TOWARDS AN UNDERSTANDING OF GÜLEN’S METHODOLOGY

Abstract

There is an apparent paradox at the heart of the Gülen approach. On the one hand there is a determination to present a version of Islam that is rational, inclusive, progressive and toler- ant. The broad aim is to show Islam to be a universal faith, one that has no difficulties in coexisting with other religions and indeed with those who have no religion at all. On the other hand, Islam is definitely portrayed as the superior form of belief, often because it is seen as incorporating in the best possible ways rational and spiritual virtues present in many other approaches to understanding the nature of the world. Yet how can Islam be represented as one among many and also as the first among many? This interesting feature of the Gülen methodology is shown to rest on a basic aspect of the Hanifi/Murji’i theological approach, which can also be seen as paradoxical. The inability to define precisely the nature of belief and who is a believer suggests an uncertainty about what the Muslim actually believes in. It also implies a difficulty in identifying who is a Muslim and who is not, and that might be regarded as a basic issue in religion. The lack of definition in the Hanafiyya is precisely its strength. This is something taken up well by the Gülen movement. Religious boundaries are often blurred, and believers may wish to hold onto a variety of beliefs not all of which fit neatly into a particular traditional faith. In prioritising Islam the Gülen movement expresses clearly its opinion that within the parameters of Islam is likely to be found the most truth and the best regimen as to how to live. Yet those parameters are not themselves strictly defined and allow for much change and development. When considering the thought of Gülen it is important to try to classify the sort of approach that he adopts in his writings and speeches. What methodology is he using? This is a question that can be raised about any significant thinker. We need to know how they shape their mate- rial, and as we shall see, what sort of audience they design their material for. It is not easy to classify Gülen’s thought, in just the same way that his mentor Bediüzzaman Nursi is also difficult to place in a neat category of intellectual life. It is the purpose of this discussion to at least start the process of developing a model of how to understand Gülen, since his work is deceptively simple and direct. It will be shown that despite its attractive and apparently unsophisticated flavour, it embodies a complex hermeneutic, and a very interesting one at that.