Dreaming for a better world
Fethullah Gülen: An Islamic Ethic for Contemporary Society
Download 411.59 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Religion and Modernity
- The Traditional Religious Ethic
- Gülen’s Islamic Ethic
Fethullah Gülen: An Islamic Ethic for Contemporary SocietyGregory Baum A group of young Turks living in Montreal started the Dialog Foundation to promote solidarity and mutual understanding among religious traditions in this secular city. Invited as a guest at several occasions, I discovered that these young men followed the religious philosophy of Fethullah Gülen and thought of themselves as belonging to the Gülen Movement. Since I am a Catholic theologian with a special interest in the impact of religion on society, I wanted to acquaint myself with the ideas of this Turkish sage and study the cultural movement he had started in his own country. Since I do not know Turkish, I had to depend on English translations of Gülen’s books and speeches. When I did not find them in Montreal’s university libraries, my young Turkish friends kindly made them available to me. . I recognised immediately that the Reverend Gülen belongs to the renewal movement in Islam started at the end of the 19th century by Jamal al-Afghani. This bold spiritual leader pleaded with prominent Muslims in the Ottoman Empire to respond creatively to the challenge of modernity, encourage the study of the sciences, foster the education of the people and take steps to overcome the widespread poverty. While al-Afghani was a vigorous opponent of Western colonialism, he was not in principle anti-Western; he wanted Muslims to accept the modern sciences and develop them on their own. His exhortations were addressed to people with authority, hoping that they would influence government policies. After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the religious leaders of the renewal movement addressed themselves directly to the people. They believed that the faithful practice of Islam would transform society starting from below, from the involvement of ordinary people on the community level. In the 20th century, this renewal movement found leaders in all parts of the Muslim world. It is in this movement that I situated Fethullah Gülen. In an article on this Turkish sage, I wrote this paragraph: “Fethullah Gülen has not involved himself and his movement in politics. He has remained aloof from the Islamic parties that were occasionally permitted in Turkey. Political parties come and go, he said, while Islam remains. In his writings, Gülen insists that Islam is a religion; it addresses people’s hearts and minds, fosters the virtuous life, and produces a just and compassionate community. Islam has social and political meaning, but according to Gülen it operates from the ground up: its creates cultural practises and social institutions; it shapes what social scientists call ‘civil society.’ Some scholar refer to Gülen’s theological vision as ‘Civil Islam’, contrasting it with the ‘State Islam’ of Iran and Saudi Arabia.”1 The renewal movement in Islam was a Muslim response to modernity. Fethullah Gülen, relying on the Quran, responded in a creative way to the social evolution taking place in his country. In keeping with the Sufi tradition strongly represented in Anatolia over the centuries, Gülen emphasised the message of Islam addressed to the heart, summoning forth a life of inwardness, dedication and good deeds. He preached a religious ethic that urged believers to become active in their society and render it more just and compassionate. Religion and Modernity Modernity offers a challenge to all traditional religions. In 1965 the American sociologist Robert Bellah edited the book Religion and Progress in Modern Asia,2 in which he wrote the final chapter reflecting on the research presented in the volume. Challenged by modern institutions, he argued, religions have responded in two different ways. One reaction was to resist the challenge and cling to the inherited practices in a rigid and unreflective way. Bellah called this the turn to neo-traditionalism. The other reaction was produced by believers who reread their sacred texts, sought inspiration from the highpoints of their tradition and responded in a creative way to the challenge of modernity. Their reaction allowed them to adopt a positive attitude toward the institutions of modernity and at the same time remain faithful to their sacred tradition. Let me add that Bellah belongs to the minority of sociologists who acknowledges the creativity of religion. Bellah wrote his chapter in 1965, the year which saw the close of the Second Vatican Council held by the Catholic Church. Challenged by the institutions of modernity, the Catholic Church of the 19th century had vigorously repudiated democracy, pluralism, religious liberty and human rights. This negative stance remained the Church’s official teaching even in the first half of the 20th century. Yet at the Second Vatican Council, rereading the Sacred Scriptures, the Church reacted to modernity in a new way. The Church now recognised the great dignity of all human beings: created and summoned by God, they were destined to be responsible for themselves and for their social world. On this religious basis, the Vatican Council adopted a more positive view of modernity: it acknowledged that democracy, pluralism, religious liberty and human rights honour the personal responsibility of all citizens and urge them to involve themselves in making society more just and more humane. Bellah’s thesis was verified by the experience of the Catholic Church. Bellah’s thesis has also been verified by the renewal movement of Islam, beginning with Jamal al-Afghani at the end of the 19th century. Reading the Quran and the Sunna in a new historical situation made Muslim thinkers find support for a positive engagement in the institutions of modernity and formulate an ethic appropriate for contemporary society. Bellah’s reference to what he called ‘the turn to neo-traditionalism’ sheds light on the emergence of fundamentalist currents in Islam and the other world religions. Challenged by the institutions of modernity, some believers react negatively, clinging rigidly to a narrow reading of their tradition. The Traditional Religious Ethic In traditional societies, religion provided an ethic that reconciled people to their social condition. This is a general observation that would have to be qualified by studies of particular societies. Yet generalisations of this kind are useful: they help us recognise the changes taking place in society.3 1) Traditional societies were hierarchical: there were marked by a great gap between the rulers and the ruled. People were taught that it was their sacred duty to obey the authorities. It is worth remembering that the small society created by the Prophet was more egalitarian, and that the Prophet had a habit of consulting the people before making a decision.4 Yet as Muslim society became bigger, its character changed, it was influenced by Roman and Persian models of royalty, and obedience to the sultan became a religious duty. 2) In traditional societies, people accept their location in society as part of divine providence. They are content in their class, even if they are poor and life is burdensome. They work hard to make a living, not to become upwardly mobile and improve their living conditions. Ambitious individuals who want to leave the milieu in which they were born to seek success elsewhere receive little respect. At the same time, the absence of worldly ambition opens people to the spiritual sphere, to live humbly before God and worship God in prayer. 3) People in traditional societies do not feel that it is their role to speak out in public on social and political issues. They leave these matters to the authorities. People express their social responsibility by being good neighbours and cooperate with others to sustain the well-being of their community. 4) People in traditional society have a strong sense of their collective identity. They know who they are, keenly aware that others are marked by a different identity. They thus make a clear distinction between insiders and outsiders, and they do not mingle spontaneously. These four characteristics help us to understand why traditional societies are profoundly challenged by the institutions of modernity. 1) Democracy invites citizens to be critical of government and check if its policies are in keeping with the constitution. Here the gap between ruler and ruled is significantly reduced since both the people and the government must obey the legal foundation of society. The princes are not the only ones who oppose democracy; the people themselves are disturbed, fearing that democracy undermines their religious duty to obey. 2) In modern society people are expected to develop and improve their skills. Young people have to study for many years, become scientists, build up the industries and develop commercial institutions. The modern market society urges people to work hard to better themselves, to improve their living conditions and climb on the social scale. This challenges the traditional ethic of the humble life, making people content with the place assigned to them by God’s providence. Spending many years studying at schools and universities is a burden for which traditional cultures did not supply the necessary energy. In those days, only the elites were well schooled; ordinary people learnt their trade from working under the guidance of a master. 3) Modern society affects the understanding of social responsibility. In the past, people were subjects of a chief, a prince or a sultan, and their primary duty was loyalty and service. The modern institution of citizenship is quite different. Citizens are co-responsible for society. They are expected to develop a critical understanding of society, have political ideals, vote for the party of their choice and involve themselves in social and cultural institutions of various kinds that make society flourish. Moving from being ‘a subject’ of a price to being ‘a citizen ‘of a democracy is a great moral achievement. Let me add that the policy of the USA to impose democracy on traditional societies is naïve and unrealistic: democracy is the result of a cultural and moral evolution. 4) The industrialisation of society attracts workers from different parts of the nation and even from foreign countries. Industrialisation thus inevitably produces cultural pluralism, a challenge to traditional society that had walls built between insiders and outsiders. Modern societies are religiously pluralistic, including people with no religious faith. Traditional societies resist this pluralism, yet they continue to be challenged by the increasingly diverse character of their population. Because the institutions of modernity threaten traditional form of social life, religious people are tempted to withdraw from society, remain in the margin and adopt a stance of resistance. But, as Bellah has observed, this is not the only choice. Religions have a creative potential. Gülen’s Islamic Ethic Living as a faithful Muslim in the secular Turkish society is not easy. The traditional Muslims ethic of non-involvement in modern society and the patient expectation of divine help is not an adequate response to the present challenge. Reading the Quran and the tradition, Gülen finds that God calls believers to become responsible actors in society, ‘vice-regents’ of the Creator, a vocation that demands a positive response to modern society, albeit with certain reserves. 1) Because of their vocation as responsible agents, Muslims approve of democracy and act in it to make society respect their faith and become more just and more compassionate. 2) Since the Quran calls believers to read, reflect and develop their mind, Gülen puts great emphasis on education in schools and universities. Believers should cultivate the sciences, even if their origin is Western, because to grow in the knowledge of God’s world is part of the human vocation. Since the sciences offer worldly knowledge, some thinkers argue that they inevitable secularise society and foster unbelief. Gülen does not agree with them. The great sage holds that studying the sciences makes believers marvel at the wisdom of the Creator who has fashioned the world in an original, intricate and ever surprising way. Because believers are responsible agents before God, they are expected to develop their skills, engage in industrial and commercial projects, and improve the material and cultural conditions of their lives. Gülen recognises that the market is an instrument that makes every player promote his or her own advantage and thus easily fosters individualism and personal greed. Yet he does not reject the market system: he thinks that believers will tame the logic of the market by their commitment to justice and compassion. Believers may make an effort to rise on the social scale as long as they are willing to use their success to be support social projects that help other or promote the common good. 3) Since believers are summoned to be responsible actors, Gülen argues, they should gladly embrace the idea of citizenship in a democracy. Citizenship entails two responsibilities, one is to promote policies that make society more just and more compassionate, and the other is to foster peaceful co-existence among people with different ethical and/ or religious ideals. Democracy has respect for the ethical and religious pluralism, a respect that is difficult to achieve by people who believe their values have been revealed by God. Gülen accepts ethical pluralism. He believes that values cannot be imposed by government; values emerge in the human hearts where God addresses us in secret. 4) Gülen argues that the Quran acknowledges that the plurality of religion is the work of God’s providence and that, for this reason, Muslims are summoned to respect the followers of other religions.5 Gülen went to Rome to meet the Pope, to Jerusalem to talk with the Chief Rabbi and to Istanbul to speak to the Orthodox Patriarch. These four reflections, while very brief, show that according to Gülen fidelity to Islam summons Muslims to become active citizens in modern society. At the same time, Gülen’s religious ethic is not a surrender to the spirit of modernity, nor is it an easy compromise brought about by necessity. I wish to mention just three dimensions of his religious ethic that are profoundly at odds with modern secular society. First, the Muslim believer acts in society with humility, trusting in God, obeying him and being strengthened by him. Second, the Muslims believer, taught by the Quran, extends his or her solidarity to all human beings, especially to those in need. Third, the Muslim believer recognises that commerce and industry must be guided by ethical principles. These three dimensions are foreign to the secular State. Muslims embrace them for religious reasons. To keep this religious motivation strong, Gülen wants Muslims to retain the Sufi tradition, the cultivation of interiority, the practice of prayer, the repose and the joy in God. Since the great majority of the citizens of Turkey are Muslims, Gülen believes that Turkey could become a modern society, social democratic and open to pluralism, based on the common Islamic values, thus differing from Western modernity based on common secular values.6 1 Gregory Baum, “Fethullah Gülen: Faith and Reason in Islam,” The Ecumenist, 45(Winter 2008)10-13, 10 2 Robert Bellah, “Epilogue,” in Robert Bellah, ed., Religion and Progress in Modern Asia (New York: Free Press, 1965) 168-229, 213 3 Ferdinand Toennies, Community and Society [1887] (New York: Harper & Row , 1963) 4 Fethullah Gülen, Prophet Muhammad: Aspects of his Life, vol. 2 (Fairfax, VA: The Fountain, 2000) 102-104 5 Lester Kurtz, “Gülen’s Paradox: Combining Commitment and Tolerance,” The Muslim World, 95,3(2005)373-384 6 Recent developments in Asia have persuaded sociologists to speak of ‘multiple modernities.” See Shmuel Eisenstadt, ed., Multiple Modernities (Somerset, NY: Transaction, 2000) Directory: wp-content -> uploads -> 2011 2011 -> Voices of the Old Sea Norman Lewis 2011 -> Malevil Robert Merle 2011 -> The Elephant Keeper’s Children Peter Hoeg 2011 -> Jv packet •Mars Colonization Affirmative •Mars Colonization Negative 2011 -> Registration Form (Rev. 8-86) omb no. 1024-0018 2011 -> All America Looks Up to Virginia;” Virginia and the Declaration of Independence 2011 -> Rao bulletin 2011 -> Christopher Columbus was born between 25 August and 31 October 1451 in 2011 -> The Battle of Frenchtown (1855), Washington Territory: the Political and Demographic Context rev 9/4/11 2011 -> Seti aff •seti neg •Asteroids Aff Download 411.59 Kb. Share with your friends:
|