Everything for the "Hizmet"
The Gülen movement is without doubt an interesting example in terms of the experience of the relationship or balance between end and means, or between the ideal and the path followed to reach the ideal, transforming a movement. It can be given as an example of a movement that has moved away, as it advanced along the road, as far as it can from whatever it aimed at when it set out.
What happened to the concept of Hizmet is a central concept for examining this movement's experience. The people who are persuaded to join the movement, who join it somehow, most probably condition themselves, in an utterly sincere way, to "serve" very positive, very lofty values, for example Islam, God, the path of the Prophet, the Qur'an. In such cases service as a value is an invaluable social and cultural capital. It is the most important source of a social movement's success. A mobilization of service, well defined and in the end all grounded in the Book of God, expecting no reward, is not a form of action anyone can turn up their nose at. Service, in its definition in the Holy Qur'an, is the summary of the mode of existence of people who believe and do righteous deeds.
Service as a value became, after a while, the identity concept the Gülen movement dwelt on the most, worked over the most and gradually named itself by. The performance that the movement's travelers display on the path of service to the movement is not one anyone can object to or ignore. But that is where the real problem begins. If there is an ambiguity in the definition of the goal and path of service, there is an ambiguity too on whom and what is being served. Then one asks what all these sincere efforts are.
The movement defined itself as raising an extremely honest "golden generation," distant from politics, looking upon everyone with tolerance, whose sole aim is service to humanity and Islam. Yet gradually a generation emerged that harbors not the slightest tolerance for anyone other than those who joined this path of service, and that feels no responsibility to be just to, loyal to or helpful to anyone but its own people.
An approach came to dominate the structure that shows loyalty only to its own service comrades and deems it permissible to say every kind of taqiyya, that is, falsehood, to the rest. One of the community's columnists gave a statement saying "to die for service is an honor."
Evidently, it is a word said in the struggle it has entered, aimed at showing its adversaries loyalty to a cause, but it shows what kind of fetish character the concept of service has taken on for a community. Is there the slightest impression today that the community fills the content of the concept of "service" with any positive value? Is it Islam that will be served?
Will Islam be served by declaring war on a Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and his family, in whom the Muslims of the world and even all its oppressed see hope almost unanimously, and whom circles that have no liking for Islam, the Islamophobes, likewise hate?
Do not a person's friends and enemies also clearly reveal whose service he is in? For God's sake, just look at who in the world right now is with Erdoğan, Davutoğlu and their friends, and who is on the side of Gülen and his movement. Look also at before whom the Gülen community seeks legitimacy for itself, who it complains about to whom. Will you find, anywhere in the picture, any sign of service to Muslims or the oppressed by the Hizmet movement?
The movement that motivated extremely sincere people with the discourse of service currently has not the slightest act left anywhere in the world that soothes the hearts of Muslims.
The movement, which advertised what it did in Turkey with a great PR effort, demanded after a while an unimaginable power in return for all these services. And not a share of power or anything of the sort, but demanded the whole of power. And not even in the proper manner, but in a wholly unjust and irregular way, it attempted to usurp power by organizing a judicial and police junta from the small domain of power it had seized through corruption.
What is the explanation of this movement in terms of the concept of "service"? Even if the world's PR activity were carried out toward those outside the movement, there is no explanation that can be made at this hour. They surely cannot convince anyone that what has befallen them is the wrath of a government hostile to Islam and fearful of civil movements, because they served Islam or were a civil movement. For everyone knows that the struggle against the parallel structure is never because of civil activities, but a judicial-police coup attempted by wringing out and abusing even civility. Moreover this is not a one-attempt coup; it has become a tutelary aptitude nearly put on automatic, practically turned into a character.
Service has evidently ceased to be a value for the movement's members and has now been reduced to the code name of a community, an organization. There is no lofty value to be served. The movement itself is the goal of service. Service has ceased to be a path or a direction and has turned into a fetish that everyone serves themselves. Anyone who does not serve "service" as the code name of the structure now deserves every punishment. A government that falls short in service to Hizmet, in loyalty and obedience, if it comes to that, overthrowing it is the requirement of service.
Having moved from service to the truth to an "everything for service" understanding is just such a form of deviation. God forbid.