A Classic Hatchet Job

Reader comment on: Gulen's False Choice: Silence or Violence

Submitted by Scott C. Alexander, Oct 6, 2012 02:51

I am puzzled by the fact that a man as seemingly intelligent and articulate as Mr. Schwartz appears to have deliberately misread the Op-Ed piece by Mr. Gülen. I say this because, in the very beginning of Mr. Schwartz's critique, he clearly demonstrates that he has no intention of striving for even the least degree of objectivity and fairness in his analysis of Gülen's remarks. In fact, I am saddened to say that what Mr. Schwartz attempts to offer as a trenchant critique of Gülen and the global Gönüllüler Hareketi ("Volunteers' Movement") amounts to little more than a hatchet job on a religious leader who has inspired thousands, perhaps millions, of men and women to a reawakening of their faith and a faith-based commitment to service.

How else can one explain Schwartz's absolute refusal to take Gülen at his word, despite the fact that what Gülen says in this Op-Ed piece is utterly consistent with his thought as articulated in numerous publications which span at least three decades? Why does Schwartz imply with insistence that Gülen's agenda is to enact hate speech laws in the U.S. when Gülen is explicit in the piece that "We can do whatever it takes within the law to prevent any disrespect to all revered religious figures?" Why does Schwartz assail Gülen, who seems to recognize the need to respect the legal systems of various societies in the fight against anit-religious bigotry, but not the Maronite Patriarch of Lebanon, Bechara Rai? Just one week after the pope's visit to Lebanon, Patriarch Rai boldly proclaimed: "We shall not simply accept a condemnation, but shall ask the international community to issue a United Nations resolution that will ban denigrating religions." (http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Patriarch-Rai-tells-Muslim-leaders:-no-insults-against-religions-25903.html)

Although additional evidence for my indictment of what Mr. Schwartz has written can be found throughout his text, there are a few particularly tell-tale moments. For example: in his opening paragraph, Schwartz refers to Mr. Gülen as "enigmatic." Why? What is "enigmatic" about Gülen? Not unlike Pope Benedict XVI (albeit on a somewhat smaller scale), Gülen is a global religious leader who has a website which makes his writings and speeches accessible to the widest possible audience (www.fethullahgulen.org). The former have been translated into over 30 languages and the latter are available (in Turkish) on a weekly basis, if not more frequently. True, Gülen lives a reclusive life, making few public appearances. But this is no different than many highly regarded but deeply humble religious figures who shun the public spotlight.

In this regard, allow me to return to the papal analogy. Before Pope John Paul II set the novel precedent of papal "pilgrimages" to nearly every continent (and the consequent numerous public appearances beamed around the world), most of his predecessors could well be described as "reclusive." The faithful could get a glimpse of the pope if they made a pilgrimage to Rome. But even after traveling long distances to Holy See, the best these pilgrims could ever do was to spy the pope from afar as he stood on the iconic balcony of St. Peter's Basilica, or from a considerable distance at a grand liturgical ceremony. And even in this age of comparatively frequent papal travel and satellite TV, popes like John Paul II and Benedict XVI were/are not exactly "out there" in the way that Mr. Schwartz is rather disingenuously implying Mr. Gülen ought to be. Despite the spotlight which Pope Benedict seems to occupy so regularly, he still does not give interviews to the media, and only meets personally with high-level and highly select individuals and groups. In fact, were it not for the fact that the Bishop of Rome is also a head of state--a position which Mr. Gülen decidedly does not hold--one might well maintain that such papal meetings and travels would be substantially fewer than they currently are.

Which raises the question as to whether or not Mr. Schwartz would describe the popes as "enigmatic," rather than simply "reclusive." Beyond this, as a Roman Catholic, I wonder whether Mr. Schwartz would describe Benedict XVI in the distinctively negative context in which he portrays Gülen? Would he dub the pope as "an ingenious priest" who controls an "army" of followers? This is certainly the way popes were described by people like Thomas Whitney, Congressman from the Fifth District of New York and one of the founders of the infamous anti-immigrant, and especially anti-Catholic, "Know-Nothing Party." Whitney is the author of a classic mid-19th-century nativist tractate entitled, A Defence of the American Policy, as Opposed to the Encroachments of Foreign Influence, and Especially to the Interference of the Papacy in the Political Interests and Affairs of the United States (New York: DeWitt and Davenport, 1856). In this text, Whitney uses almost exactly the same rhetorical tropes as does Schwartz. Whitney speaks of "the course of Jesuitism" as a "subtle and insidious" force of the papacy, designed to further the designs of "Romanism" in the U.S. which, according to Whitney, is nothing less than the "despotic" and quasi-militaristic conquest of the American Republic (pp. 79-82).

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I'm guessing that Mr. Schwartz would not describe Pope Benedict in the same terms as he casts Mr. Gülen. When I wonder why this is, I am led to the strong suspicion that Mr. Schwartz's problem with Gülen is not that the latter is a reclusive religious leader who is the inspiration behind a large group of faithful who see themselves as having a global mission. I strongly suspect that Mr. Schwartz's problem with Mr. Gülen is that Gülen is a Muslim.

This may seem ironic, given the fact that Mr. Schwartz is himself a Muslim. Upon closer examination, however, the irony begins to fade. This is for many reasons. One is that some of the fiercest condemnations of religious figures and movements tends to come at the hands of co-religionaries who are at significant odds with one another. And this certainly applies to Schwartz vis a vis a great many of his fellow U.S. American Muslims. The mission statement of Schwartz's "think tank," the Center for Islamic Pluralism, says that the purpose of the center is to challenge "the dominance of American Muslim life by militant Islamist groups." Here Schwartz is taking to an even higher level the incendiary, highly subjective, and completely unsubstantiated claim made by Shaykh Hisham Kabbani at a 1999 State Department forum that 80% of the mosques in the U.S. are "being run by the extremist ideology, but not acting as a militant movement." It is, therefore, not surprising that someone who actively chose to attack the mainstream organized Muslim community in the U.S. has an ax to grind.

What is truly ironic about Schwartz's ardent opposition to Gülen and the Volunteers' Movement, however, is that Schwartz has made a name for himself as a strong proponent of Sufi spirituality and an equally strong opponent of certain extremist forms of Wahhabi-inspired Salafism--and so has Gülen. Although I am not a Muslim, I share Mr. Schwartz's and Mr. Gülen's concerns that a certain strain of so-called "Salafis" have entered, however unwillingly, into an unholy alliance with the most virulent Islamophobes. It seems as if these self-appointed champions of Islam are completely unaware of the irony that it is they who pose what amounts to one of the greatest threats to the faith they profess: namely, that Islam potentially be reduced from a dynamic tradition of belief and practice replete with guidance for humanity, to little more than a potent, yet spiritually bankrupt, anti-Western ideology.

Why, then, attack Gülen and attempt to portray him as an extremist when one of the cornerstones of Gülen's Sufi-inspired approach is his teachings about the principle of hoşgörü (i.e, seeing the good in others) and dialogue? Why not expose the work of extremist Salafis such as Khalid 'Abdallah' and Muhammad al-Zughbi who--by translating clips into Arabic and using mass media to widely disseminate these clips--apparently played key roles in instigating the violent protests in outrage over The Innocence of Muslims?

Note: Reader comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. Gatestone Institute reserves the right to reject anything found to be objectionable. Reader comments, including the one above, represent solely the opinion or viewpoint of the readers that submitted them and do not represent the opinion or viewpoint of Gatestone Institute. Gatestone Institute takes no responsibility for the content of reader comments.

Submit a comment on this article

Other reader comments on this item

Title By Date
We love you. [210 words]Rose GardenOct 17, 2012 06:23
Mr. Gulen is a peaceful hero [70 words]E. YavuzOct 15, 2012 16:57
Annoying Muslims [59 words]SahinOct 12, 2012 15:37
What he would possibly say [165 words]O. SekiOct 10, 2012 18:12
Mr. Gulen and his ideas in brief [209 words]Hizmet MovementOct 9, 2012 01:25
Foreign Policy Magazine on Gulen [72 words]Anonymous LinkerOct 9, 2012 11:03
The truth about Ahmet Sik's Book [117 words]M.A.Oct 8, 2012 13:45
Some false information [39 words]Ahmet K.Oct 7, 2012 17:18
Repetitons of the Slanders of Local and Global Anti-Gulen Groups [110 words]Father of SayiyyaOct 6, 2012 14:39
⇒ A Classic Hatchet Job [1337 words]Scott C. AlexanderOct 6, 2012 02:51
Classic apologetics or 'How to hide the true Gülen' [2036 words]Eksi B. SixdouzeOct 9, 2012 16:50
Classic example of Gulen-bashing [323 words]Semih E.Oct 11, 2012 07:50
Classic apologetics part 2 [2028 words]Eksi B. SixdouzeOct 12, 2012 11:47
Cruel to keep him in an Islamophobic country [76 words]CurmudgeonOct 5, 2012 13:25
Of the infiltration of state institutions, including the army, police, and judiciary [184 words]Issa KirariraOct 5, 2012 10:43
Gulen is nothing more than Mafia/Organized Crime [174 words]Turkish AmericanOct 5, 2012 17:14
Very biased [271 words]Selim EgeliOct 5, 2012 08:55
Live and let live not part of global Islamic culture? [38 words]Luke MontgomeryOct 5, 2012 07:48

Comment on this item

Email Address
Title of Comments

Note: Gatestone Institute greatly appreciates your comments. The editors reserve the right, however, not to publish comments containing: incitement to violence, profanity, or any broad-brush slurring of any race, ethnic group or religion. Gatestone also reserves the right to edit comments for length, clarity and grammar. All thoughtful suggestions and analyses will be gratefully considered. Commenters' email addresses will not be displayed publicly. Gatestone regrets that, because of the increasingly great volume of traffic, we are not able to publish them all.