By Hadi Uluengin (Hurriyet Daily)
To analyze the Gulen Movement, first we must agree on definitions.
Such an agreement will set the discussion on a healthier and a more objective ground. That is because many accusations – rightly or wrongly, made against the same movement require an agreed upon lexicon.
Do the masses, who gather around the spiritual and philosophical persona of the opinion leader in Pennsylvania, carry the characteristics of a “cemaat” as has been called? Or, on the contrary, would using the word “camia” (society) be more suitable? I believe the latter definition to be more accurate: let me get to my reasons.
As known, both words come from the verb “icma” which means to “gather.” I am not familiar with the course of evolution these words have traveled in Arabic; however, words “cemaat (community)” and “cemiyet (society),” that were derived from the same verb root, gained different meanings in Turkish.
With the first word, we generally mean a faithful congregation who prostrate together in houses of worship, listen to Friday sermons en masse, or bear witness to a deceased’s “goodness” at funerals. There are times we use “cemaat” in a secular sense or as a metaphor. In that sense, we call a small and fanatic group who pledged allegiance to an inadequate leader of a marginal communist fraction a “cemaat” as well. Long story short, word “cemaat” first connotes a limitation in time and space, and then existence of rules. Finally, we’re talking about a relatively narrow circle and a small number of participants. On the other hand, when speaking of “camia (society),” we describe a much different phenomenon.
That is so, because the word “camia”, that does not necessarily denote spirituality, inherently includes a larger magnitude in number of members as well as pluralism in its spectrum. Thus, there are times when we call a group of people who work at a small factory “the shop cemaat.”In contrast, roofs that bring together vast proletarian groups are called “union camia (society).” Similarly, the international structure that comprises former British colonies, and the federative structure of Russia should be described as “camia.” As number of participants increase and the body gets larger, small cemaats’ rigid and central rules become elastic and decentralized. In every social body, difference in “quality” asserts itself after “quantity” reaches a certain level; at which point we need to speak of camia.
Nevertheless, members of a “camia” can still unite around a common denominator. Agreed, but, for example members of “Besiktas1” or “Ecologists camia” have an association with their respective camias (soceities) limited to being a fan of a soccer team or an environmentalist movement. All of the “black & white2” fans never vote for the same party. Even though they protest the same fish carnage, some environmentalists are deists, and others have religious faith.
In light of the above discussion, the masses whose numbers are pronounced in the millions and whose common denominator is to embrace the spiritual leadership of Fethullah Gulen Hodjaefendi; or even only to sympathize with his reconciliatory discourse, cannot be named as “cemaat (community)” anymore. Today, The Gulen Movement can only be defined by the noun phrase “a large camia (society)” because it carries all social and organic characteristics of a camia; its positives and negatives, virtues and weaknesses. Therefore, the heterogeneous nature of the movement must be determined before the latest accusations and allegations against the Gulen Movement can be tackled. In other words, it must be accepted that there can be no religious, political, militant, cultural or any other camia (society) without differences, centrifugal elements, or “mavericks.”
Translated by Fethullah-Gulen.orf staff, you can read the original article here
