Fethullah Gülen was a multifaceted personality—a Sunni Turkish Muslim devoted to the well-being of the Turkish people; a renowned Sufi Islamic scholar; a mujaddid (renewer of faith); a humanist, visionary, teacher, poet, philosopher, and educationist; a preacher and motivator; a philanthropist; an ardent advocate of peace and non-violence; an Islamically grounded postmodern critic of the modernist vision of development; an ascetic and a loner; a voice for the voiceless and marginalized; a spiritual mentor and guide for millions; and the builder of one of the most vibrant Islamic civic-social movements and developmental models, known as Hizmet. This movement, originating in Turkey, has spread to approximately 160 countries across the world. Above all, he gave hope to the hopeless.

The inclusivity of Gülen’s Islamic thought, along with its philosophy of positive action and adaptive culture, enabled him and the Hizmet movement to thrive in diverse contexts—be they political, social, economic, modern, or traditional. This inclusivity fostered interactions with diverse viewpoints, including political ones, and facilitated collaborative relationships across cultures, faith groups, languages, and civilizations, all with the aim of serving humanity through social initiatives.

For this reason, modern social science scholarship, particularly in the field of religious movements, struggles to categorize Gülen and the Hizmet movement. Labels such as modernist, reformist, revivalist, fundamentalist, traditionalist, conservative, or Islamist fail to capture their essence. This difficulty also highlights why a “modernist mindset” often fails to grasp Gülen’s Islamic moral and ethical universalism and his everyday humility, which is deeply rooted in Prophetic traditions. For example, Dexter Filkins, a writer for The New Yorker who published a largely critical piece on the Hizmet movement following Turkey’s disputed 2016 military coup, expressed surprise and disbelief at Gülen’s response to a question during their interview that same year. When asked how he wished to be remembered, Gülen replied: “I wish to be forgotten after I die. I wish for my grave to remain unknown. I hope to die in solitude, with no one becoming aware of my death, and thus, no one conducting my funeral prayer. I wish for no one to remember me.” The writer sarcastically noted that this was “an answer the like of which I’ve never heard from another leader in politics or religion.”

Filkins, unfamiliar with Sufi discourse, failed to understand the depth of Gülen’s response. In the Sufi tradition, one lives in a constant state of nothingness, or fana (self-annihilation) before God, striving to remain His humble servant and to avoid the worldly temptations of glory, power, fame, and recognition. Similarly, some Western writers reduced the Hizmet movement to the concept of “market Islam.” Such characterizations reveal the limitations of a modernist framework, which relies heavily on rigid categories, binaries, and power-centric narratives. Unsurprisingly, many Western and Westernized media outlets interpreted Gülen’s legacy narrowly through the lens of the disputed 2016 military coup in Turkey.

Gülen’s Islamic ecumenism enabled him to critically address extremist, ideological, reactionary, and exclusivist traditions—whether rooted in Islamic or secular discourses. As such, he refrained from aligning with or approving, and often directly denounced, both the anti-religious, ideological secular state, including Kemalism, and Islamist constructs, such as Erdoğanism. For Gülen, these ideological and political frameworks were inherently inimical to the common good, as they relied on divisive “us versus them” binaries. Instead, he advocated for governance by a “neutral state” that respects the boundaries and autonomy of civil society, alongside the principles of equality, freedom, non-discrimination, and citizenship. This stance explains why both Gülen and the Hizmet movement became targets of attack from various ideological factions in Turkey—Kemalist, secularist, nationalist, and Islamist—primarily from state-centric political forces. These groups perceived Gülen’s vision of a “civil society Islam” as “too autonomous,” “too democratic,” and therefore “too dangerous” for the survival of Turkey’s tradition of statism, prompting efforts to suppress the movement under various pretexts.

It is extremely challenging to encapsulate the legacy of such a multifaceted personality, one who had over five decades of active public life within and beyond Turkey. Yet, certain elements of Gülen’s ideas and actions emerge as uniquely remarkable and exemplary.

First, Gülen’s Islamic hermeneutics is based on interpreting both the Qur’an and the life of the Prophet in synchrony, the latter as the explainer of the former. While many scholars of the twentieth century focused only on the Qur’an and many times on its literal interpretation. Gülen emphasized that the Qur’an is best exemplified through the life and practices of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and his Companions, viewing them as inseparable. He believed that a proper, balanced, and inclusive understanding of the Qur’an—and its application to modern challenges—requires a profound knowledge of their lives and legacies.

Gülen introduced a methodological framework: an inclusive understanding of Islamic universalism requires an intra-textual approach that integrates the Qur’an and other Scriptures with the lived world of Prophetic Traditions, as narrated in multiple Islamic sources. He argued that an ahistorical, literal, and mechanical reading of the Qur’an and other Islamic texts has, in some cases, led to distorted, radicalized, power-centered, and violence-prone interpretations of Islam and its history. These misinterpretations, depending on the individuals or groups propagating them, have significantly harmed the image of Islam.

For this reason, Gülen emphasized that Muslims must prioritize the accurate representation of Islam in both private and public domains, both among themselves and in their interactions with others. Notably, he was one of the first Islamic scholars to unequivocally condemn the 9/11 attacks and global terrorism. Drawing from his understanding of Islamic universal ethics and morality, he boldly stated: “A Muslim cannot be a terrorist, and a terrorist cannot be a Muslim.”

Second, Gülen’s Islamic ontology and praxis, following the footsteps of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), has developed a human-centered theology. This paradigm, rare in the annals of Islamic philosophical and theological thought, advocates for the peaceful coexistence of diverse cultures, religions, civilizations, nationalities, races, political ideologies, and governing systems in the rapidly globalizing world. It is grounded in God-ordained universal human values such as love, tolerance, peace, friendship, trust, altruism, respect, compassion, forgiveness, solidarity, and social responsibility.

For this reason, Gülen, departing from conventional understandings of the Divine, boldly declared that “diversity is divinely intended.” This entails that promoting and preserving diversity in its various forms is a sacred act. Notably, for Gülen, the concept of diversity extends beyond collective differences to include diversity within each collective. He believed that faith in diversity is fundamental to any conception of democracy, as it necessitates an accommodation of differences. Most violent conflicts, in his view, arise from the politics of intolerance and a rejection of differences.

It is therefore unsurprising that Gülen prioritized “dialogue” and “consultation” as the two most essential principles for the functioning of any democratic society and state.

These humanistic values were crushed under various forms of modernity, pursued in the name of “science,” “positivism,” and “systems,” which have produced and continue to foster violence and homogenization. For Gülen, the challenge of his era—and for future generations—was to re-center these humanistic values within global developmental and political discourses. He believed that the promotion and expansion of these values are the true measure of sincerity, worship, and service to both God and humanity.

For this reason, Gülen strongly advocated for the need to “humanize and spiritualize” modernity and modern governance systems. Such an approach, he argued, would prioritize “human security” over the narrower concept of “national security.”

A third prominent legacy of Fethullah Gülen is his groundbreaking work in education, for which the Hizmet movement is renowned across the globe. One of the key reasons behind Gülen’s success in the field of education, both within and beyond Turkey, is his framing of access to and attainment of education as a fundamental expression of Islamic universal faith, identity, and humanity. While many have advocated for education, few have transformed their call into a vibrant social movement that has significantly contributed to the democratization of Turkish public life. This peaceful, democratic assertion of the “Muslim periphery” has made Turkish society more inclusive and diverse—a remarkable legacy in the Turkish context.

Gülen viewed education not only as a prerequisite for attaining iman (faith) but also as an equalizing force and a means of building capabilities to navigate the complexities of the modern world. This perspective inspired a dedicated generation, who, within a short span of time, carried the educational mission to many parts of the world, often in the face of great challenges and difficulties. I believe Gülen’s educational model as a “social movement” is desperately needed in underdeveloped regions across the globe to help reduce social and economic inequalities and contribute to the common good.

Gülen considered education as a vocation, an ethical enterprise, a holistic experience, and a social process with the potential to transform human beings. The high modernism of the West, while making significant positive contributions to humanity, has also produced a “scientific-technocratic, heartless mind” that has failed to prevent cycles of violence and destruction. Gülen’s educational model seeks to balance the virtues of the heart with the rational mind, ensuring that softer humanistic values guide and temper the destructive ambitions often associated with unchecked scientific and technological advancement. I believe this model of education, particularly in schools, is highly relevant to today’s globalized world, which stands at a crossroads marked by high nationalist-populist politics. The unpredictable impulses of these movements risk pushing the world toward greater conflict and violence on a global scale.

Above all, Gülen will be remembered as an apostle of peace and non-violence. This is evident in his resolute commitment to ensuring the Hizmet movement remained peaceful despite decades of relentless, systematic attacks by the Erdoğan regime. These attacks included the illegal appropriation of Hizmet properties, estimated at approximately $50 billion, and the widespread persecution of its volunteers. Few instances of such prolonged persecution exist in recent human history. Despite these immense challenges and false accusations, he responded with unwavering peace, legality, and non-violence. He lifted the “Gülen community” from a “slumber of hopelessness” and guided them to continue their hizmet—service to humanity for the sake of Allah—without expectation of reward.

The origins of a seemingly nameless civic-social movement which later became popularly known as the “Gülen Movement” or “Hizmet Movement” date back to the early 1970s in Turkey.  The Movement’s goal is to produce “social good” throughout the world, which are manifested around peaceful activities like promoting dialogue among communities, human rights, love, tolerance, ethics, education, women’s issues, and eradication of poverty. It derives inspiration from the ideas and thoughts of Fethullah Gülen, a Muslim cleric who is known as “Hojaefendi.” The Movement has successfully nurtured a generation to establish a global network of socio-cultural institutions including schools, coaching centers, universities, media outlets, publishing houses, hospitals, dialogue centers, and relief organizations.

At its core, the Movement is a faith based social movement that takes inspiration from Islamic ideals to reinforce the civic, moral, and ethical goals of Islam. The goal is to transform individuals and society in such a way to produce a “golden generation,” which in turn provides leadership to all walks of human life.

The Movement has espoused a purely civic social aspect of Islam – as opposed to discourses of “Islam and modernity” – to universalize the message of the Movement which has ultimately paved the way for it to become transnational.

“The movement encapsulates a faith-inspired peace-invoking service. It promotes universal values, superiority of the law and human rights along with freedom of belief, freedom of religion and freedom of expression.” [1]

As the movement’s chief source of inspiration, Fethullah Gülen dwells upon the universal values of humanity as an integral part of Islam’s fundamental doctrine and values. His approach to faith bends on Sufism and this has always made him a propounder of the human-centric discourse of Islam. The goal of this discourse is to promote a civic and ethical transformation of an individual and society at large, based upon the prophetic model of insan al-kamil (perfect human being). Gülen maintains that “Morality is the essence of religion and a most fundamental portion of the divine message. The Prophet, who is the greatest embodiment of morals, said: Islam consists in good morals; I have been sent to perfect and complete good morals” [2].

Gülen further underlines that the basic dynamics of a life of action and thought is directly tied with our spiritual life, which is based upon our religious values [3]. Gülen’s very idea of hizmet, meaning “service,” reminds the spiritual fervor of Imam Rabbani’s “abadiyat,” (meaning eternity) notion, becomes in a way “service to eternal God.” The attainment of “service to eternity” can only be achieved by serving the humanity. This universal Islamic discourse of Gülen discards the need of state agencies as a perquisite to serve Islam and its interests. Rather, he maintains that Islam can best be served by participating in socially beneficial activities such as promoting peace, imparting education, providing relief and health facilities. To emphasize this point, Gülen has said; “Islam does not need a state to survive; in the modern age, civil society can independently maintain Islam even where Muslims are not in majority” [4].

These conceptual and ideological clusters helped create and broaden the vision of transnational networks of Hizmet Movement that had entered the global arena and made it to engage in a comprehensive perspective on social-civic challenges. Its transnational character became even firmer when Gülen himself moved to the United States and was actively involved in promoting and improving the overall wellbeing of society investing his robust efforts to foster dialogue and peace. Since then, themes such as peace, human rights, ethics, pluralism, altruism, reconciliation and dialogue have occupied even more space in the center of the Movement’s agenda in order to gain a better understanding of, and appreciation for, cultures, histories, civilizations and traditions.

Despite its current national experience in its homeland Turkey differs widely in terms of the social relevance and political interactions, at the transnational level one can hardly doubt that the Movement has progressively developed an ability to address and mobilize around problems of a social and civic nature.

Unlike many other Islamic modernist movements including Salafism and al-Nahdah in Arabia, the Muhammadiyah movement in Indonesia, the Aligarh and Nadwa movements in India, the Hizmet Movement has been characterized by mass interaction and participation at local, national, and transnational levels. This interaction and participation have attracted thousands of volunteers across the globe and have generated a global network of thousands of socio-cultural institutions including schools, coaching centers, universities, hospitals, dialogue centers, relief organizations etc. Their transnational networks active on global and local civic social issues have multiplied, built alliances with national and supranational civil actors including UN’s institutions, and influenced their views and actions.

Professor Anwar Alam maintains:

“Hizmet is a transnational civil society movement calling up everyone to collaborate around a common ideal of good work for humanity. The movement aims to facilitate an environment in which all can work together in a pluralistic, peaceful, all embracing spirit and voluntary altruism, regardless of subscription to a certain faith.” [5]

Unlike other movements, Hizmet’s most effective paradigm of conceptualizing such an unusual combination of coalitions, coordination, and diversities of convergence and pluralism, of national and transnational struggles is an example of a model grassroots movement.

Transnational networking of the Movement has emerged as a crucial aspect of its global activities and as the main form of organizational linkage between local nation-based civic actors to the cross-border activism of Hizmet. The Movement aptly fits into Robert Putnam’s theory on “Social Capital” which refers to “the connections among individuals, social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them.” Hizmet’s transnational network is a result of its employment of “social trust” and “reciprocity.”

Thus, these forms of movement within Hizmet can be characterized by voluntary horizontal and, at times, vertical patterns of coordination that are reciprocal and asymmetrical. Within the Hizmet Movement, in particular, the transnational network can be understood as maintaining coordination among different civil society actors including both organizations and individuals such as experts, located in several countries, based on a shared frame of work, and investing joint efforts for common good. Being a faith based movement, the crucial factor that motivates its volunteers is, as Anwar Alam rightly observed, “the in-built Islamic cognitive structure of the ‘ikhlas-iman-hijrah-dawa’” linkage that provides the motivational resources for the expansion of the movement.” While detailing the micro structure of the Movement he concluded, “in short, the whole Hizmet Movement runs on the informal principle of consultation, trust, cooperation, and faith” [6].

In spite of the different perspectives and viewpoints in course, the Movement flourished as a self-organized and self-sustained actor on the global scene with its own policy priorities and agenda for social-civic changes. The Movement is clearly transnational in its very nature and in the reach of its activism that converges in fostering universal values. While having such a vivid picture of the transnational character of the Movement, one can rightly argue that this transnational character became the reason the Movement not only survived but thrived, in wake of the so called failed coup attempt of 2016 and subsequent witch hunts and purges that were launched by the Turkish regime.

References

1 Alam, Anwar. 2019. For the sake of Allah, The Origin, Development, and Discourse of the Gülen Movement. Blue Dome Press, USA, p. 28.

2 Gülen, M. Fethullah. 1998. Towards the Lost Paradise. Izmir: kaynak.  Al-Bukhari, “Al-adab-ul-Mufrad” no. 273, and  Ibn-Sa’ad, “al-tabaqat” vol.1, p. 192.

3 Ibid, p. 87.

4 Quoted in Mustafa Akyol, “What made the Gulen Movement Possible” in International Conference Proceedings: Muslim World in Transition: Contributions of the Gülen Movement, Leeds Metropolitan University Press, London, October 2007, p. 31.

5 Alam, op. cit. p. 27.

6 Alam, op. cit. p. 159-164.