In the past week, two supposed experts in Middle Eastern policy have put forth their opinions of the Gulen Movement. First, we heard from Soner Cagaptay, whose argument piece entitled, “What’s Really Behind Turkey’s Coup Arrests?”, appeared in Foreign Policy magazine on February 25th. Daniel Pipes, erstwhile Director of the Middle East Forum, jumped on the bandwagon to trash Fethullah Gulen and his followers, in his article, “Crisis in Turkey”, which appeared on National Review Online on March 2nd. Both continue to profess that any Muslim, anywhere, who actively practices and promotes his/her religion are inherently incapable of desiring freedom and democracy and must be Islamists (the accepted term for those who specifically advocate radical, purist, even pro-violence interpretations of the Prophet’s Message). Because Fethullah Gulen and those who agree with his teachings actively identify as Muslims not embarrassed by their beliefs who recognize that “secular” does not have to mean “un-religious”, they must be suspect. However, in actuality, Gulen believes that all true Muslims yearn for freedom (Advocate of Dialogue, 2006) and has repeatedly denied promoting any particular political party (Foreign Policy, 2008).
Cagaptay and Pipes regard the Gulen Movement as a subversive organization that is seeking to undermine the establishment of Turkey in the name of Islam. The culmination of both arguments is that anyone who supports the democratically elected government of Turkey, is pro-European Union and is adamant that the military has no role intervening in civil politics is classified as a “Gulen sympathizer”, as if these are evil things. What must be understood by their audience is that one of the EU’s requirements for normalization is that Turkey must lessen the military’s influence over domestic politics and eliminate the possibility of instability-causing coups. Are we to assume the EU is a Gulen sympathizer as well?
Both of these articles were highly disappointing from an academic standpoint as both were riddled with baseless allegations, many of which the authors must have known would play well in a West that has become frantically afraid of pious Muslims. Were their submissions designed to add to their list of publications without adding anything of substance to the discourse?
I would have expected much more from both publications. Certainly, in keeping with the reputations of Foreign Policy and National Review, one would have thought upon receiving such overtly hostile opinion pieces, alternative arguments would have been sought. This would not have been hard to accomplish since Dr. John Esposito, renowned Professor of Religion and International Affairs at Georgetown University, responded to both articles within hours in an article on The Huffington Post’s website.
Democracy is vital, not only in Turkey but in the larger region and it boggles the mind how anyone can condemn those who promote it, no matter their religious affiliation. The Gulen Movement is clearly the best alternative to the Iran-like Islamist takeover Cagaptay and Pipes are so alarmed about. I look forward to seeing a more balanced debate in the future.
