it is a spiritual tradition’s
task to open up the heart to a force that obliterates difference. From the height
of spiritual experience the boundaries disappear in the same manner that
national boundaries on earth become invisible when the planet is viewed from
the moon. It is this aspect of Islam that Gülen highlights in his ubiquitous
writings and lectures on the basis of the faith.
Spiritual practice and morality are, for Gülen, more important than ritual
and dogmatism, an attitude that opens the way for dialogue with other faith
traditions. The Sufi emphasis on love as a central attribute of a believer shifts
the focus from institution and ritual to the diffusion of love for God and for
others. Gülen insists that “Love is the most essential element in every being,
and it is a most radiant light and a great power which can resist and overcome
every force.”25 Out of this burning passion comes an affection for the entire
universe that minimizes the differences of creed. If you have the characteristics
of a believer, “Whether you’re a Christian, a Jew, a Buddhist, or of another
creed, . . . you’re carrying a believer’s attribute.”26
As in the Sufi tradition, Gülen asserts that “believers are people of
enthusiastic love; in fact, more of a pole of attraction.” Gülen refers to the
metaphor of the famous Sufi poet Mawlana Rumi to explain how one can
be both rooted one’s own tradition but open to others:
Using Rumi’s expression, such a person is like a compass with one foot
well-established in the center of belief and Islam and the other foot with
people of many nations. If this apparently dualistic state can be caught
by a person who believes in God, it’s most desirable. So deep in his or
her own inner world, so full of love . . . so much in touch with God;
but at the same time an active member of society.27

377
 T M W • V 95 • J 2005

This Rumi-inspired duality of one foot in his own faith tradition while
the other roams freely to the faiths of others is a starting point for Fethullah
Gülen’s emphasis on dialogue.

The Theory and Practice of Dialogue

Interfaith dialogue is a must today, and the first step in establishing it is
forgetting the past, ignoring polemical arguments, and giving precedence
to common points, which far outnumber polemical ones.
— Fethullah Gülen28
Gülen’s form of Islam begins with tolerance but it does not end there —
what is more surprising than his advocacy of tolerance is the extent to which
he acts on that principle. It is, in fact, his concrete actions in the implementation
of dialogue that have attracted widespread attention to his efforts to define
Islam as a force for peace. Most significantly, he initiated dialogues with
Christians and Jews, as well as secular intellectuals and civic leaders in Turkey,
including Patriarch Barthalemeos of the Orthodox Church and Turkey’s Chief
Rabbi David Aseo. Eventually, he expanded beyond his own national borders
to a celebrated meeting with the Roman Catholic Pope John Paul II and Israel’s
Sephardic Head Rabbi Eliyahu Bakshi Doron.
It is not difficult to see why Gülen was able to obtain and sustain such
a reputation for dialogue if we look at what he considers to be the “pillars of
dialogue: love, compassion, tolerance and forgiving.”29 Such attitudes provide
the foundation for Gülen’s method of dialogue. He begins with love, which
he claims is “the most essential element in every being, a most radiant light,
a great power that can resist and overcome every force.”30 He then moves on
to compassion, claiming that “the universe can be considered as a symphony
of compassion” and that a “human being must show compassion to all living
beings, for this is a requirement of being human.”31
The final pillars are tolerance — “so broad we can close our eyes to others’
faults” — and forgiveness, which together “will heal most of our wounds.”32
These are basic principles Gülen finds in the Qur’an. He notes that the Qur’an
instructs believers not to respond to meaningless and ugly words or behavior
with similar words, but to pass by in a dignified manner, as the Prophet himself
did, showing tolerance and forgiveness even to his bitter enemies. In this
sense, it is because of his commitment to Islam, rather than despite it, that
Gülen advocates tolerance toward others.

Condemnation of Terrorism
Muslims are bodyguards of love and affection, who shun all acts of terrorism
and who have purged their bodies of all manner of hate and hostility.
— Fethullah Gülen33

378
 G’ P

Because of Gülen’s emphasis on love of humanity as characteristically

Muslim and a sign of spirituality, he does not hesitate to condemn terrorism
unequivocally and to set himself — and Islam — apart from acts of terrorism.
“God’s Messenger preached Islam, the religion of universal mercy,” Gülen
notes. “However, some self-proclaimed humanists say it is ‘a religion of
the sword.’ This is completely wrong.”34
In an effort to set the record straight, as he saw it, Gülen made a strong
public condemnation of terrorism following the September 11th attacks on
the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in a letter to the Washington Post,
in which he insisted:
I would like to stress that any terrorist activity, no matter who does it
and for what purpose, is the greatest blow to peace, democracy,
humanity, and all religious values. For this reason, no one — and
certainly no Muslims — can approve of any terrorist activity. Terror has
no place in one’s quest to achieve independence or salvation. It costs
the lives of innocent people.
Although some will always exploit religion for their own interests, he
boldly goes on to say: “Islam does not approve of terrorism in any form.
Terrorism cannot be used to achieve any Islamic goal. No terrorist can be
a Muslim, and no true Muslim can be a terrorist.”35 He could not have been
more blunt and yet he further explains that Islam does not allow the violation
of individual rights, even for the community’s interests, and that “the Prophet
Muhammad says that a Muslim is one who does no harm with his or her hand
or tongue.”
Although Gülen is fully aware of the sense of injustice that often fuels
terrorist attacks, he does not consider them reason for acts of violence against
innocent civilians. Moreover he chose not to use the occasion of the attack as
a time to itemize Muslim grievances. Terrorist activity is wrong. It is not Muslim.
That is it.

The Gülen Movement

One of the most striking operationalizations of Gülen’s fusion of commitment
and tolerance is the nature of the Gülen movement, as it is often called, which
has established hundreds of schools in many countries as a consequence
of his belief in the importance of knowledge, and example in the building
of a better world. The schools are a form of service to humanity designed to
promote learning in a broader sense and to avoid explicit Islamic propaganda.
Gülen claims that he did not start the schools himself, but simply spoke of the
importance of education and of creating environments in which young people
could be taught to expand their minds and their knowledge. As Gülen puts it,
school

379
 T M W • V 95 • J 2005

Is essentially the ‘theatre’ in which all the scattered things of the universe
are displayed together. It provides its pupils with the possibilities of
continuous reading and speaks even when it is silent. Because of that,
although it seems to occupy one phase of life, actually the school
dominates all times and events. Every pupil re-enacts during the rest of
life what he or she has learned at school and derives continuous
influence therefrom.36
The fruit of this approach can be seen, for example, in the comments by
Dr. Thomas Michel, General Secretary of the Vatican Secretariat for Interreligious
Dialogue, about his visit to one of the schools on the southern Philippine
island of Mindanao, where Muslim separatist movements have been engaged
in an armed struggle against the government’s military. As he puts it,
In a region where kidnapping is a frequent occurrence, along with
guerrilla warfare, summary raids, arrests, disappearances, and killings by
military and para-military forces, the school is offering Muslim and
Christian Filipino children, along with an educational standard of high
quality, a more positive way of living and relating to each other.37

The purpose of the schools’ movement, therefore, is to lay the foundations

for a more humane, tolerant citizenry of the world where people are expected
to cultivate their own faith perspectives and also promote the well being of
others.
As with all high-minded movements, the Gülen movement exhibits some
contradictions between its founder’s rhetoric and the practice of some of the
followers. One of the most striking in this case is noted by M. Hakan Yavuz in
his discussion of the movement: Gülen’s advocacy of opportunity for women
in the workforce. It should be noted that women do work as teachers,
professors, and even administrators in certain areas, though Yavuz says:
“Gülen’s community practices rigid segregation of the sexes and does not
permit women to work in high positions. For example, there are no women
in high positions in his vast networks or in his media empire.”38
Aras and Caha report that Gülen’s hold progressive views on women’s
rights and says that “women can become administrators,” contradicting the
views of most Islamic intellectuals.39 It will be interesting to see if the Gülen
movement reaches out even to its own women as it diffuses into cultures with
more gender equality than the Turkey of its native soil.40
A comprehensive survey of the Gülen movement goes far beyond the
boundaries of this exploration but it is helpful to note that the schools are
only one aspect of a vast and somewhat amorphous movement that involves
anywhere between 200,000 and 4 million people worldwide and has a wide
range of organizations. Gülen’s followers have created a Journalists’ and
Writers’ Foundation that brings Islamist and secularist intellectuals together

380
 G’ P

as well as symposia that promote interfaith dialogue.41 Another foundation, the

Turkish Teachers’ Foundation, publishes a monthly journal and two academic
journals and organizations symposia, panel discussions and conferences, and
the media arm of the movement includes a daily Turkish newspaper, Zaman,
a television channel and a radio station.42 The movement has mobilized and
involved prominent intellectuals (especially Turkish) and even set up a
non-interest-bearing bank (with $125 million in capital), Asya Finans, to
promote economic development in the Turkish-speaking Central Asian
republics of the former Soviet Union.
It is significant to note that the movement has been so successful in
offering high quality education in its schools, which recruit the children of
elites and government officials, that it is beginning to lay the groundwork for
high-level allies, especially in Central Asia, where they have focused much
of their effort.43
Gülen’s compassion, it should finally be noted, extends not only to all of
humanity, but also to Creation itself. One member of the Gülen movement told
me of a time when Gülen was camping with a group of young men inspired
by him. When a snake was found entering the camp and was immediately
killed by one of those with him, Gülen expressed deep sorrow at its death
and fasted for three days in repentance, even though he was not the person
directly responsible.
Similarly, in one of his volumes on the Prophet Muhammad, Gülen recalls
a story in which the Prophet reproached one of his companions for deceiving
his horse, saying, “You should give up deceiving animals. You should be
trustworthy even in your treatment of them!”44
Our focus here has been on the paradox of fusing commitment and
tolerance, but Gülen has brought together other seemingly-contradictory
opposites as well. John Wesley, founder of the Methodist movement in
England, proclaimed “Let us unite the two so long divided, knowledge and
vital piety.” One of the hallmarks of Gülen’s work has been his openness to
scientific inquiry as a religious enterprise. Indeed, perhaps in order to avoid
the appearance of being religious schools, many of the Gülen-inspired schools
have excelled in teaching the sciences, as demonstrated in the prizes their
students have taken in many science competitions and Olympiads around the
world.45
If humanity is to survive another century — and the twenty-first is
beginning to appear capable of surpassing the records of violence of its
predecessor — voices from faith communities like those of Fethullah
Gülen will no doubt play a role. His perspective is most notable because it
comes from one of the two traditions most frequently called upon to legitimate
the violence that pervades human politics, the Christian and the Muslim.

381
 T M W • V 95 • J 2005

Perhaps his innovations in cultural paradox will inspire others to help us find
a way out of our global conundrum.

Endnotes
1. http://www.bediuzzaman.org/ available 5 April 2003.
2. Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Talcott Parsons,
tr.; introduction by Anthony Giddens (New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1958 [1922–23]).
3. Lester R. Kurtz, unpublished manuscript, Gandhi’s Paradox: The Legacy of India’s
Nonviolence. Portions available on the web at www. Cf. Lester R. Kurtz, “War,” From
Encyclopedia of Politics and Religion, ed. Robert Wuthnow. 2 vols. (Washington, D.C.:
Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1998), 783–789. Available at http://www.cqpress.com/
context/articles/epr_War.html. Indeed, this theory came to me when trying to make sense
of Gandhi’s legacy and when I immersed myself in Fethullah Gülen’s life and work. I began
to see parallels between the two, especially in terms of how they transcended ordinary
contradictions in life to create new solutions to human problems.
4. Emile Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, Translated from the
French by Joseph Ward Swain (New York, Free Press, 1965, [1915])
5. Cf. Clifford Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures (New York, Basic Books, 1973);
cf. Lester R. Kurtz, Gods in the Global Village (Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press, 1995).
6. See Lester R. Kurtz, “War.”
7. Robert Benford and Lester Kurtz, “Performing the Nuclear Ceremony: The
Arms Race as a Ritual,” Journal for the Applied Behavioral Sciences (December, 1987):
463–482.
8. See, e.g., the remarkable compendium edited by Andrew Wilson and posted on
the internet at http://www.unification.net/ws/theme144.htm (available 30 August 2003).
9. Ibid. Wilson’s work includes passages from various scriptures that tout the virtues
of loving-kindness, serving others, sacrificial love, charity and hospitality, forgiveness and
reconciliation, and so forth.
10. Quoted in Ali Ünal and Alphonse Williams, eds., Advocate of Dialogue (Fairfax
Virginia: The Fountain, 2000), 10.
11. Ibid., 11. Quoted and translated from Fethullah Gülen, Zamanin Altin Dilimi
(The Golden Slice of Time) (Izmir, 1994).
12. Ibid., 13. Quoted and translated from Fethullah Gülen, Küçük Dünyam (My Small
World). Interviewed by Latif Erdogan, Zaman.
13. See, e.g., M. Fethullah Gülen, Prophet Muhammad: The Infinite Light. 2 vols.
(London: Truestar, 1995, 1998) and three volumes translated into English published in
the United States in 2000 by The Fountain (in Fairfax, Virginia): Essentials of the Islamic
Faith, Questions and Answers About Faith, and Key Concepts and the Practice of Sufism.
14. See Lynne Emily Webb’s work, Fethullah Gülen: Is There More to Him than Meets
the Eye? (Izmir, Turkey: Mercury International Publishing, Consulting, Import and Export
Ltd., n.d.) which outlines the series of military coups and trends in modern Turkey that
provide the crucible in which his spiritual perspective is formed.
15. Comments by Turkish Prime Minister Bülent Ecevit in Eyup Can’s “A Tour of the
Horizon,” Istanbul, 1996.
16. al-Bulchari, Book 2, Hadith no: 9.
17. Ali Ünal and Alphonse Williams, Advocate of Dialogue: Fethullah Gulen (Fairfax:
The Fountain, 2000), 193–94.
18. It is Gandhi’s critique of tolerance that makes me think that it may be an unfortunate
term for the ideal toward which Gülen is striving. Gandhi claims that tolerance is inadequate

382
 G’ P

— that we need to go far beyond simply tolerating others. Rather, we should respect,
appreciate, and learn from everyone, even our enemies. According to my Turkish research
assistant Suphan Bozkurt, “The Turkish word used in Gulen’s work for tolerance is
‘hosgoru.’ Actually I’ve once heard Gulen saying that the Turkish word “hosgoru” is deeper
in meaning than the English concept of tolerance. The word consists of two parts: ‘hos’
means pleasant, nice, amiable. ‘Goru’ is derived from the verb ‘gormek’ which means to see.
So, literally, ‘hosgoru’ means to see something as pleasant and/or amiable.
In daily language it’s used like overlooking, condoning and allowing.
19. Fethullah Gülen, Toward a Global Civilization of Love and Tolerance (New
Jersey: Light, 2004), 75–76.
20. Ibid.
21. Translated in Ünal and Williams, op. cit., 23.
22. Ünal and Williams, op cit., 242. Also available 1 September 2003 at
http://www.fethullahgulen.org/articles/interfaith.html.
23. See the interview with Gülen in Ünal and Williams, op. cit., 358. Said Nursi
(1876–1960) was an influential Turkish intellectual who promoted interfaith dialogue
long before it became popular.
24. See Bulent Aras and Omer Caha, “Fethullah Gülen and His ‘Liberal Turkish Islam’
Movement,” Middle East Review of International Affairs 4 (2000). Available December 2
2002 at http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2000/issue4/jv4n4a4.html. Aras and Caha note that
“The main premise of ‘Turkish Islam’ is moderation and that the Sufi-oriented Islamic
movements influenced Turkish political history even during the reign of the Ottomans when
the political system accepted a multi-religious state, ‘in which Christian and Jewish subjects
would continue to be governed by their own laws.’
25. M. Fethullah Gülen, “A Voice of Love: Love” Available at www.fgulen.org/
articles/love.html 7 December 2002. Also in Gülen’s Toward the Lost Paradise, available
September 1 2003 at http://www.fethullahgulen.org/lostparadise/tlppg12.html.
26. Ibid., 207. Quoted in and translated from Nevval Sevindi, “Fethullah Gülen Ile
New York Sohbeti,” Yeni Yuzyil, August 1997.
27. Ali Ünal and Alphonse Williams, Advocate of Dialogue: Fethullah Gulen, (Fairfax:
The Fountain, 2000), 207.
28. Ibid., 244.
29. Ünal and Williams, op cit., 253.
30. Ibid.
31. Ibid.
32. For Gulen’s ideas on the ideal human, see Fethullah Gülen, Toward a Global
Civilization of Love and Tolerance. (New Jersey: Light, 2004), pp. 81–130.
33. Fethullah Gülen , “True Muslims Cannot Be Terrorists,” 95–100 in The Fountain,
op. cit., 100. originally an article in the Turkish Daily News, September 19 2001.
34. Fethullah Gülen, “Islam as a Religion of Universal Mercy,” 44–50 in The Fountain,
op. cit., 45.
35. Ibid.
36. M. Fethullah Gülen , “Our System of Education.” Available December 6 2002 at
www.fgulen.org/articles/our_education.html.
37. Thomas Michel, “Gülen as Educator and Religious Teacher,” 101–113 in The
Fountain, op. cit., 102. Originally from a paper presented at a symposium at Georgetown
University, April, 2001.
38. M. Hakan Yavuz, “Search for a New Social Contract in Turkey: Fethullah Gülen,
the Virtue Part and the Kurds.” SAIS Review 19 (1999), 114–143.
39. Aras and Caha, op. cit.

383
 T M W • V 95 • J 2005

40. My own observations of the operations of the movement suggest otherwise.

Although the wisdom and intelligence of individual women (mostly wives of movement
members) are highly respected, they are apparently not explicitly included in the decision-
making processes of the movement’s organization.
41. See my own report on an interfaith dialogue focused on Abraham as the founder
of the Jewish-Christian-Islamic tradition: Lester R. Kurtz, “Local Gods and Universal Faiths,”
155–160 in Sociology for a New Century, ed. By York W. Bradshaw, Joseph F. Healey, and
Rebecca Smith (Boston: Pine Forge Press, 2001).
42. Aras and Caha, op. cit.
43. Ibid.
44. Fethullah Gülen, Prophet Muhammad, 94; originally from al-Bukhari, Iman 24.
45. Surprisingly, however, despite the love of Gülen’s followers for modern science,
they have refuted the theory of evolution and may be in danger of repeating the Roman
Catholic Church’s mistake of staking a religious perspective’s reputation on the line in
refuting scientific theories that end up having widespread acceptance (such as the Catholic
Church’s condemnation of Galileo and evolution, both of which have been corrected in
recent decades).

384