Pope’s Resignation, Responsible Leadership and Gülen

Pope’s Resignation and Responsibility

Pope Benedict XVI’s decision to resign from his position came as a shock to the world. Standing down from the papacy has only happened six times in recorded history and this resignation in itself is a first in six hundred years.

The Pope is a religious authority representing the head of the Catholic Church according to Catholic doctrine. The Church maintains that the doctrine on faith and morals that it presents as definitive, remains infallible.  The Pope represents the Church as the infallible authority and now he has resigned.

I am sure Pope Benedict’s resignation has been a good example of responsible leadership, and will continue to be the topic of many discussions in many circles around the globe. 

For me personally, this incident has triggered some questions and some points of discussion which differ somewhat in their content, however, they are of no lesser importance to followers of the Hizmet Movement.  My research on the Hizmet movement and more specifically Gülen’s responsibility teachings, led me to pose the question: 

Can Fethullah Gülen Resign?

I am aware that many would not perceive this question to be relevant in many aspects to the Pope’s resignation, especially as it doesn’t expect readers to compare the two religious groups. However, it does have a very vital point in terms of exploring the definition of responsibility and its interpretation.

There is the clear distinction of course, Gülen is not appointed or instructed by anyone to carry out the work and activities that he is engaged in, therefore, he doesn’t really hold a position (or a title) from which it would be possible for him to resign.  There are those who may conclude the fact that being a social movement leader results in taking a position by default, however, this is in fact not accurate in terms of responsibilities.

Gülen has consistently and constantly thought deeply concerning human responsibilities throughout his lifetime of service.  He has always advocated that human beings are a responsible agent on Earth and that responsibility is not only defined by prescribed prayers but with the role of “Khilafa/ vicegerency” as well. This role of vicegerency (which simply means representing God on Earth according to Islamic teachings) suggests that every human being is sent as an agent of God to Earth. These agents are responsible to carry out their prescribed duties as well as responding to their social and environmental duties. God Himself will be a judge and He will ask every human being to give an account of his/her achievements (or failures) on their mission. This simple idea explains the nature of existence and purpose for Muslims and their responsibilities in this world and accountability in the Hereafter.

The mission is a lifetime test (imtihan) and nobody has the authority to finish the test earlier than the time which is prescribed for them.  So, as long as a human being is sane (not insane) and has freedom of choice, he or she remains in this test until they meet their death.  Death is the designated end of the test and it is forbidden for a Muslim to commit suicide and end his test with his will.

The result of vicegerency is that human beings are burdened with this trust (emanet) which they are supposed to carry throughout their lifetime.

Thus, Gülen doesn't have the option to halt his responsibilities and resign from his position. It is his test to continue advising and teaching people and responding to their requests all as a part of his ultimate responsibility towards God. He is responsible to use all his capacity (mental and physical) in order to fulfil his responsibilities.

He continues, with the additional responsibilities that come with being a leader (imam) of a community as well. This increases his responsibilities further.

Responsible Leadership and Gülen

Responsible leadership, according to the simplest of definitions, is about making decisions that, after taking in to consideration the interests of the shareholders, also takes into account all other stakeholders, such as workers, clients, suppliers, the environment, the community and the  generations yet to come[1].  This concept has a similar, and in fact, almost identical equivalent in Islam. If a person causes goodness to happen, then he becomes morally praiseworthy for that goodness; and similarly, if a person effects something negative to happen, he is morally responsible for his part. (A verse in the Quran[2] stresses this point in the fourth chapter and it is reaffirmed through the hadith which states, “the one who causes is like the one who makes it himself”). 

As a renowned figure, Gülen’s action or inaction can result in positive or negative repercussions for his followers – it is for this additional reason that he must take due consideration and ensure he is even more cautious and ultimately responsible with all his actions. Thus, a resignation or even a slowing down in Gülen’s account could cause stagnation within his followers and he would become responsible for that outcome. As a leader of his community, he can’t afford to cause such stagnation within the movement.

In my opinion, Gulen won’t be returning to Turkey for the same reason. If he was to return to his country at this point it would create a domino effect in the movement. Most of the teachers who migrated to different parts of the world for service would be affected by Gülen’s return. Their opinions on migration would inevitably affected by this.  Some may start thinking that migration (hijra) for service is temporary and not something which is required throughout one’s lifetime.  In the same manner, if Gülen was to continue his work and stay in the USA, or any other country for that matter, it will continue to create a positive emphasis on sustainable service around the world among his followers.

In conclusion, it seems that Gülen is burdened with vicegerency as well as the additional responsibilities as a requirement of his “responsible leadership” and therefore, in my opinion, he has no option but to continue to the best of his capabilities.  The only exception to this ‘forced’ continuation, however, is if Gulen believes that his existence or participation is becoming a burden on the service that is being carried out around the world.  If this was the case, then I believe Gulen  would consider taking retirement as his natural responsibility  (as he has already attempted to do on a number of occasions[3]).

---

[1] http://lexicon.ft.com/Term?term=responsible-leadership

[2] (An-Nisa 4: 85) “Whoever recommends and helps a good cause becomes a partner therein: And whoever recommends and helps an evil cause, shares in its burden”

[3] (Hisar Camii Vaazi, 24/03/1991, Izmir) There is very famous sermon on the internet where he decided to give up for similar reasons. If you want to look at it; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVVAIjaZEC4

TURKISH REVIVAL (?)

Recently I received an interesting email from someone who was interested in learning more about a topic related to my research area and found my email address from the University.

The question   posed to me was quite simple; the gentleman wanted to learn about the “Turkish revival”.  There are many people who believe that there is a Turkish revival (somewhere in Turkey) taking place right now and that it can be explained with relative ease.  If only it was so straightforward and simple to explain…and then, would anyone, least of all me, do justice to the so called ‘revival’?  There is no denying that Turkey is dynamic and growing - every second there is something ‘big’ happening that it is difficult to keep up with the pace of things.

So I needed some clarification, some specification and a slight narrowing down of the subject area to enable me to attempt a reasonably intelligent response.  The enquirer, clearly keen to learn about the religious movements in Turkey, specified he wanted to know more about the Hizmet Movement, Nur Movements, Nakshbendis and other Sufi groups and their workings as they had become increasingly more visible over the last decade.

As joyous as I was to have been contacted by a fellow seeker of knowledge, I remained unable to respond via an email to this request as the issue remained huge and complex. 

Having pondered over the email a few days later, I realised that though I was not able to provide a satisfactory answer in an email response, I could attempt to write (excerpts) from my thesis and elaborate on some of my thoughts occasionally.  In this way, I may be able to answer some of the gentleman’s query and additionally, I will be able to consolidate my own research and knowledge by reminding myself of how the Turkish Revival is unfolding each and every day.

In this series of articles I will begin by providing a brief historical background of Turkey with regards to religion and politics in particular.  I will try to explain the current political and religious situation and this may  shed some light on why the “revival” took place in quite a different manner (if it took place at all) in Turkey. May be it will provide some mesn of comparison to popular “Arab Spring”.

 I hope this journey of research, reading, writing and sharing will prove useful in some way...

All the best

Hizmet Movement and Transparency*

The transparency of the Hizmet or Gülen Movement has long been a theme of various critics – writers, intellectuals and politicians. In the context of Turkey where secularism is deployed as a means to control religion rather than to separate it from politics, it is not hard to understand why this theme has been so popular. Since Ataturk placed severest legal restrictions on religious institutions and important sites (like graveyards and religious centres), all religious groups were banned. In order to exist all, have been forced to give themselves a make-over. Some, such as the Mevlevis (Rumi), Bektashis and Alavis, were more successful than others about re-organizing themselves as charities and NGOs at securing the approval of the authorities. However, some other groups, which were not successful enough to establish their legitimate existence stayed at shades or fade away by time.

Hizmet emerged in this climate as a religiously inspired post-modern movement that was not formally defined or organized but nevertheless survived without conflict with the existing structures. After all, it was a group of people trying to engage in every aspect of life without compromising their religious commitments. The transparency question was continually raised but the Movement’s volunteers were able to answer for themselves and satisfy the authorities, even when the questioning took the form of an exhaustingly long judicial process.

Hizmet has never faced any form of judicial scrutiny outside of Turkey, be it on the basis of its transparency or otherwise or on any other matter. . This is mainly because the people in the Movement conducts all their activities according to the rules and regulations of the country concerned and is open to any kind of inspection. Nevertheless, anxieties remain about the transparency of the Movement in some circles. There are a number of reasons why these anxieties persist:

1) The difference in mind set. In the Western world, intensely competitive self-interest – required and driven by the way contemporary capitalist markets work – has eroded the values and traditions of service to others, in the family or in society at large. Concepts like altruism and sacrifice for the benefit of others are no longer considered “normal” and therefore viewed with suspicion. If there are people who are very active but not motivated by self-interest, if they are engaged in the “pursuit of happiness” but through altruism rather than hedonism, it is supposed that they must have a “secret” or “hidden” agenda which does fit the “norm” of selfish motivation. In other words, such people, it is supposed, are not being “transparent”. The modern “norm” is a paradigm that does not, perhaps cannot, recognize that serving others is a way, aside from its usefulness to community, to find contentment and peace. For the Hizmet volunteers, the norm is derived from a different paradigm: for them, effort in this life is a means of winning success in the afterlife. They see this world as a place where seeds are planted, whose fruits they will harvest in the world to come. This difference in paradigm is a major obstacle to understanding Hizmet and the commitment of its volunteers.

2) An unstructured movement: Unlike civil society organizations in the Western world, Hizmet is a grassroots movement, not a formally structured, centrally-run organization. In Western societies, a great deal of energy is committed to preparing and planning – this can be a long, complicated process involving the marshalling of all the necessary means and resources before the plan can be executed. As a result of that process, these societies, albeit very efficient when they act, are sometimes slow to move in response to the needs that are there. The approach of the Hizmet volunteers is different. They proceed from a strong belief that God will help and sustain their effort and bring it to fruition in the future. Thus they do not prepare and plan but not begin until all the means and resources are in place. Rather, they have their inspirational sources, their ideas and good will, and they make a start with whatever means they have to hand in whatever situation they find themselves. They say: “Our duty is to strive and it is God who wills and guides the outcomes from our striving.” The absence of a central planning body which tells the volunteers what to do is another reason why the success and dynamism of the Hizmet movement puzzles observers who cannot understand how diverse people working autonomously in diverse locations can achieve outcomes that are coherent and mutually supportive.

3) Being for and not against: The Hizmet volunteers share a new perspective, first clearly formulated in modern times by Said Nursi, namely that it is essential to be positively in favour of doing good, of making a constructive contribution to society, rather than seeking to criticize what is wrong or to fight against others or against the whole “system”. Nursi taught that it is more important to support and take part in constructive activities rather than negative, destructive activities. Those who criticize may well be right in their judgement but it does not follow that they also have the will or the power to establish something good to put in the place of what they are criticizing. Thus every positive contribution is valuable, however small it may seem to the individual making it, and if this attitude is sustained over time, it comes to be shared by others, and the small contributions then add up.

4) Being out of sight: Given the power to publicize things that new communications technologies have made available, it is common for volunteers and their organizations to put out as much publicity as they can, to make bold “mission statements” and announce and promote themselves. In the Hizmet movement, the emphasis is on people fulfilling their responsibilities towards God by actively serving the community. Accordingly, they pay less attention to public relations and more to the particular service they have engaged to provide. This means that the Hizmet volunteers do not seek the limelight for themselves, individually or as a group. They do not have a general “mission” or a general “image”, as so many organizations do and which they actively promote. Rather, the Hizmet volunteers have a particular service that they are trying to provide to the highest standard within their capacities. If they want attention at all, it is for that service, not for themselves. Given the widespread culture of competing for attention or celebrity, the fact that Hizmet volunteers stay out of sight is another factor prompting anxieties about “transparency”.

Those are the four main reasons why critics of the Hizmet movement are (or claim to be) so concerned about its transparency. And yet the solution to their anxiety is simple. The Movement is, and has always been, very open to any kind of dialogue with and questioning by others. Nobody can claim to have a problem of transparency when the Movement is itself keen that others find out about it and, if they want to and only to the extent that they want to, contribute to its culture of service. That, after all, is precisely how Hizmet has grown. 

*This article has also published in: 

http://www.athought.info/2011/08/gulen-movement-and-transparency

http://www.gulenmovement.us/gulen-movement-and-transparency.html

Peace Talks and Gulen's Statement

 Peace is beneficial (khair), Benefit (khair) is with peace (“Sulh hayirdir, hayir sulhtadir...”)

The Turkish government has reinitiated peace talks (or cease fire negotiations) with the terrorist organization[1] PKK, and it has become the number one topic of public discussions in Turkey.  A recent video clip[2] shows Fethullah Gülen joining the conversation and sharing his opinions about the latest peace talks.

Terrorism has been a big problem for Turkey and the PKK has been on the scene for the last 30 years causing nearly 37.000 casualties including PKK militants, Turkish armed forces and civilians[3].  The Turkish state has spent billions of dollars to tackle this issue, however, terrorism remains, in general (and PKK in particular) as one of the biggest problems facing Turkey.

Gülen and Peace Talks

Gülen and his statements regarding the peace initiative have faced a barrage of comments. It appears that the media have received Gulen’s statements as a supporting position for the government initiative concerning the peace talks between them and the PKK[4] which at first sight appears to be the case in general terms. But what exactly is Gülen saying in his message? I will try to explore a few of the details within the statement that I believe it is important to highlight.

Gülen quite simply claims that peace is beneficial and essential for all parties. He suggests any attempt to achieve peace at any level (“whether in families, communities, in cities, at a national and global level”) is good no matter how hard it is. Apart from this intrinsic value of peace (sulh), it seems that it is particularly important for Gülen to achieve a peaceful solution for the matter at hand. Although one would expect Gülen to be in favour of peace as a renowned peace activist[5] , this statement from him supporting the current peace talks is rather an important one which has particular political value for the Government.

The Turkish population is quite divided on this matter because of the sensitivity of the issue. Nationalists claim that to even negotiate with terrorists demonstrates a weakness on the part of the Government. Gülen recognizes and acknowledges this concern and asks for a peace which would undermine “national pride”. There are intellectuals who question his position as they do not understand “how it is going to be possible to achieve peace without compromising national pride?” They  believe that it is impossible. Gülen places careful  emphasis on the matter , accepting their concern but then claiming that parties (of negotiaters) should take some risk for the sake of solution.

I think the most vital point in his statement is the example he provided to support his point.  Gülen gives the example of the Hudaybiyyah[6]  agreement where the Prophet (pbuh) agreed to sign a peace treaty with the Meccans although the conditions were degrading. Gülen reminds us how the Prophet (pbuh) preferred peace over conflict (even when the terms were unacceptable or unfavourable for him) and highlights that this was andremains the way for us to follow. The example suggests that “these peace talks can be concluded with a sustainable peace” in the country. The Hudabiyyah example also implies that the treaty may appear as a loss for the Turkish state right now, but in the mid-term and long term the peace will in fact be a “real victory”.

He implies to his listeners (and the wider audience) that peace might seem costly but it should be achieved for the greater good. According to Gülen, the Prophet (pbuh) agreed to more severe terms in order to achieve peace and was proven right and victorious at the end of the process.

In my opinion, Gülen provides not only moral (religious) support for the peace talks but also prepares people to be ready to compromise for peace to be attained. He reminds us that compromising one’s personal pride can be necessary (and even more virtuous) when it is a matter of achieving peace (sulh).  

With the Hudaibiyah analogy, Gülen gives us a timely reminder that peace is achievable when our approach is right so let us hope a solution can be reached and the problem is not bigger than it may at first appear.

---

[1] it has been accepted as a “terrorist organization” by US and EU

[2] http://herkul.org/index.php/herkul-nagme/10149-195-nagme-sulh-hayirdir

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pkk

[4] http://www.todayszaman.com/news-303402-islamic-scholar-gulen-backs-peace-talks-between-government-and-pkk.html

[5] http://www.dialoguesociety.org/notices/321-fethullah-guelen-awarded-honorary-doctorate-by-leeds-metropolitan-university.html

[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Hudaybiyyah