In an article that appeared in the Sunday’s Zaman on April 29th, 2012, Abdulhamit Bilici questions the reporting of the New York Times and the International Herald Tribune in regards to a recent story about the Gulen M0vement.
In response to an article by Dan Bilefsky and Şebnem Arsu in the International Herald Tribune, titled “Shadow Force Grows in Turkey” Professor and human rights lawyer, James Harrington wrote an article in Today’s Zaman.
Prof. Harrington says that much of what the article “describes about Fethullah Gülen and Turkey’s recent history is accurate, but the authors cast a shadow of innuendo and loose conclusions, apparently more driven by personal predispositions than reality.”
“Mr. Gülen is concerned with the world of thoughts, not individuals, institutions, or political ambitions,” GulenRepresentativePublished April 27, 2012 Uncategorized Leave a Comment
In response to an article titled “Shadow force grows in Turkey” by Dan Bilefsky and Sebnem Arsu which appeared in the International Herald Tribune on April 18, 2012, Mr. Fethullah Gulen’s representative released a statement.
The statement says:
The thoughts and activities of Mr. Gülen has no political motive whatsoever as claimed. Therefore, it is out of question for my client to support a certain political party, acting as a political agent, or trying to be a political power, and to intimidate people with opposing views or members of opposition. Mr. Gülen has no organizational power as mentioned. His entire power stems from his siding with knowledge, morality, virtue, and honesty.
The statement went on to say:
We would like to express once more with this opportunity to reiterate that Mr. Gülen is concerned with the world of thoughts, not individuals, institutions, or political ambitions.
The pivot of his thoughts and actions is the human being and serving humankind in the framework of universal values. He is not involved in any unlawful activity.
Speaking to the Washington Times’ Luke Montgomery , Columnist Mustafa Akyol said:
In Islamic history, we have a tradition of pluralism. At times, pluralism was attacked and those were bad times for Islamic civilization, so I think we need to have more pluralism. In order to have that, you need neutral states without an official doctrine. I’m not advocating a strong separation between religion and politics, but I’m an advocate of the secular state in the sense that it is neutral towards different religious communities. In other words, the problem is not political Islam but authoritarian Islam.
The Sacramento Bee that reports that hundreds of worshippers in Sacramento, California, were able to celebrate this Easter Sunday together thanks to a local Muslim organization that let the Christians hold services in their mosque.
“Our mission from the very beginning was to bring the different faith traditions together in cooperative efforts,” Reverend Michael Moran told KXTV. “I love what the Dalai Lama said, he said, ‘Until there’s peace among the world’s religions, there will never be peace on earth. I think this is one of those steps towards peace.’”
The association’s statement comes in response to recent allegations in the Turkish media that the movement is in the midst of a power struggle with the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) government and that members of the movement are “infiltrating” top state institutions.
Mr. Ahmet T. Kuru writes in the most recent issue of Insight Turkey (Vol. 14, No.2, 2012, pp. 37-57) about “The Rise and Fall of Military Tutelage in Turkey: Fears of Islamism, Kurdism, and Communism.”
The abstract of the article is as follows:
“What explains the rise and fall of military tutelage over Turkish democracy? This article argues that the military’s civilian allies, particularly in the judiciary, political parties, and the media, provided it with political power. The reason why these civilians supported the military tutelage over democracy was their ideological fears of ‘Islamic reactionism,’ ‘Kurdish separatism,’ and ‘communism.’ Yet since 2007, the military’s political influence has declined due to the weakening of its ideological allies and the rise of a counter-elite, mainly the alliance of the pro-Islamic conservatives and the liberals. The article reviews the alternative state-centric, culturalist, and institutionalist explanations, while comparing the pre-2007 and post-2007 periods of civil-military relations.”
You can read the entire article here.