Gülen warns against adventurism, using force against Kurds

Turkish Islamic scholar Fethullah Gülen. (Photo: Today's Zaman)

Turkish Islamic scholar Fethullah Gülen has warned against adventurism as well as using force to respond to demonstrations that have turned violent since reports that the terrorist Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) has captured the strategic city of Kobani (or Ayn-al Arab) over the weekend.

The problems should be addressed without spilling blood or sparking hate, Gülen urged, warning against the use of force.

“The guns we often resort to in today's world perpetuate hate, strengthen and churn up vengeful feelings and animosity and inflame the fire further,” he said, recalling that the Kurdish problem has been exacerbated in the last 40 years because of the application of force to find a solution to the problem.

Interior Minister Efkan Ala used threatening language towards protesters in a statement to reporters late on Tuesday. Calling on all protesters to go home, Ala said: “The violence will be returned in double. [...] Otherwise, results that cannot be predicted might occur.”

Ala's threat of violence against demonstrators has been criticized on the grounds that the state can only use force when necessary and justified, and only in a measured response.

Islamic scholar Gülen said the Turkish government could have approached the matter from a different perspective by using education and the economic and social policies that the people in the region have been waiting for.

“Why have you not tried to win their hearts?” he asked, lamenting the lack of rights given to Kurds by the state.

Gülen also noted that the Quran's principles dictate that Muslims approach their problems with a peace-oriented attitude and soft-spoken language rather than through harsh words.

“If the resolution of a problem is possible with a peace, then you should not be adopting harsh behavior,” he said.

Gülen has been known for his advocacy of expansive Kurdish rights, including education in their mother tongue, and has criticized successive governments for using a heavy-handed approach, including military force, when suppressing Kurdish demands.

He has urged his followers to establish modern schools in Turkey's predominantly Kurdish regions in the southeast, despite the threat of the terrorist Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK).  

Gülen also repeated his earlier warning about the dire consequences that may result from Turkey's unilateral involvement in a mission in Syria or Iraq that goes against the mission of the international community.

The Turkish authorities should avoid any action that might cause the Turkish people to experience sorrows similar to those of World War I, he had earlier said.  

Gülen emphasized that all of the Islamic Prophet's wars were defensive in nature, saying that Muslims cannot wage war unless they have been attacked directly or if there is a real possibility of imminent attack.

He reiterated that the Turkish government should not engage in adventurism that might lead to unknown conclusions.  

In a speech published on Oct. 4 on herkul.org, a website that publishes his speeches, Gülen said those who are working to turn Turkey into an intelligence state -- in a clear reference to the government of the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) -- should not be overcome by aspirations to make Turkey enter a war “here and there.”

Mr. Gulen was referring to President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's insistence that the mission include the toppling of the Bashar al-Assad regime.  

“My wish from God is that they [government officials] do not enter a war here and there and make the people [of Turkey] experience a new World War I, as the Committee of Union and Progress [(CUP), which has been accused of dragging the Ottoman Empire into World War I] after they [the committee] were overcome by their aspirations and made the Devlet-i Aliye [the Ottoman Empire] the victim of an adventure,” Gülen said.  

Gülen's speech came at a time when Parliament had voted to grant the government unlimited powers to send troops abroad for one year and to allow foreign forces to use Turkish territory for possible military operations against ISIL. The motion led to serious concerns that Turkey may become involved in the military campaign against ISIL in Syria and Iraq.  

Gülen has clearly supported international actions against ISIL, which is also known as ISIS. In his recent message published in US newspapers, he said, “ISIS actions represent those of a terrorist group and they should be brought to justice and compelled to answer for their horrific crimes.” He also said that it is incumbent upon all of us to join hands to counter and defeat, through legitimate means, any extreme ideology or violent radicalism.  

Based on his message from yesterday, while he still very much supports international and Turkish action against the ISIL threat, he is against the idea of the Turkish government unilaterally focusing on toppling the Assad regime, as that would be against the international community's core mission and will put Turkish people in harm's way.

SOURCE: http://www.todayszaman.com/national_gulen-warns-against-adventurism-using-force-against-kurds_361056.html#

Fethullah Gulen's Interview with Asharq Al-Awsat [PART 2]

Fethullah Gülen: “Disbelief may prevail, but
tyranny will not”

In the second part of this interview with Asharq Al-Awsat, the Turkish Islamic scholar discusses the Arab uprisings, the Sunni–Shi’ite sectarian tensions in the region, radicalism, and conservative Islam

Islamic preacher Fethullah Gulen is pictured at his residence in Saylorsburg, Pennsylvania September 24, 2013. (Reuters/Selahattin Sevi)

London, Asharq Al-Awsat—The Arab uprisings, which were long in the making but caught everyone by surprise, are now in their fourth year. It remains as difficult today as it was four years ago to reach conclusions about developments that have brought both hope and despair to a region in crisis. For those most sceptical of the turmoil unleashed by the toppling of a series of dictators, the revolutions that have rocked the Arab world are still at risk of being hijacked by conservative Islamic forces.

While there are moderate reasons for optimism, for example in the case of Tunisia where it all started, the war in Syria has become a human tragedy of huge proportions. The spillover of the conflict into neighboring Lebanon and Iraq, the wave of refugees, and the involvement of various regional actors are threatening to plunge the whole region into chaos. Bashar Al-Assad’s determination to hold on to power has turned Syria into the main stage of Sunni–Shi’ite sectarian tensions today, and a golden opportunity for jihadists and would-be jihadists around the world. Amid increasing radicalization, the region’s diversity is in danger and minority groups and women fear as never before about the future.

Fethullah Gülen, who has spent most of his life thinking, teaching and writing about the place of Islam in the modern world, shares his thoughts on all these matters in this second part of his interview with Asharq Al-Awsat.

Asharq Al-Awsat: Did the Arab uprisings come as a surprise to you?

Fethullah Gülen: I can say I was partially surprised. As far as I know, there are many experts specializing in the region and many authors who have written about international politics and strategy, but none of them predicted such large-scale turmoil. The people in the region are seeking to obtain democratic rights and promote the rule of law and, except for the use of violence, this should be perceived as a revolution. The existing situation in these countries and the ongoing victimization and suffering of people in the region are heart-rending, and any quick solution to this problem does not seem likely. “Disbelief may prevail, but tyranny will not” is a famous saying. Individually, there is unfortunately nothing much we can do for each other save praying to God for help.

When the incidents first broke out, I asked, ‘Is it an Arab spring or an Arab fall?’ I did so based on my instincts. Unfortunately, this is the quality of the manpower we have. It is easier to destroy than to build. It requires ten times more energy to put in place a new regime acceptable to the entire society than it does to overthrow the existing one. Unfortunately, our society still lacks the ability to do this. Also, we know from history that social fluctuations may develop in extremes. What matters are the internal dynamics within these fluctuations. What governs these fluctuations? What is circulating in the capillaries? If this is not calculated, these fluctuations may develop in any direction. Reliance solely on collective enthusiasm or collective action will not on its own breed authentic and accurate results.

At that time, I had said that “we should look at the groundswell.” Otherwise, the resulting damage could eclipse our expectations. As I was observing these incidents as an outsider, I never thought big changes would come up in a short time. We were witnessing big fluctuations, a big transformation. But it was obvious it would not make any difference in the short term. The past is rife with ordeals and troubles for Arab societies. They will patiently make cool-headed assessments that have long-term consequences, but this process should not be undermined with internal or external anti-democratic interventions.

Their quest for freedoms will naturally be remembered as the greatest achievement of our time. Yet history tells us that truly radical changes or attempted changes may lead to far greater damage or destruction than expected, and it takes time before societies settle down. As [Sunni scholar] Bediüzzaman Said Nursi aptly noted, we should combat the arch-enemies of theUmma (the Islamic community)—namely ignorance, poverty and disunity—with reasonable middle- and long-term projects for promoting education, science, art, trade, democracy, human rights, women’s empowerment, tolerance and dialogue. Any quest for democracy may fail if it does not stand on a firm foundation. The Hizmet Movement has long been trying to do this with schools, universities, business associations, charitable foundations, dialogue institutions and media outlets that employ constructive language for facilitating mutual understanding, negotiations and dialogue. It is our hope that these projects, backed by diverse segments of society, will help people establish societies where everyone lives happily, peacefully and prosperously. To this end, we pray to God both verbally and through our actions. Arab and Muslim societies do not have to wait for the introduction of full-fledged democratic governance before focusing on social projects.

Q: What is your assessment of the conflict in Syria? Is there anything else that could be done to stop this tragedy?

Unfortunately, the entire country has found itself in a deadlock. Developments have since shown that the late martyr Sayyid Ramadan Al-Bouti was right in his assessments of the situation. He represented the Sunni moderation (tamkin) model which, briefly put, says that the worst government is better than no government, anarchy or chaos, and that there is a risk of civil war when we try to overthrow a bad government under unfavorable conditions. Apparently, he knew that there was an asymmetrical balance between the two sides and that the army was under total control of the country’s ruling elites, who have been in power for the last 40 years, and that the army would not side with the majority. Bouti drew attention to the serious risks ahead in light of all this. If this crisis had not erupted, it would have been possible for Syria to slowly and peacefully evolve into a more prosperous and democratic country in the medium and long term, with the help of its serious commercial, political and social relations with Turkey. Perhaps the most tragic part of the crisis was the elimination of this possibility. At this stage, what should be done in the short term is to find political solutions that will stop the ongoing bloodshed, which would come as a partial relief to millions of innocent people who are affected by all that is happening. To this end, the international community must exert concerted efforts for a diplomatic solution.

Q: What are your comments on the Sunni–Shi’ite tensions in the Middle East?

People should not be discriminated against based on their Sunni or Shi’ite identities. Whatever their religion, belief or sect, individuals should be primarily seen as human beings. As human beings, people are entitled to fundamental human rights, and as citizens, they enjoy certain democratic rights. Moreover, religions or sects are not like modern political ideologies. The Sunni world should not have any problem with Shi’ite groups who nurture a love for our beloved Ahl Al-Bayt (the Prophet and his descendants). The principles of our religion do not allow any country to use oppression and abuse on the basis of sectarian differences in an effort to emerge as a regional power.

Throughout history, there have been efforts, generally led by Shi’ite leaders, to approximate Islamic schools of thought (Taqrib Al-Madhahib). Unfortunately, those Shi’ite leaders have tended to employ these approximation efforts for their expansionist purposes. Even Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, who was initially warm to the idea, has been complaining about the attitude of these Shi’ite scholars in the last few years. Actually, while the problem appears to be the Sunni–Shi’ite tensions, the real problem is about political aims such as establishing hegemony and the expansion of influence and acquisition of regional power. Religions and sects are being used as means for attaining these goals. Certain politicians and states turn religion into a political ideology and restrict religion with their own narrow and repressive political mentalities. Likewise, there are attempts to turn Sunni or Shi’ite identities into stepping-stones for ideologies. No one can deny that today’s Iran is pursuing a sort of Persian nationalism disguised as Shi’ism. Of course, countries may nurture their specific national interests and try to protect them through legitimate means in the international arena. Leveraging and fomenting religious, sectarian or ethnic tension is not one of these legitimate means. All international organizations should combat this error.

If there are things which we believe to be wrong according to our point of view, there is nothing we can do other than to explain this to people in a civilized manner. Indeed, there is no compulsion in the religion. Unfortunately, certain people and groups have emerged who are making a misguided interpretation of the Sunni school and promoting violence and terror in the name of Sunnis. These groups are assuming destructive roles, causing the most damage to Islam itself. The Muslim world needs concord and alliance and peaceful settlement of political issues more than ever. It is essential for the Umma to dispense with such destructive attitudes and occurrences.

Q: Why are many young Sunni Arabs so prone to radical interpretations of Islam?

With every religion, we see there are groups who diverge away from the mainstream and adopt radical interpretations. It is hard to say that followers of a specific school, Sunni or Shi’ite, are more prone to such divergences. I think this problem stems largely from our shortcomings in understanding and adopting the true substance and identity of religion.

Treating religion as a political ideology is the greatest betrayal against religion, as it amounts to reducing Islam to a simple or lowly set of principles and caricaturing it. The role of the centuries-long colonialism in this should be noted. Indeed, the tendency to reduce religion to politics and to resort to violence is more prevalent in countries which were colonized in the past. To our dismay, the violence by these radical groups is sometimes given wider coverage in the media when compared to the vast majority of Muslims, who do not approve of them. Sometimes, ill-intentioned efforts are made to bring such radical groups to the fore and discredit the public image of Islam.

Islam is open to different interpretations, but this openness is for ensuring this religion’s inclusiveness and universality. This is actually a safety system against attempts to ascribe Islam to a single geography or mentality. Nevertheless, interpretations of Islam must not contradict its essence. Throughout history, many patriarchal, political, nationalist or statist interpretations of Islam were marketed or promoted as the true form of Islam. If with radical interpretations of Islam you mean violence, Muslims—Sunni or Shi’ite—who see violence or coercion as a means of conveying Islam’s message to the masses (tabligh) are not novel; there were always such Muslims. That some groups which have been brought to the agenda in recent years and which seek to politicize Islam are from the Sunni camp does not change this historic fact. Moreover, the media tends to focus on such people and groups at the exclusion of the 99 percent of Muslims, who do not approve of such extremist groups, and by doing so [the media] distorts the overall picture.

Since the extremist interpretations of the movement casting Islam as an ideology is warm to the idea of taking over the state and redesigning the society in a top-down and authoritarian manner and that the Shi’ite Iranian state has been officially and effectively wielding such a form of governance since 1979, the Sunni proponents of such an approach may be plus royaliste que le roi even if they are Sunni. In a sense, they find the embodiment of their ideals in the Shi’ite Iranian revolution. They take this revolution as a model. Such extremist pursuits may develop anywhere, but are mostly likely to emerge at times of colonization and occupation.

If they do not entirely sever their ties with the mainstream, I believe that such extremist groups may fizzle [out] over time. The potential of religions for individual and moral transformation is always more influential and permanent than their political or repressive implementations. When Islam’s capacity for producing dynamics for social change is not fully utilized, such movements may drift toward a more political or extremist position.

The Hizmet movement is not an alternative to a top-down model of societal transformation. The Hizmet movement does not seek to transform society. Rather, it aims to serve society and individuals. We are not seeking to serve individuals to effect political change in society overall. We harbor no such intention. In our work, transformation starts and ends with the individual through education, relief support and other charitable projects such as dialogue. If we can raise good human beings, good citizens and altruistic individuals, this may lead to a more peaceful and prosperous social life. Yet our work is not even about achieving this outcome but about serving society and helping individuals regardless of the larger social impact which may or may not ensue as a byproduct. By analogy, our community is trying to build gardens and orchards where the best and top quality fruits are grown. People may take these fruits and prepare any dish or dessert with them on a table.

Q: The Arab uprisings paved the way for conservative interpretations of Islam, as well as radicalism. How do you think this will affect the position of women in the region?

I should note that the events in Tunisia, Egypt and Syria initially constituted a search for democracy and fundamental human rights and freedoms. The groups which later stole the show and some of the ensuing incidents overshadowed the initial demands.

As a side note, “conservatism” shouldn’t be confused with “fanaticism.” Like any other religion, Islam has certain basic tenets and disciplines that should be conserved and safeguarded. In determining what should be preserved, however, an integrated approach should be adopted and the interpretation of the Qur’an to address the challenges of the time should be taken into consideration.

Previously, I had emphasized that in a Muslim society, women should be free to assume roles in social life, even as judges and prime ministers or presidents. Restricting women’s right to education and isolating them from social life deals a great blow to the society’s sound functioning. To substantiate my argument, I had noted that in the ‘Age of Happiness’ (Asr Al-Sa’adah) there were women Companions (Sahaba) who taught male Companions on religious matters or who would do business as well as those who would be taken as reference regarding certain matters about Islamic jurisprudence.

Patriarchal misinterpretations of Islamic sources do not portray women in this way. Unfortunately, our patriarchal cultures have significantly eroded the fair and egalitarian status given to women by Islam through the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, and women have ended up as second-class individuals. Despite the great female models such as Khadijah, who was a businesswoman and business owner, and Aisha, who taught certain religious matters to male Companions, we, as the Muslims of our time, force women to stay at home and task them with raising children. Yet, although this task is of paramount importance, women do not enjoy respect in Muslim families or societies. They lag behind men in terms of education and cultural achievements. Slavery has disappeared, and, today, no one argues that it should be reintroduced on the basis of the debates about slavery in classical Islamic jurisprudence. Why don’t we employ the same progressive approach to the status of women, without contradicting the essence and basic tenets of Islam?

The way to avoid these extreme interpretations is to take the time of the Prophet and the three generations who followed him as the basis of our reinterpretation today; to get rid of our patriarchal cultures; provide better education for women; improve their socioeconomic status and empower women so that they can defend their rights.

Q: How do you think the rise and sudden fall of the Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt will impact the future of political Islam in the region?

Egypt is not only one of the leading centers of Islamic knowledge, but also has established political and administrative experiences. It is essential that anyone who aspires to govern the country respects democratic values and the rule of law as Egypt is a country with diverse religions, sects and cultures. Respect for the sensitivities of every social segment, lack of oppression against any group, and responding to their demands are crucial for peace and happiness in the country.

It is no easy task to criticize a democratically elected party which was overthrown by the army. It would be best if the errors of such a party, if any, were assessed and penalized by the electorate. It is anti-democratic to promote coups against the popular will. The Muslim Brotherhood came to power in an extremely fragile atmosphere and they lacked sufficient experience and background. Perhaps, they were caught unprepared. In the final analysis, the Muslim Brotherhood is a movement indigenous to Egypt and it will reassess the whole experience and draw lessons from it.

Q: You are a prolific writer and author. If you had to name one of your books as the most emblematic one, which would it be?

I never thought my words and writings were of any importance. But people appear to have responded positively to them. All my life, I have tried to translate this positive attitude into greater understanding and love for God, the Prophet and the saints. As I have tried to read, study and understand people with true literary and spiritual capabilities, I call on other people to do the same. Our past is rife with people of great stature, such as Imam Ghazali, Mawlana Jalal Al-Din Al-Rumi, Yunus Emre, Mehmet Akif and Bediüzzaman Said Nursi. Their work and words are magna opera.

Click here to read the first part of the interview. 

SOURCE: http://www.aawsat.net/2014/03/article55330430

FINANCIAL TIMES Op-Ed by Fethullah Gulen: Turkey needs a new constitution to save its democracy

Turkey needs a new constitution to save its democracy

By Fethullah Gulen

Financial Times – March 10, 2014

A small group in the executive is holding the country to ransom, says Fethullah Gulen

Trust and stability are fundamental to a nation’s development and to how the world perceives it. There is inherent trust in a democratic and accountable government that respects the rule of law. Turkey painstakingly built this trust over the past decade. Until recently it was seen as an example of a country that prospered while maintaining a democratic government run by observant Muslim leaders.

No longer. A small group within the government’s executive branch is holding to ransom the entire country’s progress. The support of a broad segment of the Turkish public is now being squandered, along with the opportunity to join the EU.

Several recent actions of the Turkish government have drawn strong criticism from the EU and other western countries – among them, a law that gives the justice minister powers to appoint and discipline judges and prosecutors; a bill to curb internet freedoms; and a draft law that would give Turkey’s intelligence agency powers akin to those claimed by dictatorial regimes.

After decades of coups and political dysfunction, the ruling AK party’s attempt to end military interference in domestic politics was necessary. Democratic reforms towards that end were praised by the EU and supported by a majority of Turks, as evidenced in the 2010 constitutional referendum.

But the dominance in politics that was once enjoyed by the military now appears to have been replaced by a hegemony of the executive. A dark shadow has been cast over achievements of the past decade – the result of insidious profiling of certain groups of Turkish citizens for their views, constant shuffling of civil servants for political convenience, and an unprecedented subjugation of the media, the judiciary and civil society.

The only way for the Turkish government to restore trust at home and regain respect abroad is by renewing its commitment to universal human rights, the rule of law and accountable governance.

This commitment must include a new, democratic constitution, drafted by civilians. Democracy does not conflict with Islamic principles of governance. Indeed, the ethical goals of Islam, such as protection of life and religious freedom, are best served in a democracy where citizens participate in government.

We also need to embrace certain values that form the fabric of a thriving nation. One such value is respect for diversity of all kinds – religious, cultural, social and political. This does not mean compromising on our beliefs. On the contrary, accepting every person – regardless of colour or creed – as a dignified creature of God demonstrates respect for the free will God has given all human beings.

The reductionist view of seeking political power in the name of a religion contradicts the spirit of Islam

Freedom of thought and expression are indispensable ingredients of democracy. Turkey’s poor showing in rankings of transparency and media freedom is disappointing. Mature people welcome criticism – which, if true, helps us improve. But we should criticise misguided ideas and actions, rather than individuals, to avoid creating unnecessary tensions.

The reductionist view of seeking political power in the name of a religion contradicts the spirit of Islam. When religion and politics are mixed, both suffer – religion most of all. Every segment of Turkish society has a right to be represented in government. But the Turkish state has long discriminated against citizens and public servants on the basis of their views. Democratic inclusion will encourage people to disclose personal beliefs without fear of persecution.

Since the 1970s, participants in the Hizmet movement, who come from all walks of life, have worked to provide equal opportunity for all, through educational institutions, relief organisations and other civil society projects. Their primary motivations are intrinsic, as they seek to find happiness in the happiness of others.

Hizmet participants – and I consider myself one of them – are not political players and have no interest in the privileges of power. This is evident from their personal and financial commitment to humanitarian aid, education and dialogue, as well as their purposeful absence from political office.

Apart from encouraging citizens to vote, I have never endorsed or opposed a political party or candidate, and will refrain from doing so in future. I trust the wisdom of Turkish people and believe they will preserve democracy and hold the interests of the nation above partisan political concerns.

I have spent the past 15 years in spiritual retreat and, irrespective of what happens in Turkey, I intend to continue to do so. I pray that Turkey sees its current troubles as an opportunity to advance democracy, freedom and the rule of law. And I believe that by renewing our commitment to fundamental democratic principles, we can re-establish trust and stability and revive the Turkish example that had become an inspiration for the region and the world


The writer is a Muslim scholar and honorary chairman of the Journalists and Writers Foundation in Istanbul

Source: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/31966a74-a623-11e3-8a2a-00144feab7de.html#axzz3EQq00Rti

Remarks by USCIRF Chair Katrina Lantos Swett

Below are the remarks as prepared by USCIRF Chair Katrina Lantos Swett for her luncheon talk at the Rumi Forum.

Details of the luncheon are here and the video here.

Remarks by USCIRF Chair Katrina Lantos Swett

Rumi Forum Luncheon Speaker Series

Washington, D.C.

Wednesday, February 13, 2013

Introduction
Thank you for that kind introduction.

I want to thank you for inviting me to be your luncheon speaker here at the Rumi Forum.
And I especially want to thank Emre Celik, President of the Forum, for graciously agreeing to be the moderator of today’s event.

For more than a decade, the Rumi Forum has been the kind of vehicle we need, where people from various backgrounds and beliefs can come together in one place -- and learn from each other.
To learn implies listening -- and to listen implies respect and toleration.

I am grateful indeed that the Rumi Forum is about respect for our fellow human beings and toleration of their right to express their views openly and candidly and to see those views discussed and debated in a civil, fair-minded, and illuminating way.

Today, with our world growing ever smaller, more people than ever before are being confronted by the full range of thought and opinion which characterizes the human family.

For the first time in history, hundreds of millions if not billions of people are being exposed to beliefs and attitudes that differ profoundly from those they have known since their birth.

In this new world, respect and toleration are not optional, but absolutely necessary. The alternative is more conflict and strife, more violence and war, more destruction and despair.

This does not mean that every person must respect the content of everyone else’s opinion. That, of course, would be impossible. What it does mean is that every person must respect the other person’s right to have an opinion and to voice that opinion. And what it also means is that even when another person’s opinion contradicts everything we believe, we must do all we can to respect the person who is voicing the opinion and to treat that person with dignity and civility.

In other words, if we want a more peaceful, prosperous, and stable world, we must stand for freedom. Freedom of thought and conscience, freedom of religion or belief, and freedom of association and assembly must be honored and upheld. To suppress freedom in the name of stability is to create precisely the conditions that make stability impossible.

Today I’m going to focus on freedom of religion. I will discuss why it matters, how it’s in jeopardy, the challenge it faces from violent religious extremism, and the need to counter extremism and advance liberty.

During the time that I have, I’m going to use my recent trips to Egypt and Saudi Arabia to highlight my main points.

So with this in mind, let’s begin.
Today, there are three inescapable facts that that serve as a starting point for any discussion about religious freedom.

First, across the globe, religion matters.
From worship to prayer, births to funerals, weddings to holy days, almsgiving to thanksgiving, for billions of people, religion remains an inescapable source of identity, meaning, and purpose.
Second, because religion matters to so many, so does religious freedom.

Simply stated, people want the freedom to practice or not practice any religion according to the dictates of conscience.

Third, in all too many countries, the very freedom that people want is being denied.

According to a Pew Research study released last August, 75 percent of the world’s population -- over 5 billion human beings -- lives in countries with very high restrictions on religion. These restrictions can range from onerous rules and regulations to imprisonment, torture, and even murder.
Abuses of religious freedom must never go unchallenged.

This is not just the opinion of the United States or a reflection of our First Amendment.
It’s a fundamental premise of international human rights law.

In 1948, the world community created and adopted the landmark Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including Article 18, which states the following about freedom of religion or belief:
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Since 1966, the governments of 167 countries have signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a binding treaty with protections similar to Article 18.

Nations around the world also affirmed the 1981 Declaration on Religious Intolerance, and other regional bodies, such as the OSCE, the Council of Europe, and the Organization of American States also affirm religious freedom as a fundamental liberty.

As an independent, bipartisan, U.S. federal government commission, USCIRF is firmly committed to the human rights standards found in these documents.

Clearly, religious freedom is a pivotal human right that must be defended.

Three Kinds of Religious Freedom Violations
As a key part of its mandate, USCIRF monitors religious freedom worldwide and makes policy recommendations to the President, the Secretary of State, and Congress.

Based on our monitoring of religious freedom conditions, we have found there are at least three kinds of violations engaged in or allowed by nations and their governments.

First, there is state hostility toward religion, religious communities, and religious leadership.
Second, there is state sponsorship of violent extremist religious ideology and education.
And third, there is state failure to prevent and punish religious freedom violations.

State hostility involves the government actively persecuting people or groups on account of their beliefs.

State sponsorship refers to the government actively promoting -- including exporting -- religious ideas and propaganda, often of a violent, extremist nature, that include calls to violate the religious freedom of others.

And state failure means that the government is neglecting to take action to protect people whom others are targeting due to their beliefs, creating a climate of impunity in which religious dissenters are threatened, intimidated, or even murdered.

When it comes to state hostility toward religions, one of the worst persecutors is the theocratic government of Iran.

Regarding state sponsorship of radical ideology which targets the religious freedom of others, Saudi Arabia’s autocratic monarchy continues to export its own extremist interpretation of Sunni Islam through textbooks and other literature which teach hatred and even violence toward other religious groups. [Add comments about Saudi trip, particularly relating to state sponsorship]

Extremist references that devalue “the other” are also found in educational materials and textbooks in Iran and Pakistan.

Regarding state failure to protect religious freedom, the actions of the government of Egypt exemplify those of nations which do not protect their citizens against religiously-related violence.

In Egypt, since the fall of Hosni Mubarak, the government has continued to tolerate widespread abuses against religious minorities, including Coptic Orthodox and other Christians, as well as Baha’is, Shi’a Muslims, and dissident Sunni Muslims.

It has failed to take adequate steps to bring the perpetrators of violence to justice or to respond to virulent anti-Semitism in state-controlled media. [Add comments about recent Egypt trip.]



Religious Freedom vs. Violent Religious Extremism
In viewing these three types of violations, we see a strong correlation between the lack of religious freedom and a lack of social stability and harmony.

Indeed, a number of studies show that while countries that honor and protect religious freedom are more peaceful, stable and prosperous than those that do not, nations that trample on this freedom provide fertile ground for poverty and insecurity, war and terror, and violent radical movements and activities.

Evidence for this can be seen in the trail of nations hosting Osama bin Laden in the years and decades before the 9/11 attacks. All of these countries – Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Pakistan – had either perpetrated or tolerated world-class violations of religious freedom. Indeed, bin Laden was educated in one of them -- Saudi Arabia.

Last December, we saw further evidence in the release by the Institute for Economics and Peace, based in Sydney, Australia, of its Global Terrorism Index which ranked nations based on the number of terrorist attacks committed between 2002 and last year.

Seven of the top ten nations are either on our Commission’s Watch List of serious religious freedom violators or among our recommendations to the State Department for CPC status, marking them, in our judgment, as the world’s worst religious freedom abusers. These seven countries are Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, Somalia, Nigeria, and Russia.

This leads us to a question: Why is there a correlation between lack of religious freedom and the presence of social disharmony, including violent religious extremism?

There are at least three plausible answers.

First, governments that actively persecute people or fail to protect them against persecution can unwittingly drive these people into the hands of violent religious extremist groups opposing the government.

Second, governments that enforce laws which violate religious freedom, such as blasphemy laws, unwittingly encourage individuals to aggressively monitor members of disfavored religious groups for signs of trespass, and to take violent action against perceived transgressors.

And finally, governments that restrict the religious freedoms of all of their citizens in the name of fighting violent religious extremist groups unwittingly end up strengthening these same groups by weakening their more moderate but less resilient competition. A key example is that of Egypt, which under the rule of President Mubarak ended up strengthening the Salafists while weakening their less radical opponents, from moderate Muslims to liberal secularists.

The Arab Spring and the Future
So what can be done about religious freedom violations?

For Saudi Arabia, for example, where the problem is a religious ideology that represses competition and is exported through literature which fuels violence against disfavored groups, we recommend that the U.S. lift its waiver on punitive measures on the Saudis for these and other abuses.

And for Egypt, where the impunity problem is worsened by longtime government bias against religious minorities, we recommend that they be pressed not only to bring violent attackers to justice but also to repeal discriminatory degrees against religious minorities and abolish blasphemy codes. We also recommended in our 2012 Annual Report that Egypt be designated as a CPC for its severe, egregious violations of religious freedom, joining Saudi Arabia and other CPC nations.

Hopes for the Future
So what does the future hold for religious freedom in these and other Muslim-majority countries?
The initial revolutions of the Arab Spring were launched by citizens who rejected both violent religious extremism and secular dictators who sought to repress not just the extremists but the rest of the population.

By no means have these citizens gone away. They are still fighting for greater religious freedom and while they have suffered setbacks, they could well represent a critical mass of people across the Middle East and in other Muslim-majority areas.

Moreover, the efforts of various nations to draft constitutions provide a window of opportunity to consider how religious freedom can be enshrined in such documents. It is for this reason that earlier last year, USCIRF issued its report, “The Religion-State Relationship & the Right to Freedom of Religion or Belief.” The report analyzes how constitutions of countries belonging to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation treat issues of human rights and religious freedom.

Indeed, these constitutional processes provide a generational opportunity to enshrine the fundamental notion that all human beings in every nation have the right to think as they please, believe or not believe as their conscience leads, peacefully practice their beliefs, and express them openly without fear or intimidation.

They offer a chance to establish internationally recognized standards which affirm that religious freedom is for each and every person. That includes the right to manifest one’s faith and convictions, individually or in one’s community of faith, in public or in private, and the right to change one’s religion. It is restricted only under narrow circumstances which international law specifies.

Make no mistake. Getting this process right will place countries on a positive trajectory, but getting it wrong by restricting religious freedom will guarantee future conflict and human rights violations. This is a human rights concern, of course, but also one of national security for everyone in the United States who wants a safer and more stable world.

Last December, Egypt approved by referendum a draft constitution which unfortunately included a blasphemy provision and other problematic articles limiting religious freedom.

While a number of countries in the Middle East and North Africa criminalize blasphemy in their penal codes, none had explicitly done so in their constitutions. By stifling the peaceful and constructive exchange of ideas, blasphemy laws underscore the intimate link between freedom of religion and freedom of expression. By punishing the expression of unpopular beliefs and opinions, blasphemy provisions not only violate both of these freedoms, but exacerbate intolerance and abet extremism and violence. Elevating blasphemy laws to a constitutional level would be a grave mistake indeed.

Despite these challenges, it is still very possible that religious freedom will progress in a number of nations we’ve mentioned today. To be sure, enshrining this freedom in a country’s constitution won’t ensure its respect in practice. Yet provisions limiting this right will taint legal systems, making respect for religious freedom extremely difficult on the ground.

Thus, constitutional texts really do matter, both as statements of a nation’s laws and aspirations and as ways for people to hold their government accountable for protecting their rights.

Clearly, the struggle for religious freedom remains an uphill one, but the calls for protection of this fundamental right are being amplified as never before.

They are being heard across countries and continents, demanding an end to the status quo of repression and impunity.

The message they send is clear: religious freedom matters and must be cherished.

It is time for governments around the world to hear and heed this message, for the sake of freedom and dignity, prosperity and security.

It is time for us – working together – to redouble our efforts to advance this great goal for all.

Thank you.

TIME MAGAZINE A Visit with Turkey's Controversial Religious Movement (ie Fethullah Gulen Movement)

By Piotr Zalewski / Diyarbakir Tuesday, May 22, 2012

Children attend a class at Fatih College in Istanbul April 16, 2008. The 640-pupil school is run by followers of Fethullah Gulen, a Turkish Muslim preacher who advocates moderate Islam rooted in modern life.

inShare1

It is Monday evening in Diyarbakir, a city in Turkey's southeast, and a weekly meeting of several local members of the so-called Gulen movement has begun with a book reading. One of the eight men present — this is an all-boys affair — picks up a paperback by Fethullah Gulen, the charismatic Islamic preacher after whom the movement is named, and reads out a few paragraphs. The subject is one of the central tenets of Gulen's philosophy: hizmet, service to others. Once the reading ends, a few of the other members — smiling beneath cropped mustaches — begin to extemporize on the difficulties and rewards of teaching and the challenges of shaping young minds.

Many Turks view the Gulen Movement with suspicion. The group has drawn comparisons among the conspiracy-minded to the freemasons; it has been accused of being a shadow government and more than once of trying to engineer an Islamist takeover of Turkey; and in recent years, some of its opponents have found themselves snared in legal proceedings. There's little reason to expect such issues to come up during an informal gathering of local Gulenists in a place like Diyarbakir. The movement not only forswears any role in politics, but is also said to discourage discussion of political issues among its followers. (A student who stayed at one of the movement's dormitories in Istanbul told me that he, an international relations major, was asked not to read or discuss books on politics in his room.) Still, the next item on the Diyarbakir meeting's agenda comes as something of a surprise.

It involves the day before, Sunday May 13: "What did you do for Mother's Day?"

The question comes from Bilgi Ozdemir, a public school teacher who is presiding over the gathering. A tour de table follows. One of the men reports that he and a group of friends cooked dinner for a group of women. All the time they are the ones cooking, he says, but on Mother's Day "we told them to sit still and let us prepare the food." Another man took a group of moms to a picnic outside Diyarbakir. Yet another organized a sightseeing tour of the city, including visits to a mosque and a reading hall — the local equivalent of a Boys and Girls Club — run by fellow Gulen supporters.

As the meeting progresses, it's hard to avoid the impression that the men, all of whom have regular jobs, have much time for anything other than hizmet. For the months of May and June alone, Ozdemir's circle, one of many similar Gulen groups in Diyarbakir, has scheduled at least a dozen events. Fundraisers, trips, charity functions: one for Nurses Day; another for Disability Week; and still more for the International Day against Drug Abuse. They might as well belong to the Rotary Club. Except that hizmet can be a little all-enveloping.

Nearly half a century after Fethullah Gulen began delivering impassioned sermons in Izmir, a city on Turkey's Aegean coast, the religious movement he helped inspire counts as many as six million followers. (There is no formal membership structure, Gulenists say, making exact numbers impossible to compute.) The largest religious movement in Turkey, Gulen sympathizers are known to run hundreds of schools, several media outlets, including Zaman, the paper with the highest circulation in Turkey, as well as a bank, a number of foundations, and a major charity.

If anything, the tiny, informal gathering in Diyarbakir reveals a side of the Gulen movement that is key to its power — its management at the grass-roots level. Opening an Excel file on his laptop, Ozdemir the teacher asks each of the eight men present to report how much money they have raised for the construction of four new reading halls in the city. Each of the members, Ozdemir tells me, represents a group of lower-level followers who have been asked to pitch in, along with friends, neighbors and family. Celal, a physiotherapist seated to my left, has managed to raise 4,000 lira, or about $2,200. Others report having raised 1,400, 1,500 or 250 lira. Ozdemir carefully records all the sums. For transparency's sake, he tells me, we prefer bank transfers. "If donations are made in cash, we will provide receipts."

Apart from nominal contributions for special projects, it is local businessmen sympathetic to the movement's cause who often foot the Gulenists' bills. "When I was in high school, some people inspired by hizmet helped me financially," says Aladdin Korkutata, who heads DIGIAD, a local business association. "Now that I've reached my target I am happy to help others."

Leading lights within the movement usually insist that that Gulen-affiliated institutions are administered autonomously, with little supervision from above. Meetings in Diyarbakir, however, show that at least here, at the local level, the movement runs a very tight ship. Most local Gulenists have no difficulty producing data about the movement's educational activities. In the southeast as a whole, Gulen followers run 57 elementary schools, Ali Pehlivan, a principal at one of the schools, tells me. In Diyarbakir province alone, another Gulenist says, the movement's 27 reading halls cater to roughly 4,500 children. FEM, a network of Gulen dershanes, or cramming schools, operates 14 local branches, attracting about 11,000 students per year. The total number of FEM branches in Turkey is "roughly" 615.

At one of dershanes, Bulent Ince, the headmaster, explains that 2,000 lira, the price of tuition, buys local high schoolers much more than a 10-month prep course for Turkey's feared university entrance exam. Students, he says, are also assigned so-called teacher-guides, who look after them in and outside of class, and even after they enter college.

The teacher-guides, says Ince, serve as role models. "None of them smoke or drink," he says. Many become the teens' confidants, calling on them regularly, offering advice, teaching them "love for their parents, love for their country, love for others," and "Islamic values." "Sometimes, our kids will share things with their teacher-guides that they will not share with their parents," says Ince. Students can phone their guides late at night to talk about their problems. "It's 24 hour hizmet."

When students enter college — FEM students score better on the entrance exams than most others — they remain under the watchful eye of Gulen followers. If a student goes off to study in another city, says Ince, a teacher will accompany him there and try to place him in a dorm or a house where "people don't smoke and drink, and where they pray." Otherwise, he says, "we will introduce him to our friends, who will keep in touch with him." After graduation, he explains, "we will help him find job, or make him a teacher and send him abroad." As he puts it, "If you're in hizmet, you're never alone."

SOURCE: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2115391,00.html?iid=tsmodule

MORE MEDIA ARTICLES:
MEDIA, ARTICLES, CONFERENCES

Today's Zaman: Halal Secularism - IHSAN YILMAZ

Halal secularism

MADISON -- I am in the US to chair a panel and also present a paper at the Third International Conference on Islam at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. This year’s theme is Islam and democracy.

My paper reflects my recent studies on Islam-secularism-democracy issues that I have also touched upon in this column from time to time. I have been trying to analyze if and to what extent an Islamic secularism or “halal secularism,” as it were, is possible. The issue does not, of course, concern Turkey, and given the fact that the Middle Eastern Islamic nations are hopefully entering a phase of democracy, it is crucial to understand how Islam will accommodate different ethnicities and, more importantly, religions. Older versions of Islamic “multiculturalist, multireligious” political schemes cannot obviously be applied in a similar fashion in the 21st century where religious minorities will not be content with the status of dhimmi or politico-legal arrangement of a legally pluralist millet system. They will not settle for less than being equal citizens. It is crystal clear that a new ijtihad (independent decision making with regard to Islamic law) is needed on this issue. Then, the vital question is how Muslim democrats will conceptualize new Islamic political theories that will enable very citizen -- regardless of faith -- to be equal citizens, without making any ethnic or religious group superior to or privileged over the others. With regards to ethnicity and race, Islam does not have a problem. Nevertheless, as I said, a new ijtihad is needed on how to accommodate different faiths and religions constitutionally equal in the public sphere and also in legislative activity. I argue in my paper that Fethullah Gülen’s new ijtihad on state-religion issues could be beneficial to study. The Turkish case may be unique in several aspects, so it may not be a model for the Muslim world. However, it is obvious that ijtihads that are normative politico-philosophical formulations could easily be transplanted and applied in different localities and contexts. I try to show that in Gülen’s thinking one can find a convergence of Habermasian and Shatibian ideas with regards to human rights, primarily freedom of conscience and religion. John Rawls argued that “reasonable comprehensive doctrines, religious or non-religious, may be introduced in public political discussion at any time, provided that in due course proper political reasons -- and not reasons given solely by comprehensive doctrines -- are presented that are sufficient to support whatever the comprehensive doctrines are said to support.” In response, Habermas puts that this epistemic burden -- that each time religious communities and movements have to “find an equivalent in a universally accessible language for every religious statement they pronounce” as part of the duty of civility -- results in a sort of self-censorship. Instead, Habermas argues that this strict demand can only be laid at the door of politicians, who within state institutions are subject to the obligation to remain neutral in the face of competing worldviews. Thus, religious citizens and actors can express and justify their convictions in a religious language if they cannot find secular “translations” for them. It is the legislators’ duty to translate these demands into a secular language. Gülen’s conception of Islam-friendly democracy is key to understanding his approach to sacred and secular relations. Gülen does not see a contradiction between Islam and democracy. With regards to state-society-religion issues, he has argued, unlike the Islamists, that passive Anglo-Saxon secularism -- which guarantees human rights and freedoms, including freedom of religion -- could provide a wider framework for Muslims to practice their religion comfortably and for other religious minorities to also benefit from human rights. In his view, the faithful can comfortably live in secular environments if secularism is religion-friendly and understood as the state not being founded on religion, and hence not interfering with religion or religious life, as well as remaining equidistant to all religions in a neutral manner. It can be argued that Gülen’s approach to sacred-secular relations is similar to the First Amendment of the US Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” since he has highlighted that Islam does not need a state to survive and that civil society or a civilian realm in liberal-democratic settings is sufficient for its individual and social practice. SOURCE: http://www.todayszaman.com/columnist-277370-halal-secularism.html

Gülen Trial: The Gülen Legal Journey NEW BOOK

A new book on Fethullah Gulen has been published that highlights the issues surrounding a court case that involves Mr Gulen and shows the difficulties of free speech, democracy and human rights within the framework of modern Turkey