Gulen is deeply and unequivocally Islamic. The first three chapters of the book, by the editors and Mohammed Abu-Nimer, introduce his approach to peacebuilding. They analyze his ideas through various modern lenses as within a tradition from Rumi, Al Ghazali, and Said Nursi, while also showing that the specific approaches he takes to peacebuilding arise from a thorough reading of the contemporary globalized world. Because these approaches are predicated on faith, the initiatives are heuristic. The movement into a caring engagement with the world is a movement of faith, marked by openness to discovery and so by an expectation of change. The object is not simply to change others, but to be changed with others, and so to move into and discover more of the just and caring social condition desired by Allah.

Part 2 takes a closer look at Gulen’s reading of the globalized world and his deliberate transgression of the kinds of borders which are a product of modernism and fail to meet human realities or to orient us to global perspectives. In a fascinating essay, Klas Grinell brings Gulen’s thinking into association with wider, postmodern debates. Borders, he points out, are associated with fixed identities which do not accord with our realities “in the multi-layered present” (68). Accordingly, crossing the border into the territory of the “other” perhaps does not characterize Gulen’s aspiration because it seems to accept existing stereotypes and fails to leave room for the large areas of overlapping territory. Grinell changes the metaphor, seeing Gulen rather as on the border in the sense proposed by the Argentinian Mignolo:

Border thinking . . . is thinking and knowledge produced from the borders of colonial modernity, knowledge that recognizes the colonizing aspects of what has been seen as true knowledge in mainstream modernity, and uses local resources to confront and alter that knowledge in order to know the particularities of life lived in that setting better. (75)

Irina Vainovski-Mihai pursues some of the implications of dialogue, which requires an open awareness of the other. She concludes that “the dialogical approach may transform the experience of the other into an experience of the self” (96). As Karina Korostelina suggests, though, that self embodies the creative tension in a dual identity, between “one component connected to a religious identity and another component that reflects membership in a secular nation” (104). The borders involved are different and shifting, finding resolution in a much more sophisticated and tolerant sense of the self. That, taken with Gulen’s view of globalization outlined by Richard Penaskovic as more than economic and ideological, as referring “to connectivity and interdependence in all areas of life: cultural, ecological, economic, political, religious, social, and technological” (126), makes hostility manifestly problematic and is conducive to peace.

The third part of the book examines Gulen’s theology of dialogue in comparative perspective. Turan Kayaoglu’s informative essay traces the overlapping theologies of Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, Pope John-Paul II and Fethullah Gulen – theologies which place interfaith dialogue in the context of the core concerns of each faith. The theological leadership of these three major figures “validates, accommodates, and humanizes the ‘other’ in order to open up religious space for interfaith activities and to establish religious grounds to complement humanity’s quest for peace, tolerance, and care for God’s creation” (166). Zeki Saritoprak shows the continuity between Gulen and Ibn Khaldun, the fourteenth century Muslim sociologist, who emphasizes asabiyya or a non-racist, non-nationalist “group solidarity” around key transformative values. Forgiveness, love and compassion are values at the heart of all major religions and are essential to our full humanity. However, in the heat of social tension, they tend to provoke persecution which has to be faced with a patience that involves being true to the self one has discovered through faith. Despite the legal and spiritual persecution and exile Gulen has faced, he concludes “We are going to respect our character… As a believer, I promise that I will never shun any person, and I will not persecute those who have transgressed against me” (184). Approaching the topic from another angle, Douglas Pratt examines the historical “baggage” in Muslim-Jewish-Christian relations and some of the ways in which Gulen seeks to surmount it. I would have welcomed more attention to the persistent discursive patterns that mark that history. However, central to the notion of dialogue is acceptance that the supreme greatness of God cannot be captured in words and that truth blossoms and its implications become clear in an ongoing process of awed interpretation. For People of the Book, “The ‘book’ is ever a text requiring interpretive understanding and application” (203). Felicitously, the final chapter in this section has a strong emphasis on the hermeneutic. David B Capes places the thinking of the American Baptist, A J Conyers in dialogue with Gulen. Conyers critiques “the modern, secular doctrine of tolerance” in attempting to reclaim “the practice of Christian tolerance based upon humility, hospitality and . . . the incarnation” (207). At the same time, he explicitly recognizes the affinities between Christians and those of other faiths, including specifically “the Sufi mystics of Islam,” in this practice (not doctrine) of tolerance (209). Capes concludes with the observation that while Gulen is specific about forgiveness, there seems to be no explicit discussion of it in Conyers. Of course, Gulen’s “the road to forgiveness passes through the act of forgiving” (221) is strikingly resonant with “forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us” in the Lord’s Prayer. Capes concludes that the difference in the contexts in which the two theologians worked accounts for this apparent gap, implicitly emphasizing the need to interpret contextually.

Part four looks at the practice arising from this rich understanding of Islam. The five sets of initiatives discussed are a sample of the hundreds of innovative Gulen Movement ventures undertaken worldwide. All are undertaken by volunteers who seek to serve in lands or regions faced with conflict and very difficult social adjustment. In Gulen’s words, “Holy people” carry the “new atmosphere, new understandings and dialogue” around the world, creating “islands of peace for stability and harmony” (181). What is most remarkable to me is the humility and rigor with which the volunteers “read” the local situation to determine how best to engage with it.

Modern Cambodia, recovering from more than two decades of traumatic instability, is a striking example. The situation of the minority Cham Muslim group, impoverished, hostile to public education as assimilatory, with religious education usually separated from life needs, and a high level of illiteracy in Khmer, complicates recovery. Philipp Bruckmayr shows Gulen Movement participants supporting Cambodian NGOs which promote “the acquisition of secular knowledge” within the context of faith, and offer practical support to the Chams (234f). The emphasis on “common values rather than differences” is reflected in translation of seminal works on Islam and in cooperation and dialogue with Buddhists (235). More characteristically Gulenian is the Zaman International School of Phnom Penh, which offers excellent secular schooling within a spiritually sensitive context, and has no assimilationist motives (245).

Jonathan Lacey discusses the Turkish Irish Educational and Cultural Society, a Gulenian group in a country with a tiny, fragmented and fractious Islamic minority. It emphasizes dialogue, supports conferences, and shows hospitality in annual iftar dinners during Ramadan, but most strikingly its members accept full, responsible citizenship: “[T]hey have no intention of assimilating, but instead intend to integrate” (263). It is a vital distinction.

The importance of civil society is emphasized by Mehmet Kalyoncu. He looks at the ways in which Turks, Kurds, Arabs and Assyrian Christians have been mobilized by the Gulen Movement in Mardin “to cooperate in tackling their common problems” (275). The Gulenian school there is also a community focus, and helps build civil society organizations. The focus shifts to initiatives in Kenya and the Philippines, again based on schools which bring together the children of parties in conflict, and provide a platform for addressing local needs.

The role of the Gulen Movement in predominantly Muslim South East Asian societies where there is strong sectarianism and a divisive politicization of religion is explored by Mohamed Nawab bin Mohamed Osman. The fact that the volunteers are driven by a sense of duty to serve in places in great need underlines the appropriateness of the Turkish name of the Movement: hizmet or “service to humanity.” The service in Singapore and Indonesia involves dialogue and education with a strong emphasis on honoring and using local customs, as in the Halalbihalal ceremony in Indonesia to bring conflicted groups together in an atmosphere of trust and hospitality.

The final essay by Harun Akyol puts the Movement’s credentials to the acid test in the multiple conflict zone of northern Iraq. Fifteen successful schools and a university have been established to provide a base for thinking and interacting differently.

This book, bringing together key papers from three conferences, offers refreshingly varied, critically nuanced views of Gulen’s thinking and shows the profound impact hizmet has had on particular individuals and societies.

Review by Stanley Ridge

Stanley Ridge is Emeritus Professor of English and retired Pro-Vice-Chancellor of the University of the Western Cape, South Africa.

In a recent study, Mitroff and Denton asked people what gave them the most meaning and purpose in their job. They found that most people do not list money as the most important thing; rather, the first choice was the opportunity to realize one’s full potential as a person. Contrary to expectations, the interviews revealed that people are able to express their intelligence and their creativity significantly more than their feelings and soul. Recognizing these facts, modern organizations have started to find ways to better reflect human being as a whole and to use the benefits of full and deep engagement of their employees.

Conventional Attitudes toward Work

People have embraced materialism, thinking that possessions will make them happy; they have turned to utilitarian individualism and no longer feel connected to one another.1 This disconnectedness gave rise to a business culture in which organizations respond to spiritual matters and concerns by declaring them inappropriate or out of bounds. Conventional wisdom holds that these issues are far too personal and private to be brought up directly in the workplace. It also declares that spiritual matters have virtually nothing to do with the day-to-day demands of work, and even less with corporate affairs. Hence they are to be dealt with outside of work, on employee’s own time, and as the employee sees fit.

Although corporate America declares spiritual issues out of bounds, it draws upon them with calls for employee energy and enthusiasm. This is a contradiction, for enthusiasm is fundamentally a spiritual concept. There is a mutually supportive relation between an individual’s actions and inner life. Attitudes like determination, perseverance, and resolution illuminate one’s inner conscience; the brightness of one’s inner conscience strengthens one’s willpower and resolve, and stimulates one to attain higher horizons.

Organizations create a wall between their employees’ private concerns and their businesses’ public demands. This is both an external and internal division, for it separates the organization from its members’ deepest sources of creativity and productivity, and also produces a fundamental split in its employees’ souls.

Here is a typical concern, as noted by Covey in his best selling, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: “I’ve set and met my career goals and I’m having tremendous professional success. But it’s cost to me my personal and family life. I don’t know my wife and children any more. I’m not even sure I know myself and what’s really important to me. I’ve had to ask myself-is it worth it?’

Religion or Spirituality?

Today, people demand more than mere professional success in their work lives. They want to attach a deeper meaning to what they are doing, and they ask for a greater spiritual satisfaction. Mitroff and Denton’s A Spiritual Audit of Corporate America is a celebration and analysis of this spiritual revival. Their book seeks to identify how people conceive of spirituality and religion, and which ways these concepts can be reflected in the workplace.

The authors report that 60 percent of those interviewed had a positive view of spirituality and a negative view of religion. These respondents viewed spirituality as relating to creation, meaning, spirit, soul, and essence of life. On the other hand, they described religion as dogmatic, restrictive, narrow, and exclusive. The authors point out that only 30 percent had a positive view of both religion and spirituality. We find these results indicative of the division in the souls of people between their inherent spirituality and the Divine message. Yet, these are two inseparable concepts.

Since the beginning of time, people have found true peace and happiness in religion, the collection of Divine principles that guide people to good, not by force but by appealing to their free will. All principles that secure human spiritual and material progress, and thus happiness in this world and the next, are found in religion. Morality and virtue cannot be talked about in the absence of true religion, for they originate in a good, clear conscience. And religion, the connection between humanity and God, makes one’s conscience good and clear.

Spirituality in the Workplace

The idea that the body and soul are mutually antagonistic and can develop only at the other’s expense has influenced philosophical and religious thought. For the soul, the body is a prison, and the activities of daily life are the shackles that keep it in bondage and arrest its growth. This has led inevitably to the universe being divided into the spiritual and the secular.

This body-soul conflict resulted in two different ideals of human perfection. One was that we should surround ourselves with all possible material comforts, while depriving all spheres of worldly activity (i.e., social, political, economic, or cultural) of spirituality. The other was that the senses should be subdued and conquered, extrasensory powers should be awakened, and the sensory world’s limitations should be vanquished. According to this view, physical self-denial, mortification of the flesh, and withdrawal from the world were necessary for spiritual development and perfection.

Islam’s understanding of spirituality transcends this dualism by functioning as the nucleus of its integrated and unified concept of life. The body was created so that the soul could exercise its authority and fulfill its duties and responsibilities as a human being. Thus the body is the soul’s workshop or factory. If the soul is to grow and develop, it can do so only through this workshop. Consequently, this world is not a place of punishment, but a field in which God has sent it to work and perform its duty toward Him. Spiritual development does not consist of turning away from this workshop and retreating into a corner; rather, we should live and work in it, and give the best account of ourselves as we can.

Islam rejects and condemns asceticism and proposes a set of methods and processes for human spiritual development while living in the world, for it states that such growth can occur only in the midst of life. Religious and secular people work in the same sphere of activity. However, religious people will work with greater enthusiasm than their secular counterparts. Religious people also will be more likely active than secular people, in their domestic and social lives, which extend from the household to the market and even to international conferences.

What distinguishes their actions is the nature of their relationship with God and the goals behind their actions. Religious people act in awareness that they must answer to God for what they do. Thus, they try to secure Divine pleasure and ensure that their actions are in accord with God’s laws. Secular people are indifferent toward God and thus are guided only by personal motives. This difference makes a religious person’s whole life a totally spiritual venture, while the life of a secular person is devoid of the spark of spirituality.

Benefits of Recognizing Spirituality

Today, a spiritual revival is sweeping across corporate America. Executives of all lines are mixing mysticism into their management, importing the lessons usually given in churches, temples, and mosques into office corridors. Since the only thing that really motivates people is that which gives them deep meaning and purpose in their jobs and lives, the only organizations that will survive are those that have a deep value base.

There is mounting evidence that spiritually minded programs in the workplace soothe workers’ psyches and engender greater productivity. A recent research project by McKinsey & Co. Australia shows that when companies engage in programs that use spiritual techniques, productivity improves and turnover is greatly reduced. Mitroff and Denton report similar results: Employees who work for organizations they consider to be spiritual are less fearful, less likely to compromise their values, and more job-focused. People do not want to compartmentalize their lives; they want to have their souls acknowledged as whole persons in the workplace. On nearly every dimension in which they make comparison, researchers find that organizations and individuals who perceive themselves as more spiritual score better than those who perceive themselves as less spiritual.

How Does Religion Affect Conduct at Work?

Morals, which originate in high spirituality, are a set of noble principles governing human conduct. People who neglect spirituality, and so are lacking in spiritual values, cannot sustain conduct in accordance with these principles. All religions encourage good conduct and warn against misdeeds. A sincerely religious person cannot continue unethical behavior in good conscience.

People with strong faith consider themselves and their possessions as belonging to God. They bow their ego, ideas, passions, and thinking to God. They do not dodge responsibility for their actions, and always emphasize doing good deeds, for they believe in their ultimate accountability for those deeds.

The Qur’an states: Work righteously: soon will God observe your work, and His Messenger, and the Believers: soon will you be brought back to the Knower of what is hidden and what is open; then will He show you the truth of all that you did (9:105). The meaning is clear: Be honest and proficient at work, for your actions are being watched and recorded. The concept of honesty and trust can be extended to other dimensions of one’s work as a manager or as an employer. For instance, they cannot mislead their boss or their clients or waste time or organizational resources in performing one’s task, for this would be violating an employer’s trust.2

A similar approach is observed in both Christianity and Judaism. In his Letter to the Ephesians (6:6) Paul says: To those who serve; serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men. In Judaism, the Talmud, which is the body of Jewish civil and religious law, says that the first question people are held accountable after death is: Did you conduct your business affairs with honesty and with probity? All other questions about religious duties come after that question. There is a constant juxtaposition in the Torah between Judaism’s ritual commands and ethical obligations toward other people.

The Ten Commandments, which give the guidelines of good ethical conduct, are observed by both Jews and Christians. The Eighth Commandment is: Thou shall not steal [Exodus 20:15). Stealing also can mean to steal the employee’s or employer’s time, money, or other people’s ideas, and so on. Paul’s Letter to the Ephesians [4:28) reads: To those who have been thieves; He who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with his own hands, that he may have something to share with those in need.

The Islamic term ihsan means to worship God as if you see Him, and if you cannot achieve this state of devotion then remember that He sees you. The knowledge that God is watching is likely to prompt any leader or employer to behave appropriately. In contrast to the fear of God and feeling His presence, the love of God motivates the individual to work toward attaining His pleasure. Employees with ihsan push themselves beyond the call of duty; they are energized and willing to make sacrifices. The same concept is also stated in the Bible: Whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God (Colossians 3:23).

What about the Misuse of Religion in the Workplace?

As the workplace becomes more open to religion and spirituality, differences in perceptions become more pronounced. This may cause conflict among employees and between management and an employee. The potential danger of the latter conflict is seen in the results of The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reports: a 29 percent increase in the number of religious-based discrimination charges since 1992. It is the third fastest growing claim, after sexual harassment and disability.

Companies have to focus on the pluralistic, moral messages common to all religions to resolve such issues. People have the right to believe that their religious choice is the best: however, they cannot claim that their religion is the “only right one.” Companies must foster this kind of mutual respect and tolerance among employees and between employees and management.

Footnotes:

1. According to utilitarian individualism, the center of life is the autonomous individual who can choose his or her roles and commitments, not on the basis of higher truths but according to the criterion of life effectiveness as he or she judges it.
2. Islam is very sensitive on this issue. If an employee works on an hourly basis, he or she can perform the non-obligatory prayers on the job only with the employer’s permission. But if he or she works on a product basis, he can perform the non-obligatory prayers freely as long as the work is finished on time. On the other hand, employers are obliged to pay their workers fairly.

References:

• Beekun, Rafik. Islamic Business Ethics. Brentwood, MD: Amana Publications, 1997.
• Conlin, Michelle. “Religion in the Workplace: The Growing Presence of Spirituality in Corporate America,” Business Week (1 Nov 1999].
• Covey, Stephen R. The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. New York, Fireside: 1990.
• Dalai Larna. Ethics for the New Millennium. New York, Riverhead Books: 1999.
• Gulen, M. Fethullah. The Infinite Light. London:Truestar (London] Ltd., 1995.
• Jones, Laurie B. Jesus CEO: Using Ancient Wisdom for Visionary Leadership. New York: Hyperion, 1995.
• Mitroff, Ian I. and Elizabeth A. Denton. A Spiritual Audit of Corporate America: A Hard Look at Spintuality, Religion and Values in the Workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1999.
• Rabbi Joseph Telushkin. The Book of Jewish Values. New York: Belltower, 2000.
• Nash, Laura. Believers in Business. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1994.

We express and communicate our feelings, ideas and wishes through language. Cultural transmission and education from generation to generation is through language.

Linguists do not know how many languages there are. There is not even agreement about the number of languages in India. They do not agree on how to define a language and how to differentiate it from other linguistic codes such as dialects or sociolects. We know that languages change according to social context and that each individual has his or her own ideolect, or repertoire of linguistic codes. We also know that the dominance of some linguistic codes over others is related to political and economic power. It has been said that the difference between a language and a dialect is that a language is spoken by a people with an army and a navy. Philosophers and linguists have for centuries debated (and differed) about the origin and development of language.

Secular linguists have proposed four theories, all related in some way to an evolutionist account of human development for the origin of language. Linguists who draw on religious sources have a fifth alternative, namely the idea that language is a Divine gift to human beings -an idea shared by the three major monotheistic religions.

The secular theories of language

Secular linguists at least agree that the question of the origin of human language is still unsolved. After much discussion, they have concluded that the data available on the subject yield little or no evidence about the origin of human language. By means of comparative and reconstructive techniques, they have presented some information about early stages of the development of particular languages.

However, these techniques are applicable only for a period of up to about four to six thousand years. This is far less than the million years that they themselves believe human language to have existed.

Unlike other so-called sciences, linguistics and philosophy of language cannot pretend to have access to data related to the origin of their subject of study. There are no tape recordings which can be served up as ‘the missing link’ between men and monkeys. Therefore, their theories are based on what is observable around them-animal cries, the languages of what they consider ‘primitive’ groups and the speech of infants.

Animal cries

The gap between the meaningful behaviour of animals and human speech is so wide that available evidence does not furnish a bridge. Animal cries are characterized by invariability and monotony. Human language, by contrast, displays infinite variability. If we take animal cries as our starting point and suppose that language developed out of something similar, we face a number of problems. How could an ordered phonemic system grow out of the disorderly monotony of animal cries? How did the meanings of most speech forms come to be arbitrary? How did linguistic structure develop out of the undifferentiated cry? In short, animal cries are so vastly different from human language, it is inconceivable that speech could have evolved from them. Animals, according to Professor James (1938), have all the necessary speech organs but do not have language. Human, speech is obviously and only human.

‘Primitive’ groups

It was once thought that the speech of ‘primitive’ societies was something halfway between animal cries and human language, and that by studying them we could learn how language evolved. But the very notion of ‘primitive’ peoples has long been thought questionable. In any case, their languages are, as a rule, only ‘primitive’ with reference to the vocabulary of modern civilizations; their structures (grammar and syntax) show at least as much (often more) complexity and sophistication than ‘non-primitive’ languages.

The speech of infants

Study of the speech of infants has not yielded any clear results either. From birth, children are under the influence of adult speech, which they proceed to imitate. If all that is needed for language is a process of imitation, why are apes, who imitate humans so well in other respects, linguistically ‘inferior’ to birds, who can imitate us in respect to linguistic sounds? Why do cats and dogs, who have been living with us and observing us for many centuries, fail to imitate the sounds we make when we imitate theirs so well?

Despite these manifest errors in the assumptions on which the theories were based, some linguists still promote four onomatopoeic theories.

The bow-wow theory

This theory suggests speech was invented by attempting to imitate the characteristic sound of the thing referred to. The characteristic that differentiates a dog from other creatures is its bark. That is why, it is said some children call dogs ‘bow-wow’. Another example: the ‘first man’ heard the whistling of the wind and the hissing of the snake and named them ‘wind’ and ‘snake.’

The ding-dong theory

This theory, associated with the German philologist, Max Muller, holds that the origin of language is connected to rhythm. Like bow-wow, it relies on the idea that humans imitate what is around them. It suggests we imitate the rhythms around us developing first a simple hum and later words. The only evidence proposed is the ‘war dances’ and ‘ballads’ which, it is claimed, are common to all ‘primitive’ people.

The pooh-pooh theory

This theory traces language back to the emotional interjections evoked by pain, pleasure, disgust, etc.

Even secular theorists who believe in evolution like Wilbur Urban (1939) dismiss the above theories for being their assumptions and insufficient evidence.

The gesture theory

The idea that the earliest method of communication was through gesture which later developed into language was first proposed by Wilheim Wundt and elaborated by Paget (1935). They suggest that as most of our hand gestures are accompanied by movements of the jaw and many of our verbal expressions are supported by bodily actions, sign and spoken language are intrinsically connected. Among the bits of evidence offered for this hypothesis is the fact that, in English, I and me both involve drawing air inwards whereas you and thou involve the opposite.

This theory has the same weaknesses as the others. The few samples of so-called data are not enough to justify the assumptions that are built on them. All these theories are attempts to contrive ‘evidence’ for what is essentially a belief-a belief that humans evolved from monkeys. Those who do not believe in evolution, but believe that humans were created by an Almighty God do not subscribe to the above theories. They look to revelation.

Language as a divine gift

Language is one of the greatest gifts of the Creator. The Merciful Creator gave his Prophets miracles as evidence for their holy mission. The greatest miracle of prophet Adam was use of language. The event is alluded in the verses of the Qur’an, itself a linguistic miracle:

He taught Adam the names of all things and then set them before the angels, saying: ‘Tell Me the names of these, if what you say be true.’ Then said He: ‘Adam, tell their names.’ And when Adam had named them, He said: ‘Did I not tell you that I know the secrets of the heavens and the earth, and all that you reveal and all that you conceal? (al-Baqara, 2.31-33)

It maybe understood from these verses that man did not invent language, as some scientists claim, but that he received it as a direct gift from God. There was no time that people were without language. We had the potential for speech from the beginning of our existence. On this point, Quintilian said: ‘God, that All-Powerful Creator of nature and architect of the world, has impressed man with no greater characteristic to distinguish him from other creatures, than the faculty of speech.’

This view of language is common to all the monotheistic peoples. The Bible says about language and its origin too:

Whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof (Genesis, 2.19).

Because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth (Genesis, 11.19).

Human speech makes humans human. God created them and honoured them with the ability to speak, thereby distinguishing them from animals. He distinguished them from the angels by teaching the first man, Adam, the names of all things. In doing so, He gave him the key to understanding the world over which he and his offspring were to be made vice-gerents.

REFERENCES

• JAMES L. (1938) Our Spoken Language
• PAGET R. (1935) Human Speech
• URBAN W. (1939) Language and Reality