The code of the parallel structure

It is in fact one of the typical outcomes in political movements that a structure that sets out to reach a certain goal, formed to realize those goals, glorifies that goal ever more on the one hand while, on the other, drifting far from that goal by what it does. For that reason, when it comes to the Gülen movement, it should not be thought that we are facing a movement unparalleled in the world. In many respects there are many examples of this course of the movement.

Perhaps one difference is that the Gülen movement has suffered a somewhat harsher fall into positions that are the exact opposite of the matters on which it was overly ambitious or which it emphasized.

On those subjects too, there are visible back-and-forths between the movement's founding discourses and the discourses it took on at certain stages of the road. A swing from chauvinist nationalist discourses, which permeated and shaped even its Islamic understanding, in a short time to a point where the concepts of tolerance and dialogue were emphasized to an exaggerated degree and activities that could be considered excessive were carried out in this direction... Moreover, simultaneously, there is also, in no way commensurate with the tolerance and dialogue shown toward those considered relatively more "outside," an intolerance and closedness shown toward those who could be considered more "inside."

Even in the times when it emphasized tolerance and dialogue the most, the Gülen movement stands out for building thick walls between itself and many Islamic communities and for not communicating with them. And it does not do this only in Turkey. All over the world it displays a similar attitude toward other Islamic movements or communities.

Seen from this angle, it must be noted that it is in fact not very easy to measure how far the Gülen movement has deviated from what it aimed at when it set out. Essentially, no one has yet been able to make a definitive determination as to what the movement's real goal is. For the movement never shared its real intentions and goals with anyone from outside. The movement's most characteristic feature is that, with extreme secrecy, it gives the impression of having certain secrets protected at every layer.

As is customary in structures in which the secret is opened according to hierarchical level, the movement has not told its real goal even to those it counts as "inside." It is therefore highly probable that its real goals, as a secret, are known only by those at the top of the movement. This is the really bad part. In a movement whose secret only those at the top know, there is nothing in hand other than the relationship of trust established.

In a movement based on blind obedience to the leader, while diametrically opposed goals are set within two days, the adherents can accept both without questioning. It is very clear that this form of relationship does not belong to a Muslim culture, that it is peculiar to secretive, batini movements. No Muslim who knows Islam and himself can trust anyone this much.

The Companions, the first perfect generation of Muslims, obeyed the Prophet unconditionally because of the revelation he received, but even they could object to our Prophet's personal ijtihads that were not based on revelation. They would ask, "Is this from you or from God, O Messenger of God?" When the view was the Prophet's own view, they did not hesitate to put forward their alternative views, and the Prophet would in this way open the way for the Companions' views.

In the Gülen movement, we see an example of blind obedience, without questioning what he does, to a leader who has led nearly the great majority of Muslims to take a front against them, even to declare war, to grieve at what makes Muslims glad and to rejoice at what grieves them. This obedience drops people far from the general course of Muslims and severs their feelings from the feelings of the oppressed and the sincere believers. If there were no other indicator, should not this situation alone wake a person up?

We cannot know how far the movement has really deviated from its aims. We do not know how Gülen was affected by a series of relationships he entered in the sixties, by the various relationships with the Association for the Struggle Against Communism and Kasım Gülek, and what kind of vision he set before himself when he set out. From the picture that is becoming increasingly clear today, we can guess that those relationships had a decisive effect on the movement's vision and mission. Fethullah Gülen and his movement have a secret, a code, going back to those very years, containing both its purpose and its vision..

That is why, without knowing this code, what we say about the balance of ends and means for socialism or Islamism may remain up in the air as to how far it applies to this movement.

However, for those who follow Gülen the situation should not be this uncertain after all, because they appear to have followed him having heard from him the values of Islam, its humane and tawhidic vision. They must question how compatible every movement and every discourse they see is with the mission that should be plain and transparent to every Muslim. Otherwise the services they render, without knowing for whom or what, will come to nothing, and it would be a pity and a sin.