Fethullah Gülen was a leader, a reformer, but above all a spiritual leader who was true to his spiritual foundations, but strived for a new, united, reconciled world. His legacy does not only lie in his writings, but in the number of followers that he gathered all over the world who served his vision with commitment and diligence.

May his spirit continue to inspire us as we all struggle to find a world order that will be more peaceful, inclusive, respectful, and hopeful in the century that we live in.

My condolences to his family and followers who are in mourning.

Only he can be a leader who never loses hope.
Bapu Ke Ashirwad
February 12, 1946

What could be a more accurate, and simpler, definition of a leader than this? Bapu – more commonly known as Mohandas Gandhi – both believed in, and embodied, this statement. His hope to bring about change in society never waned, even after he was thrown out of a train at Peitermaritzburg Station in South Africa. He did not give up hope after the outbreak of violence by Satyagrahis in Chauri Chaura, during the first Civil Disobedience movement in 1920, which he suspended despite the fact that most of his colleagues felt they were on the verge of victory. Only Bapu was confident that he could suspend the movement and revive it later, when he was more assured about the readiness of his people and their discipline.

It is all too easy for leaders to become hostages to their followers, especially if they are fearful of possible backlash that could result from admonishing or criticizing them. Movements and protests can spiral out of a leader’s control and further devolve into chaos and violence. This lack of control, and discipline, is the opposite of leadership. A leader is one who has the ability to navigate the actions of his or her followers, ensuring they do not violate their principles: he or she should not succumb to populism. Bapu exhibited this ability throughout his entire life, both as a public entity and in his Ashram (religious) life.

Bapu founded one ashram in Ahmedabad, India, in 1915. He performed many Ashram rituals himself, and made these into a daily practice, which the Ashramites saw and emulated. He eventually went on to develop a system of virtues which he called the “11 Vows” (Ekadashi Vrat):

1. Ahimsa (Non-violence)
2. Satya (Truth)
3. Asteya (Not stealing)
4. Bhramhcharya (Celibacy or Fidelity)
5. Aparigraha (Non-possession)
6. Sharira-Shrama (Physical labor)
7. Aswada (Control of the Palate)
8. Sarvatra Bhayavarjana (Fearlessness)
9. Sarva Dharma Samanatva (Respect for all religions)
10. Swadeshi (Using local produce)
11. Sparshabhavana (Abolishing practice of untouchability)

He lived by these principles without preaching them or making a show of doing so. “An ounce of practice is of more significance than a ton of preaching,” Bapu believed, and so it was easy for his followers to believe him and follow suit. Today, leaders thrive on preaching and confusing their adherents. They also frown upon and discourage the habit of asking questions or allowing their followers to express discontent or dissent.

When Bapu announced the next Non-Cooperation Movement, he declared that he would march from Sabarmati to Dandi, which was a distance of 341 miles, and that he would pick up a fist full of salt from the sea shore and declare that he had broken the draconian Salt Monopoly that so hurt India. The British Imperial Regime had imposed a barbaric 3500% tax on the production and consumption of domestic salt. This act of defiance was meant to help declare India to be independent; however, many senior leaders of the Indian National Congress (INC) were not convinced and were opposed to his proposal. Sardar Patel, a senior leader of the INC, was one of the people who disagreed and argued about the foolishness of the proposal. Bapu gave him a patient hearing and finally convinced Sardar, who then took responsibility for organizing the protest. It was Sardar who actually finalized the route of the march and spread the message of the Salt Satyagraha (form of nonviolence resistance). Sardar was the first Indian leader who was arrested and imprisoned, even before Bapu began the Salt March, which explains why Sardar Saheb was absent while Bapu marched to Dandi.

Another senior leader of the INC to voice his dissent, was Motilal Nehru. He wrote a twenty-two-page letter to Bapu, with a point by point explanation of why Bapu’s proposed move would fail and put his future leadership in danger; he also explained how the INC would lose the people’s trust and support. In his reply, Bapu wrote:

“Adarniya Motilalji, Kar Ke Dekhien – Respected Motilalji, please give it a try.”

Any other leader would have taken such a short reply as an insult and rejected Bapu’s leadership; however, Motilalji accepted Bapu’s decision. After Bapu had symbolically broken the Salt Law at Dandi and asked the people to follow, Motilalji declared that he would help break the Salt Law by leading his own satyagraha in the city of Allhabad.

By then, the Viceroy had ordered that all satyagrahas must be crushed by any means and its leaders must be immediately arrested, so that the movement would become leaderless and flounder. After announcing his intention to perform satyagraha, when Motilalji reached his home, the Police Commissioner was waiting for him with an arrest warrant. The last thing Motilalji did before going to prison was to send a telegram to Bapu stating the following:

“Adarniya Gandhiji, Karne se Pehle hi Dekhliya! – Respected Gandhiji, I have realized its power even before trying it out!”

This was the confidence of a true leader and such was his honesty and humility that his subordinates and contemporaries had the freedom to question his decisions and seek that he convince them before they obeyed. This also illustrates the fact that a great leader had the resolve and confidence to go it alone without becoming a hostage to the opposition of those who disagreed with him or defied his decision. As Gurudev wrote:

“Joki tor haak shunee koi na aashe tomi ekla Chalo Re…: When no one heeds your call, oh unfortunate one, walk alone.”

Bapu had the courage to tread a lonely path.  This is a hallmark of a great leader.

Bapu never aspired to become a leader. His ambition was always to serve the people and the cause to the best of his ability, and the honesty of his method was always of paramount importance, even more so than his desired objective. This sets him apart from the majority of other leaders.

Hizmet Movement (aka Gülen Movement) has always been given different names, which rely on and point to divergent underlying ontologies and understandings. Cemaat (Community), Hizmet (Service), Gonulluler Hareketi, (A movement of volunteers), and Gülenciler (Gülenists) are just a selection of terms often used to refer to the movement. Nowadays, people have come to view the movement in diametrically opposing ways, due to the recent political history of Turkey. On one hand, some praise it for its virtues, claiming that it is a movement promoting and prioritizing democratic values and standards and standing against a corrupt government, at a very high cost. On the other hand, those who criticize it accuse the movement of interfering in politics and even plotting coups against democratically elected governments, and they try to label it as a cult – especially when they cannot prove their accusations. Therefore, a great discrepancy is very likely to emerge between how a sympathizer of the movement sees and defines it and how an outsider sees and defines it, as current developments in Turkey have pushed the public to the edges and have led to increased polarization. Thus, in order to see whether the Hizmet Movement is a cult or not, one has to remove himself or herself from political polemics and try to be critical and strike a balance between how the movement perceives itself and how it is perceived by the outside world. In order to do so, let us first consider how “cult” is defined in the literature and then see whether these definitions match with the Hizmet Movement.

Even though the meaning of cult has changed, the term acquiring differing meanings over time, it is generally and publicly used in a derogatory way to refer to movements that are regarded as socially deviant due to their unorthodox beliefs and practices. During the 1930s, anti-cult movements usually viewed cults as a disparate form of heresy. Similarly, Christian scholar Walter Martin defined a cult as a movement that applies, and relies solely on, personal interpretations of the Bible, in denial of mainstream beliefs such as the Trinity, the Second Coming of Christ, the ministry and personality of Jesus, and the like. Accordingly, new religious movements that were not a part of, or splintered from, pre-existing sects—these include movements such as Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christian Scientists—have been considered cults. From a sociological point of view, Max Weber ascribed the emergence of a cult to the routinization of the charisma of a self-proclaimed religious leader. A great variety of cults exist today—doomsday cults, political cults, destructive cults, racist cults, polygamist cults, and terrorist cults. Cults have also long been accused of applying unorthodox measures, such as mind control and abusive sex, to govern their members and of having secretive organizational structures to accomplish their objectives.

Any attempt to draw a distinction between a cult and a mainstream religious movement is an utterly value-laden endeavor, as it requires one to assume a position of authority and judge what is an orthodox or unorthodox practice or interpretation of a religion. Also, it is analytically impossible to determine how much deviation or what sorts of differences render a movement deviant and get it labeled as a cult, because even sects of the very same religion sometimes are predicated upon utterly distinct theological positions. For example, consider the God conceptualizations of two Christian traditions, Unitarians and Catholics. Whereas the former believe in the physical and spiritual unity of God and reject the idea of the incarnation of God in human form, the latter hold to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, which states that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are divine manifestations of God. Or, in a similar vein, consider the example of the Alawites and Sunni Muslims; some groups of the former consider Ali, the cousin of Muhammad, to be the incarnation of God, while the latter view him only as the third rightly guided Caliph and as totally human in nature.

Despite this opaque and slippery conceptual ground, we can still systematically consider whether the Hizmet Movement is a cult and possesses any of the general characteristics and features attributed to cults. Let me rise above the dichotomies by considering the criteria for a cult, embodied in the definitions given below, in relation to the Hizmet Movement—namely, deviancy (unorthodox religious rituals), unorthodox means of control (mind control, abusive sex), and the presence of a charismatic leader—to determine whether it is a cult or not.

We’ll begin with deviancy. Even though the movement has often laid great emphasis on the spiritual resurrection of Muslims and humanity, it has not attempted to reject or change the pillars of Islamic faith and the essentials of the religion. It has not proposed theologically novel conceptions of divinity or prophecy. Quite the opposite—the movement intellectually and theologically associates itself with the earlier mainstream of Muslim scholars, thinkers, and movements and derives its legitimacy from its embeddedness in classical Islam. The criticisms leveled at the movement have mostly involved matters relating to the interpretation of religious texts. Accordingly, the movement has been criticized for its strong promotion of intimate relations with the members of other Abrahamic religions, for its willingness to engage in open dialogue, and for its support of democratization, which is often labeled as pro-Westernism by other religious movements in Turkey. Hence, the movement’s existing practices and theological dispositions do not suffice to qualify it as a cult, as they do not exhibit patterns of divergence and differentiation from mainstream Islamic rituals and practices.

Second, with respect to the employment of unorthodox means to achieve desired political objectives—even though the movement has been accused of interfering in politics and having a secret agenda, no proof has been presented thus far indicating the use of unorthodox means to control its members or accomplish its secret agenda. Even the recent purge in Turkey, which resulted in the removal of hundreds of thousands of people from their positions and the imprisonment of a large percentage of them, has not led to the disclosure of evidence verifying the use of unorthodox methods by the movement.

Finally, in regard to charismatic leadership, it is an actuality that Gülen’s charismatic and strong leadership has been very appealing to the masses. However, his leadership has not been grounded in any divine status claims, such as those of a prophetic or messianic character. His charisma has rather been derived from his expertise and erudition in respect to the religious sciences and his intuitive leadership skills. His leadership and charisma cannot be said to be premised upon any sort of divine claim, as has been the case with most cults. Ahmadiyya and Bahaism can be seen as cult-like Islamic movements; their leaders have made actual divine claims. For example, the leader of the former openly claimed messiahship and introduced unorthodox beliefs and organizational structures in the nineteenth century, and the leader of the latter identified himself as the last Prophet, which openly contradicted the mainstream belief of Muslims that the Prophet Muhammad was the last Prophet and Messenger of God. Gülen is neither seen as a supernatural human being by his followers nor does he claim prophecy or messiahship. His charisma is derived more from his spiritual personality deriving from the fact that he has acquired an immense amount of knowledge in the religious sciences and has combined that knowledge with successful practice.

By offering insight in relation to three aspects of cults, this article offers a framework within which the Hizmet Movement cannot be treated as a cult or cult-like organization. Unless there is concrete evidence and universal acceptance of deviant behavior, unorthodox means of control, and leader’s use of charisma to assert any supernatural or divine powers, no social movement can be categorized as a cult movement.

In our daily lives, we come into contact with several different people. We trade or work together with some of these people, while with others we just exchange greetings or a few words. There are also some people with whom we share our troubles, worries, or joys. Life becomes sweeter and more meaningful with these people. People to whom we can open up our inner worlds tell us their sincere opinions about our good or bad sides. We realize our dreams and wishes; namely, we realize ourselves through them. And we can really be ourselves when we are with them. We experience friendship, brotherhood (or sisterhood), and we share our secrets with them. Real friendships are built over years as people get to know and try out one another, building up mutual trust. It is very difficult to maintain such good relationships through a lifetime without shaking the trust of the other person. When trust is shaken, the relationship collapses and shatters like glass, since the feeling of security is like a glue that adheres people together and improves relationships. Nothing can go right when there is no trust between spouses, children and parents, an employer and employees, directors and those who are directed, the state and its citizens, or between institutions. In such cases, people cannot fulfill their potential, they cannot present their positive feelings, cannot work efficiently, cannot try new things; relations become mechanical and life becomes robotic, blocking the ways that lead to both material and spiritual gain. Imagine a family with no feeling of trust between its members. Which member of that family can share their thoughts, joys, grief, or troubles with the rest? Such a family can only produce children deprived of love, and spouses weary of defending their interests.

On the other hand, a family which is made up of members who trust the others in opening up their ideals, ambitions, and their strong and weak sides will be the complete opposite, for the members of that family will feel confident that they will not be let down in return. Love, tolerance, and compassion prevail there. Sorrows, joys, and worries are all shared; everyone tries to realize their dreams and hopes.

How is a feeling of security maintained? Who do people trust? To whom can people entrust their property or life peacefully? Why isn’t everybody trustworthy? Are they not aware of the significance of trust in the family, in society, and in the business world; or do they choose not to be trustworthy? Or, perhaps, they don’t know how to be trustworthy.

Many things have been said about the importance of feelings of trust. Prophet Muhammad also stressed this fact, saying “The real believer is the person whom people are secure concerning their property and lives.” Then he underlined the six virtues of a trustworthy person as follows: “if you can make me promises concerning six things, I can assure Paradise to you. When you speak, speak the truth, fulfill what you have promised, be trustworthy with what has been entrusted to you, be chaste, protect your eyes from the unlawful, and keep your hands from harming others.” When we think about this on the whole, we are able to see that the people who have these qualities are trustworthy people. If a person has noble qualities, such as modesty, loyalty, tolerance, righteousness, courage, patience, vigor, and frankness, that person inspires trust in those around them. However, it is not enough to have such a character if a person is to establish a good dialogue with others. If we are to express ourselves confidently and overcome the difficulties we face in life, we need to have the ability to develop dialogue and good relations with other people.

Open Communication Leads to Trust

People need to feel secure in opening up their feelings and thoughts to others, so that they are able to establish a good relationship. Expressing ourselves freely, opening up to somebody else, is in direct proportion with the degree of sincerity and trust between that person and ourselves. Undoubtedly, we cannot simply open up to everyone we meet. Opening up means finding somebody we can trust. It takes time for one person to trust another. The person who is able to open up inspires trust in the other and receives the message “I trust you” in return. The trusted person opens up further and this leads to a deeper and closer relationship. When a person is reserved, on the other hand, then they initiate a vicious circle which makes the other party suppress their feelings. Surely, open communication is not possible at all times. There are also risks in open communication, but it is not healthy to be totally introverted all the time. If a person becomes too introverted, then they will suffer terrible loneliness. Open communication should not be expected from the other person at all times, and it should not be dependent on the initiation of open communication by the other party. One must take a risk in order to be open; almost all achievements in life are based on taking risks, to a lesser or greater degree. If we are open with the person with whom we are communicating, if we can trust and appreciate them, then they will also respond in the same manner, be open to us, and appreciate us. The steps we take in order to learn the truth, to improve ourselves, and to realize our thoughts are dependent on accepting the risk of being open.

Open communication is not only important in family relationships or friendships; it has a fundamental role in working relationships in both the private and public sectors in order to build up trust. A good leader knows that a small group cannot find the right solution to everything. They keep in mind that not only the executive board, but other employees may also have valuable knowledge, and that these “lesser beings” are no less intelligent than their “superiors.” Therefore, a good leader tries to keep in contact with the information potential at the ground level. The aim of a good leader is not only to teach others what to do, but also to ask how they can be of help and to comprehend what happens in practice. A leader does not decide everything behind closed doors. Instead, they clearly express their targets, anxieties, and needs, maintaining the flow of information from the bottom through to the top by establishing healthy communication. In this way people can see that their efforts are appreciated and they feel better. Who doesn’t want to be appreciated? Who doesn’t want to be listened to, cared about, and valued? How can a leader who does not maintain open communication with those at the ground level, who does not make people feel that they are important and that their ideas are valued gain their full support? People trust and do not want to disappoint leaders and managers who value them.

In Turkey, in the city of Diyarbakir, when the city’s Chief Commissioner of Police died, the funeral was held at the Governors Mansion. Tens of thousands of people from all over the city filled the street early in the morning. They were truly mourning the late Commissioner; it was as if they had lost a close relative. But what had made them love him so much? How had he managed to conquer the people’s hearts? In one of his interviews, he essentially answered this question: “We have established individual contact with our citizens; we have actively participated in their social activities and even their sports.” He continued as follows “I listen to everybody, I talk to everybody. I visit any grocer; if he’s busy I go on to the next. The sincere hospitality shown by an ordinary shop owner is one of the best feelings. In short, I am together with my people. When I was given this duty, they told me to protect the lives and properties of the people; this is my responsibility. Being the Chief Commissioner does not make me different, all of us are humans. We cannot act as we choose. People need to be loved, people need to be respected. If people respect me and I respect them, there isn’t much more to do. This is what people look for in this city.”

Here is the secret of maintaining trust: being close to people, making individual contact, not seeing one’s rank as a privilege, and not looking down on anybody. The Chief Commissioner saw himself as an ordinary man in society, and approached everybody with the same love, respect, affection, and sincerity, no matter what their age, sex, or ethnic background. One cannot help but remember the wise words of Ali ibn Abi Talib “Be a(n ordinary) person among people.” It makes no difference if one is a state official, or a company executive, or just a volunteer who wants to win people’s hearts; you will fail if you do not follow this principle. An absence of trust prevents us from realizing our goals effectively. When we manage to maintain trust however, people just flow toward the common goal spontaneously, like a river which has found its bed. This will be the time when you have attained real success.

Sharing Your Thoughts and Work Increases Trust

Keeping close contact with people is the type of behavior that builds up trust. Some administrators even adopt the principle of not making friends with the staff. They just get entangled with the pomp and prestige of their position, overlooking their own mistakes. Those who are open and realistic on the other hand, receive the same attitude from the people who work under their command.

Listen to Yourself and to Others

A person who knows how to listen can solve most matters easily. Someone who has the patience to listen to people can initiate a better dialogue with people through this ability. While listening, they can learn more, understand new points, and attain a deeper comprehension by seeing different aspects of issues; they can then put forward new solutions.

Listening to oneself leads a person to a deeper comprehension of themselves. If we learn to listen to our different moods and feelings, then we can get to know ourselves better. We realize our strong and weak sides. Someone who knows who they are and what one is experiencing is able to understand others more easily, and is able to look at things from their point of view, thanks to the broader perspective they have attained by listening to themselves. Listening makes people feel that they have been given importance. Not only does it show that you are interested in the person in front of you, but listening to someone helps you to predict that person’s disappointments before it is too late and helps you to prevent them.

Try to sense what people feel. Try to understand how fragile relationships are and the importance they bear for people. Know how difficult it is to establish these relationships and how easily they are damaged. Listen to both yourself, and those around you.

Be Predictable

Being consistent and predictable in a complex world helps the people around you to feel secure. Those who feel that the ground under their feet is firm can be open to new ideas and are not discouraged from taking risks. If they know that you do not change your attitude every day, they will feel that they can trust you. Predictability means being the same person all the time, so that people can predict how you will respond. Do not be afraid of telling the truth. Always give the same message; make yourself clear about what you expect from people. The trust you are to inspire will be the best help you can offer them.

Russia is very well aware of the existence of some groups that claim to attack for the sake of Islam. However, I see that most Islamic societies do not agree with such self-proclaimed Muslim’s claims that they are representing them. These groups manipulate Islam either slightly or extensively in order to insert themselves within its perfect world, sometimes with various ethnic motivations. Osama bin Laden, a Saudi, is undoubtedly seeking support from Muslims and portraying himself to the world as a Muslim leader. But has any group ever acknowledged him as such a leader? In addition, I have not yet seen any clear evidence that men linked with Islam are behind the tragic events in New York and Washington.

This might be either a very well-planned campaign or an immediate reaction of the American media, which is very used to accusing all Muslims in the world. I do not perceive Islam as a religion of violence. Although we in Russia suffer in Chechnya and Moscow from bomb attacks, I do not think Islam is the underlying reason behind most of these terrorist activities. We have concrete evidence that bombings and other acts of violence have been committed by Chechens; however, I do not believe that Islam can be blamed for them.

The September 11th tragedy was an act of violence, a type with which we have been familiarized by American movies. It also can be argued that these movies involve scenes that inspire such attacks to be organized. Moreover, time and again America has produced protesting generations, especially at times of crisis like the wars in Korea and Vietnam. We might hear anti-war voices arising from among those Americans who will call attention to America’s responsibility and that this attack was a provocation.

If we can unite our power to this cause, we can move successfully against terrorism. It is also important to locate the only superpower at a more appropriate status, both for the good of itself and for humanity in general.

America is certainly a great nation, and it will overcome this crisis. However, I am concerned with the possibility that its leaders might make things even worse in the rest of the world.

Personally, I think that Americans do not understand and know too much about history. This might be because they are a young nation or because they consist of many different peoples. They do not have outstanding historians. However, the problems of Europe and Asia are always deeply rooted in the past. Unfortunately, I have not yet met any American who is well informed about the reasons of these events and from where they are arising. Americans react immediately, sometimes deprived of the consciousness that history is not only the past but also the future. We must teach history and learn from it.