To understand the depth of their commitment to dialogue, we must first understand the zeitgeist of their formative years. Bergoglio came of age in an Argentina marked by deep social inequalities, while his family carried the memory of fleeing fascist Italy in 1929. He grew up in the working-class neighborhood of Flores, witnessing firsthand the struggles of the marginalized. Later, as a young Jesuit priest, Bergoglio would experience the dark years of Argentina’s military dictatorship and the Dirty War of 1976-1983, when thousands disappeared. This crucible of suffering and social injustice would forge his understanding of the church’s mission to the poor and his belief that faith must be lived in solidarity with those who suffer.

Gülen’s Turkey was equally formative, though different in its challenges. Born in the conservative, Sufi-influenced culture of eastern Anatolia, he grew up under the strict secularism of the Kemalist state, where even his mother’s teaching of the Qur’an in their village was technically illegal. The Turkey of his youth was caught between its Ottoman Islamic heritage and the aggressive modernization project that sought to erase religious influence from public life.

This tension between tradition and modernity, between faith and secular governance, became the backdrop against which Gülen would develop his vision of a renewed Islam capable of engaging constructively with the modern world. Working as a state-appointed imam from 1959 to 1981, he navigated these contradictions with remarkable creativity, ultimately enabling the formation of a movement that would establish hundreds of schools worldwide.

What stands out most profoundly in both men is how their unwavering commitment to their respective faiths became not a barrier to dialogue but its very foundation. For Bergoglio, his Jesuit formation and deep devotion to Christ grounded his openness to others. The more authentically Christian he became, the more he could recognize and honor the divine presence in other traditions. Similarly, Gülen’s profound immersion in Islamic spirituality, deeply influenced by Said Nursi’s writings, enabled him to reach across religious boundaries with confidence and humility. Both exemplified a crucial paradox of authentic dialogue: it is precisely those who are firmly rooted in their own tradition who can engage most generously with others. Their interfaith work was not about diluting their convictions but about living them fully.

Nostra Aetate

The Second Vatican Council’s Declaration Nostra Aetate, promulgated in 1965 when Bergoglio was a young Jesuit in formation, opened revolutionary new pathways for Catholic engagement with other religions. This document, which declared that the Church “rejects nothing that is true and holy” in other religions and called for dialogue and collaboration, provided the theological framework that would guide the future Pope Francis. The Council’s teaching that Muslims “adore the one God” and that the Church looks upon Muslims “with esteem” gave official sanction to what would become Bergoglio’s lifelong practice. He absorbed these teachings during his formative years as a seminarian and priest, and they became integral to his pastoral approach.

For Gülen, the decisive intellectual influence was his encounter with the writings of Said Nursi, the Kurdish Islamic scholar whose Risale-i Nur collection reimagined Islamic thought for the modern age. Nursi’s emphasis on the compatibility of faith and reason, his positive engagement with science, and his call for Muslims to contribute constructively to society rather than retreat into isolation provided Gülen with a theological foundation for dialogue. Through Nursi’s lens, Gülen came to understand that reaching out to people of other faiths was not a betrayal of Islam but an expression of its deepest values of mercy, compassion, and service.

Both men shared a profound connection with Pope John Paul II, though in different ways and to different degrees. Francis’s relationship with John Paul was intimate and transformative.

Appointed auxiliary bishop of Buenos Aires in 1992 and made a cardinal in 2001 by John Paul II, Bergoglio worked closely with the Polish pope and absorbed his vision of the Church as a protagonist in the modern world. John Paul’s example of fearless engagement with cultures, his numerous encounters with leaders of other faiths, and his understanding of the papacy as a ministry of dialogue shaped the future Pope Francis profoundly.

Gülen’s encounter with John Paul II was briefer but no less significant. His meeting with the Pope at the Vatican in February 1998 represented a milestone in Muslim-Catholic relations, coming at a time when such high-level encounters were still relatively rare. This meeting occurred in the spirit of Assisi—that groundbreaking gathering in October 1986 when John Paul II invited religious leaders from around the world to pray for peace. The Assisi gathering, though controversial in some quarters, became a defining moment in interreligious relations, establishing what became known as the “Spirit of Assisi.” It demonstrated that people of different faiths could come together, not to compromise their beliefs, but to witness together to the transcendent dimension of peace.

Both Francis and Gülen were uncompromising in their commitment to nonviolence and in their determination to deconstruct the false association between religion and terrorism. After the September 11 attacks, Gülen was among the first prominent Muslim voices to condemn the violence publicly and to insist that such acts violated the core teachings of Islam. Throughout his life, he emphasized that Islam’s name itself, derived from the root for peace, called Muslims to be peacemakers. Similarly, Francis consistently refused to accept any linkage between authentic religious faith and violence. He repeatedly stressed that using God’s name to justify violence is a form of blasphemy. Both men understood that the integrity of religious traditions depends on their capacity to promote peace and human dignity.

At the heart of both men’s understanding of dialogue lies a profoundly simple yet challenging principle: the centrality of love for every human person as beloved by God. For Francis, this is rooted in the Christian understanding of the imago Dei—every person bears the image of God and therefore deserves respect and love. He has spoken movingly about the need to see Christ in the face of the poor, the migrant, the suffering. For Gülen, the Qur’anic teaching that God loves humanity and has honored human beings with dignity shapes his approach to others. In his understanding, which draws deeply from Sufi spirituality, to love the created is to love the Creator. Both men insist that authentic religious commitment must express itself in love that crosses all boundaries.

Terrorism of “gossip”

One particularly striking parallel in their teachings concerns the corrosive effects of gossip and backbiting. Both Francis and Gülen have been remarkably forthright in condemning these practices, which they see as fundamentally incompatible with both faith and genuine dialogue. Francis has repeatedly warned against the “terrorism of gossip,” describing it as a form of murder because it kills the reputation and dignity of others. He has emphasized that gossip destroys community and makes authentic dialogue impossible. Gülen, drawing on Islamic teachings that compare backbiting to eating the flesh of one’s dead brother, has been equally forceful. He has taught that a community built on trust and mutual respect cannot survive where gossip flourishes. For both men, the prohibition against gossip is not merely a matter of good manners but a religious imperative rooted in respect for human dignity. Healthy dialogue requires an environment where people can trust one another, and gossip poisons that trust at its source.

The warmth of personal encounter

Throughout their lives, both men have welcomed people of different religions and cultures with genuine warmth and friendship. Francis’s papacy has been marked by countless such encounters—from his embrace of Muslim leaders to his meetings with Orthodox patriarchs, from his dialogues with Jewish communities to his outreach to people of no religious faith. His spontaneous gestures of affection and his evident delight in these encounters reveal that, for him, dialogue is not a diplomatic duty but a source of joy. Gülen, despite his later years in exile and declining health, maintained a similar practice of welcoming visitors from diverse backgrounds to his modest quarters in Pennsylvania. He met with Christian leaders, Jewish rabbis, and representatives of various traditions, always with the same message: that we are called to serve humanity together. Both men embodied the truth that genuine dialogue happens not merely in formal conferences but in the warmth of personal encounter.

The importance of prayer in their approach to dialogue and their lives cannot be overstated. A remarkable testament to their mutual respect came in April 2016, when Pope Francis wrote to Gülen asking for his prayers. Though the full text of this correspondence has not been publicly released, its very existence speaks volumes about the spiritual recognition between these two men. Both understood that prayer is not merely a private practice but the foundation of all authentic action for peace. Francis has consistently emphasized that without prayer, efforts for peace become merely political maneuvering. Gülen has taught that prayer transforms the heart and makes genuine service possible. Both have encouraged interfaith prayers—not syncretistic combinations that blur differences, but gatherings where people of different traditions pray according to their own beliefs for common aspirations.

Perhaps most significantly, both men have made education, particularly peace education, central to their vision of sustainable dialogue. Francis has spoken frequently about the need for an “education in fraternity” and has launched initiatives like the Global Compact on Education to promote educational approaches that serve peace and human dignity. His encyclicals, particularly Laudato Si’ and Fratelli Tutti, are essentially educational documents calling for a transformation of consciousness. Gülen’s legacy is perhaps most visible in the hundreds of schools established worldwide by participants in the Hizmet movement. These schools, which welcome students of all backgrounds, embody his conviction that quality education—combining academic excellence with moral formation—is the most effective pathway to peace. For both men, education is not merely about transmitting information but about forming persons capable of dialogue, committed to justice, and ready to serve the common good.

A convergent journey

As we reflect on the lives and legacies of these two extraordinary figures, we see not two separate paths but a convergent journey toward a more humane world. Though coming from different traditions and contexts, Pope Francis and Fethullah Gülen arrived at remarkably similar conclusions about what authentic religious commitment requires in our interconnected age.

Their lives testify that deep faith and generous openness to others are not contradictory but complementary. They show us that prayer and action, contemplation and service, fidelity to one’s tradition and respect for others’ traditions can and must go together.

Their witness challenges us to recognize that dialogue is not an optional extra for people of faith but an essential dimension of authentic religious life in our time. It reminds us that building peace requires not just political agreements but transformed hearts—and that such transformation happens through prayer, education, and the daily practice of love and respect across all human boundaries. In a world still torn by religious violence and mutual suspicion, the convergent witness of Pope Francis and Fethullah Gülen offers hope and a roadmap. They show us what becomes possible when religious leaders have the courage to reach across divides, the wisdom to ground their openness in deep faith, and the persistence to work for peace education that can sustain dialogue for generations to come.

Answer: Many of us were raised without guides who could direct us to the right path and illuminate the roads we walk. As a result, we were unable to view events through a holistic perspective. We could not perceive the relationships between cause and effect. We failed to plan our present in connection with our future, and our future in connection with the days that lie beyond it. Consequently, we could not live our lives within the framework of a broader plan.

In general, concerns centered on merely getting through the present day came to dominate our thinking. We fixed our gaze on today and neglected tomorrow. Our thoughts became confined to worldly concerns, and our horizons narrowed. Indeed, for a person who does not lean on a heavenly source, it is extremely difficult to evaluate events from a comprehensive perspective, to rise beyond the prison of corporeality, and to organize life according to a grander plan.

Human beings are not merely material entities made up of physical bodies. They also possess a heart and a spirit, along with deeper inner faculties such as sirr, khafi, akhfa, and the latifa Rabbaniyya (the subtle divine faculty). Just as the physical structure of the human being consists of many interwoven systems and layers, the spiritual dimension likewise comprises numerous distinct mechanisms and depths.

Whoever created the human being with both inward and outward dimensions is also the One Who knows the human being best. Therefore, a balanced and peaceful life is possible only through recourse to His guidance. If that guidance is ignored, however, and the human being is viewed within a narrow framework and considered only in terms of material existence, then certain aspects of the person become paralyzed.

This resembles trying to take care of one organ of the human body without taking the entire anatomy into account. No matter how knowledgeable or skilled the specialist performing such an intervention may be, complications are inevitable when the whole is ignored.

Deepening within the inner self

Today, we seek everything in the outer world, whereas within the inner self lies an immense realm waiting to be discovered. The following couplet by Erzurumlu İbrahim Hakkı draws attention to this truth:  

“God said: ‘I cannot be contained within the earth and the heavens’;

Yet He was known through the mine of the heart.”

Indeed, neither the earth nor the heavens can encompass God; He is transcendent beyond space. Yet His knowledge and love manifest themselves in the human heart. As this couplet indicates, the inner self is profoundly important and deeply instructive. A person may not reach in the outer world the truths that can be attained within one’s own inner depths and spiritual world. Whoever is able to deepen within the self is graced with many inspirations and forms of spiritual knowledge that cannot be seen, read, or heard in the heavens and the earth.

Moreover, one who cannot properly read the inner self may become trapped in the swamp of positivism and naturalism while searching in the outer world. If a person first learns to read the inner self correctly, begins reflection there, and then turns toward the outer world, such a person walks with firmer steps, traverses life’s paths with greater awareness, and reaches important truths concerning the knowledge of God. Yet all of this depends upon benefiting from divine outpourings and from their sweet and abundant source. A person who is not nourished by revelation cannot correctly understand his or her own essential nature, nor reach the inner points of reliance and spiritual support embedded within.

Today, because naturalistic assumptions are predominantly presented to us in the name of knowledge and science, we too reduce the human being to the earth and confine the person within a narrow framework by considering only corporeal existence. Since we have been raised within the materialistic secular culture of the modern world, and since educational curricula shaped by this culture are implemented in our schools, our minds and ways of thinking are influenced by it, whether we realize it or not. Consequently, our criteria for interpreting the human being, existence, and the universe gradually change.

For the human being is a child of the cultural environment in which he or she is raised. Whatever people repeatedly encounter at home, in the streets, in schools, or in places of worship, they often come to adopt. Today, because people do not hear even a single spiritually uplifting voice or resonance nourishing the heart and soul in the environments through which they move, their emotional and intellectual worlds become impaired, and they begin wandering through very different and unfamiliar valleys.

The worldly drift of religious interpretation

The culture in which we live leaves its imprint on everything—from our understanding of the Divine Being to our view of angels, from the way we interpret religion to the nature of our spiritual lives. As a result, even matters that are heavenly and transcendent are gradually reduced to earthly terms. We interpret the divine scriptures through molds presented—and at times imposed—by the surrounding culture. Our own interpretations and understandings often distort the color and texture of these sources.

Instead of embracing the meanings we are truly meant to understand, we adopt what appeals to our desires or seems compatible with our interests. Rather than seeking to discern what God desires through His divine speech, we make the Qur’an speak according to the meanings we find expedient. Through our own worldliness, we flatten the profound depths of the Book and reduce it to our own frame of understanding. At the root of certain theological interpretations that cannot be reconciled with the spirit of religion lie precisely such tendencies. In fact, this superficiality and narrowness are often reflected even in the translations and interpretations we give to Qur’anic verses. Nor do we confine only the Qur’an within this shallow framework; we interpret the book of the universe in the same reductive manner.

Indeed, the foremost aim of the early scholars was to understand the divine intent of God Almighty. They constantly reflected: “This is what I understand from this verse, but what is the divine intent behind it?” Their lives revolved around exploring the depths of the Qur’an and Sunnah and uncovering the meanings hidden within them. Their primary goal was to understand the word of God correctly and to attain His pleasure.

Today, however, worldly concerns dominate. The minds of many people are occupied with questions such as, “How can we live a more prosperous life?” People move within worldly pursuits, think within worldly frameworks, and even connect religious matters to worldly anxieties. In other words, as mentioned earlier, we reshape religion according to ourselves and distance it from the divine intent. Everything is interpreted according to personal interests, worldly benefits, ambitions, and future prospects. Efforts are then made to derive religious rulings that support these interests—or at the very least, to force artificial associations onto the sacred texts.

It is even possible to encounter such forced interpretations in sermons and religious advice delivered in mosques.

An alienation that goes unnoticed

People gradually come under the influence of ideas promoted in their environments without even realizing it, and eventually begin aspiring to them. Intentions and goals are then shaped accordingly. Today, one can observe that people devoted to religion and people devoted to worldly life often think about the same things and speak about the same things.

Since they can no longer discover the lofty intentions, goals, and ideals belonging to their own spiritual world, they console and deceive themselves with trivial things. Consequently, they become estranged from noble ideals such as living so that others may live and tying their own salvation to the salvation of others.

The most dangerous aspect of all this, however, is that such alienation often goes unnoticed. If people become aware of the values they have lost, they will at least make some effort to recover them. But if a person is unaware of the condition he or she is in—or worse, is aware of it yet feels no discomfort—then one cannot expect that person to demonstrate the will to seek and rediscover what has been lost.

This situation may be likened to a chick still inside its egg. Suppose you somehow managed to tell it: “Why are you remaining there with your neck compressed between your legs? Outside, there is a vast and spacious world.” If the chick possessed the ability to laugh, it would probably laugh at such words and perhaps even accuse you of foolishness. For to the chick, no place could be better than the one it currently inhabits. In the same way, it is not easy to describe the vast and refreshing horizons of the heart and spirit to modern people who remain trapped within the narrow confines of the material realm.

A serious process of rehabilitation is needed if people are to be rescued from becoming prisoners of such constriction. For example, living models drawn from periods in which faith was practiced in its true and upright form can be presented before them, enabling these examples to become role models. Ideal examples from the generation of the Companions of the Prophet or from later periods of history may help modern people emerge from the narrowness in which they are trapped and broaden their horizons. This can also be achieved by discussing matters belonging to our own spiritual world in every gathering we participate, and by deeply internalizing and digesting the sources that belong to our own tradition.

Indeed, we need to reexamine and reconstruct our intellectual world from the ground up. For it is extremely difficult to reveal our own breadth and depth through the dominant philosophies of our age or through the modern understanding of science. Certainly, there are beneficial insights to be gained from every thought and every culture. Yet what is truly important is to approach the matter from its foundations, establish our own intellectual framework, and reinterpret existence through that perspective.