Classic apologetics part 2
Reader comment on: Gulen's False Choice: Silence or Violence
in response to reader comment: Classic example of Gulen-bashing
Submitted by Eksi B. Sixdouze, Oct 12, 2012 11:47
Isn't it funny how Semih E. ignores the two videos I referred to in my previous comment and directly moves on to the quotes I took from Gülen's books? What's the matter Semih, couldn't find a way to cover up the videos? I dare you to deny them too. Or maybe I mistranslated the sermons? Maybe Gülen is just talking about the birds and the bees instead of blowing up heads there, right?
Anyway, Semih E. is about to get disappointed again because I have uploaded the scans of some passages from the books I mentioned earlier to the web for all to see (further below). Let people decide for themselves.
Semih E. writes:
This is a classic example of Gulen-bashing. We are told that the author has access to 'unrevised editions;' so far so good.
You make it sound like these books are some sort of inaccessible treasures. I just borrowed them from the local library, and I do also happen to have a friend with a bookshelf full of these editions.
Semih E. writes:
But are 'unrevised editions' enough to bash the author, when he has all the right to edit his own work in the final version?
I am not talking about 'drafts' or 'manuscripts' – I am talking about 'final versions' of these books and I am simply warning the reader to get their hands on the early editions. Editions of these books published after the 1990s have been revised. That is my point. So I am not bashing the author for editing his drafts or manuscripts – I am bashing the author and his followers for trying to cover up history as if all those texts (final versions!) full of intolerant passages and hate speech were never written or spoken.
Semih E. writes:
It is highly susceptible that the commentator distorted the meaning of the words in his own English translations of Gulen's wording.
Ah, speaking of contradictions, isn't this is a totally different accusation? Now you seem to imply that these texts are real but that I am the one distorting them. Again, let the people decide for themselves. Here are the scans: http://www.flickr.com/photos/eksib612/sets/72157631747801352/
Let me go step by step by providing some selected context (taken from these scans) for each of the quotes I used in my previous comment. This is unfortunately going to be in Turkish (in cursive) of course but I am sure that those who are interested can find a Turkish translator to help them out. Purpose of this copy-pasting is just the backing of my claims and to provoke an honest reaction from either Semih E. or Scott C. Alexander.
1.) This 'true' Gülen calls the Western world the "continuous enemy of Islam." He writes: "First it were the Europeans with their crusader's mentality who invaded us, occupied us, colonized us. Then, since World War I, the Americans and Russians have taken over this role. There is no difference between the mentality of today's westerner and that of King Richard I who drank the blood of Muslims. We cannot expect any humane treatment by them until the end of days."
Batının ve batılının bize bakışı hiç bir zaman değişmemiştir. Değişen isimler ve devletlerdir.(...) Belki de bir gün o [Rusya], Amerika ile arasındaki bu farklılığı tamamen sıfırlayacak ve böylece bize olan düşmanlığı da Amerika'yla aynı seviyede olacaktır. Ama ısrarla söylüyoruz ki her ikisi de bizim aman bilmez düşmanlarımızdır.
Biz, daima Batının zulmüne maruz kaldık. Önce Avrupalılardan çekiyorduk, daha sonra içtimaî yapılanmada değişiklikler oldu ve Avrupanın yerini kısmen Rusya, kısmen de Amerika aldı.(...) Islâm âlemi asırların mağduru ve mazlumudur. Avrupalı, haçlı seferleriyle işgâl, istilâ ve müstemlekecilik düşüncesini Birinci Dünya Savaşına kadar sürdürdü.. Şimdi de soğuk harp şeklinde aynı kavgayı devam ettirmektedir.(...)
Evet, batının bizim hakkımızdaki kaanatı, öteden beri budur ve bu gün de aynı kanaat devam etmektedir. Dün yazdığı bir kitapta, hiç yüzü kızarmadan, müslüman kanı içtiğini ve çok da lezzetli olduğunu söyleyen ve yanlışlıkla kendisine arslan lakabı verilen, esasında -terbiyem müsade etmediği için- ne yürekli olduğunu söyleyemeyeceğim Rişar'ın sadist zihniyetiyle, bugünkü batılının zihniyeti arasında hiç bir fark yoktur. (...) Evet, kıyamete kadar onlardan insanî bir tavır görmemiz mümkün değildir.
2.) Of Christians he writes: "After a while they perverted and obscured their own future."
Çünkü onlar [Hristiyanlar], belli bir devreden sonra sapıtmış, delalete düşmüş ve kendi ufuklarını karartmışlardır.
3.) According to him, Jews have a "genetic animosity towards any religion" and they have used "their guile and skills to breed bad blood" to threaten Islam since the beginning until this day, "uniting themselves with Sassanids, Romans and crusaders." He continues: "The Church, the Synagogue and Paganism form the troika that has attacked Islam persistently."
Ondaki bu şiddetli arzu ve düşmanlık duygusu, zaten cibilliyetinde her dine karşı adâvet bulunan Yahudi zekâ ve nifâkıyla birleşince; henüz hayatının baharında bir filiz ve bir fide durumunda bulunan bu yeni dinin etrafında bir kısım tehdit edici rüzgârlar esmeye başladı ki, bu esintiler gelecekte Sâsânileri, Romalıları da içine alacak şekilde yayılacak, genişleyecek, Islâm ve müslümanlara karşı ebedî bir düşmanlık olarak sürüp gidecekti.
Günümüze kadar devam edegelen, Islâm'a karşı, Yahudi ve haçlı ortak düşmanlığının nüveleri, tâ site Islâm devleti temelinin atıldığı o ilk Medine günlerine dayanır. Islâm'ın, hertürlü yanlış ve sapık düşüncelerle mücadelesi, insana, kaybettiği haysiyetini kazandırma yolundaki kavgası, tabakât-ı harb etmesi, putperestliğin yanında kilise'yi, Kilise'nin yanında da Havra'yı harekete geçirmişti. O günden bugüne de -değişik ad ve ünvanlarla da olsa- bu müfsid üçlünün kan seylapları Islâm'ın bağrında akıp durmaktadır.
4.) Jews have always been an "abscess" and that is why, among others, the deportation of Jews from the Arabian peninsula by the second Caliph Umar was justified.
Bunca yıllık müşrik kin ve nefreti, yahudi hesap ve plânı medine'deki bir avuç müslümanı boğmak için omuz omuza vermiş ve tarihin en utandırıcı şenaati işleniyordu.
(...) Yahudiler, hiçbir zaman peygamberimizin peygamberliğini hazmedemediler.
(...) Bir türlü dinme bilmeyen yahudi kin ve nefreti Hendek Vak'asından sonra da sürüp gitti. (...) Yahudiler, Peygamberimizden sonra, Râşit halifeler döneminde de hıyanet ve ihanetlerine devam ettiler. (...) Sonunda Hz. Ömer, müslümanlar ve müslümanlık için daima bir çıbanbaşı olan yahudilerin Peygamberimizin de bir işaretine binaen Arap yarımadasından çıkarılması hususunu ashâbla müzakere etti ve başka yerlerde kendilerine mal-mülk ve arazi verilmek üzere, payitahttan uzak yerlere yerleştirildiler.
5.) "In any case," he writes, "the Prophet considers Islam as one nation and the Kuffar as the other nation."
Zaten Allah Rasûlü de, Islâm'ı bir millet, küfrü de ayrı bir millet olarak kabul etmektedir.
6.) These are the statements of a man who writes: "In the world of tomorrow Islam will be the one and only dominating force."
Geleceğin dünyasında tek hakim unsur Islâm olacaktır.
As I wrote above, this is just a selection of Gülen's hate speech in order to back up the quotes that I used before and, of course, to embarrass Semih E. who writes that I made these things up. I think this should suffice. Now let me return to Semih E.'s other claims:
A common tactic among those strategically trying to defame Gulen, the commentator contradicts himself by first saying that Gulen had been consistently bashing the West, Christians and "pagans" (the commentator's own wording), and then only a few paragraphs later he claims that Gulen is supported by the CIA! So, this CIA supporting Gulen did not know about his speeches claimed to be full of intolerance towards the West and Christianity?
There is no contradiction. True, I did write that Gülen had been consistently bashing the West but I also wrote that at a certain point Gülen decided to change tactics after which no more bashing of the West has occurred.
First of all, I don't believe the CIA is a monolith. It has an estimated number of 20,000 employees, and I don't think they all have the same ideas about strategy every time, everywhere. Secondly, it is no secret that the CIA more than once cooperated with fractions perceived to be anti-West. 'Taliban' anyone? The name Hekmetyar ringing a bell? Thirdly, a passage from Ronald Kessler's book The CIA at War might shed some light on this issue:
The CIA was free to put Islamic academics and journalists, as well as mullahs, on the payroll to convey a more moderate message and even to support the U.S. in the war on terror, and it did so. In Islam, as in many other religions, anyone can call himself a religious leader. So, besides paying mullahs, the CIA created fake mullahs-recruited agents who would proclaim themselves clerics and take a more moderate position about nonbelievers. Their statements were not inconsistent with the teachings of the Koran, which, like the Bible, was a largely benign document. (…) "We are taking over radio stations and supporting clerics," a CIA source said. "it's back to propaganda. We are creating moderate muslims."
Ronald Kessler, The CIA at War, New York: St. Martin's Press 2003, p. 276.
Semih E. writes:
This lie that Gulen is supported by the Western powers or the CIA, while he is also presented as intolerant of the West and other religions in his 'real self,' is shared by Gulen-bashers in Turkey. While in Turkey these 'critics' scare the Turkish public by claiming that Gulen is supported by the West, abroad these same people accuse Gulen for being really an 'intolerant' and dangerous agent of Islam.
George Fidas, Graham Fuller, Morton Abramowitz on behalf of the CIA and USA, Thomas Michel on behalf of the Vatican: am I making these names up as well?
And please do not put words in my mouth. The content of my criticism of Gülen never differs: it is the same in Turkey as well as in the West. I am not here to defend the West by the way – I am here to confront people mislead by Scott C. Alexander with Gülen's real face and to condemn those who opportunistically have supported them so that his movement could become the most powerful player in Turkish politics and society, making life miserable for everyone who disagrees with him. So I am not warning the CIA or the Vatican to "Watch out!" (I couldn't care less about them) – I am merely trying to make a humble contribution to the efforts of undermining the powerful, despotic position currently held by the Gülen movement.
Semih E. writes:
Furthermore, the accusations and distortion reaches a new height in his ridiculous claim that Gulen is 'faking it' when he says he is humble! Our commentator apparently has the ability to read people's minds. But that's not all: the phrases he claims that Gulen uses about himself (educator of educators etc.) are not uttered by himself but by a supporter of his work. Nowhere can you find Gulen referring to himself as 'near to a prophet.' From the very beginning he refers to himself as a simple human being.
I am not reading minds. I base my claims on facts. The phrases used in the application for an American Green Card bear Gülen's signature. It was his court case, not of one of his supporters. Furthermore, I didn't say that Gülen literally refers to himself as 'near to a prophet.' I said that in his biography Kucuk Dunyam he talks about himself in such a way that no choice is left for the reader to think otherwise. For instance, he says that, just a month after learning to read at the age of four, he already had memorized the whole Quran by heart. He implies that both branches of his lineage are 'sayyid.' He tells about his grandfather's village that once was visited by Caliph Ali who nailed a stake in the village ground so that the village would be protected against earthquakes. These are not the words of a humble person, sir. And please do not forget his omnipresence concerning every single political or social issue that is on the Turkish agenda.
Gülen working towards world peace? Yes, I have no doubt he is. But unfortunately I do not have a high opinion of his interpretation of peace, because I am afraid that there is no place for people like me in there. Call it 'self-preservation' if you like.
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
Comment on this item