deconstructing der spiegel’s defamatory piece

Deconstructing Der Spiegel’s Defamatory Piece | 1

Deconstructing’s

Defamatory Piece

Deconstructing’s

Defamatory Piece

© Intercultural Dialogue Platform. All rights reserved

Printed in Belgium

Intercultural Dialogue Platform219, Boulevard Auguste Reyers1030 [email protected]

This publication can be downloaded at no cost atwww.dialogueplatform.eu

ContentsIntroductionDeconstruction Allegations I. How Gülen portrays himself II. How the Movement perceives Gülen III. The Movement is a sect/cult IV. The Movement is like a prison V. The Movement is a mafia, centralized and hierarchical VI. Gülen is the most dangerous Islamist VII. The Movement’s finances are murky VIII. The Movement’s Light Houses (anonymous resources) IX. Gülen is infiltrating politics and undermining the Turkish State X. The Movement is infiltrating the Police XI. Gülen had to flee XII. Gülen sees the West as the enemy XIII. Gülen encourages military action against Kurdish separatism XIV. Gülen does not believe theory of evolution XV. Gülen was the advisor of Tansu Çiller XVI. The Authors’ sources i. Martin van Bruinessen ii. Michael Rubin iii. Ahmet Şık iv. İlhan Cihaner v. Hanefi Avcı vi. Dani Rodrick XVII. No chance to respond to specific accusations XVIII. Der Spiegel obvious attempt to mislead its readers

48 8 9 10 12 14 15 15 16 18 20 21 22 22 24 25 25 25 25 26 28 29 29 30 31

4 | Intercultural Dialogue Platform

IntroductionDer Spiegel, the influential German weekly, recently published a thoroughly scurrilous and defamatory piece about Fethullah Gülen and the Hizmet Movement (also referred to simply as ‘Hizmet’ in our report) inspired by his teachings. The piece has since been translated into English and appeared, on 8 August 2012, on the magazine’s website as “The Shadowy World of the Islamic Gülen Movement”. Its author is Maximil-ian Popp. It can be read in full at: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/guelen-movement-accused-of-being-a-sect-a-848763.htmlIt is depressing to see a weekly news magazine giving such prominence to what is smear-journalism of the most blatantly dishonest kind. It makes no effort to provide its readers with secure, tested information about Gülen or about the Hizmet Movement, or to build an argument that rests on such information. The piece is not interested at all in helping its readers understand what has become a very extensive Movement managing an informal network of schools, dialogue societies, clinics, hostels, print and broadcast media, and diverse other charity and welfare organisations, in many different regions of the world. The Movement has been investigated in depth by serious scholars from the perspective of several different disciplines, and different political and sociological persuasions –– but neither the fact of these studies, nor their authors’ conclusions (not even the negative ones) are even mentioned in the piece.

Instead, the piece asserts that, whatever the Movement claims to be doing or seems to be doing, really, underneath it all, it is doing something else and quite sinister. It does not define what the Movement is doing as sinister. Rather, it builds the impression that, really, underneath and behind it all, there must be something sinister going on. The piece thus pretends to be an unveiling, an exposure. In reality it is a depressingly shameless assemblage of insinuation and innuendo, either unattributed or attributed to “anonymous” individu-als (whose identity has to be protected from the mafia-like vengeance of the Movement!), or attributed to individuals who have a public record of failed legal challenges against the Movement. It is fully consistent with the intellectual dishonesty of the piece as a whole,

the PIece Asserts thAt, whAtever the

MoveMent clAIMs to be DoIng or

seeMs to be DoIng, reAlly, unDerneAth

It All, It Is DoIng soMethIng else

AnD quIte sInIster. It Does not DefIne

whAt the MoveMent Is DoIng As sInIster

that its (few) named sources are not properly identified. Unless they already know, readers will not realise that these individuals are associated with a politi-cal faction in Turkey that has persistently, over decades, dragged Gülen and the Movement through the courts in a vain effort to get the Movement banned. Naturally, the author of the piece also does not bother to tell readers that the Movement patiently and peacefully answered all the legal challenges presented to it and, in every single instance, was proven innocent.The author of “The Shadowy World” is not interested in historical facts like that. Instead, his piece shamelessly repeats the false allegations –– that the Move-ment is a religious cult or sect, that it has plans or aspirations to undermine the non-religious foundations of the Turkish state, that it seeks political power, that it wants to “take over” the police and civil service, that it is fundamentalist, anti-democratic, anti-secular, etc., etc. –– without telling its readers that these allegations have all been tested in legal courts, and indeed in the court of the public media (not to mention the court of serious, academic scholarship), and proven to be false. We have counted, in a piece of a little over 3000 words, some 30 false allegations, systematically distorted quotations, etc. We list them in the left column of the Table below. Unfortunately, the piece does not contain answers to those specific allegations from participants of the Movement either because (1) those specific al-legations (‘light houses are like prisons’, ‘former members are afraid of Gülen and his people, afraid for their jobs, their health and their families’, ‘the Movement is behind the Ergenekon trial’) were not put to par-ticipants of the Movement who would have addressed them as we have done below or (2) they were put to participants of the Movement but their answers were not included in the published piece. Anything resem-bling a response by a participant of the Movement (and there are very little) is extremely brief and general. In the absence of any substantive argument or information content in those allegations it is difficult to re-spond to the allegations and insinuations. Nevertheless, we have tried to take the piece as serious argument, and answered, point by point, in the facing right column of the Table. We hope that readers with the time and patience to do so will go through these points, and come to their own reasoned conclusions. By way of illustrating how the piece does what it means to do, that is, to smear Gülen and the Hizmet Move-ment, we can look at the statement which figures as the opening line of “The Shadowy World”. Popp sets the tone of the piece like this: Millions of Muslims around the world idolize Turkish preacher Fethullah Gülen, who likes to present himself as the Gandhi of Islam.

Let us unpick this sentence and what it is trying to do. The first part of it states as fact that millions of Muslims “idolize” Gülen. The word “idolize” is used to convey the impression that those millions do not “learn from” or “think like” or even “follow”; rather, these millions are Muslims whose minds have become religiously closed, so that (a notion spectacularly offensive to Muslims) they more or less worship Gülen –– these millions are brainwashed automatons who can’t think for themselves. Readers are not invited to ask –– how is it that these Muslims have managed to run such efficient schools and do other charitable works in such very different social and cultural jurisdictions in the world, and for so many years, without being detected and identified as brainwashed cult-followers? Rather, the implication is that these Muslims are very good at hiding what they are about –– so “be afraid, be very afraid”!The second part of the sentence states, again as matter of fact, that Gülen “likes

to present himself as the Ghandi of Islam”. In reality, Gülen has never so presented himself, and indeed con-sistently avoids having any public presence whatever (for detail, see the Table below, first row). But let us, anyway, look at the comparison and ask what the author of the piece is trying to do here. Now Ghandi, for very good reasons, has a strongly positive image in the consciousness of Western peoples. So Mr. Popp gives the impression that Gülen pretends to the virtues of Ghandi, to have the same image, but the reality ––? That is left unspoken, but the suspicion of something sinister is planted in readers’ minds simply by having Gülen claim for himself the positive image of Ghandi. Almost effortlessly, without conveying any informa-tion at all, the piece makes you dislike Gülen from the outset, as someone who pretends to be what he is not. Look more closely at the comparison and you begin to see how utterly inappropriate it is. Ghandi is famous for the general strategy (and various particular tactics) of non-violent mass civil disobedience. This was a strategy of political campaigning, used, mostly with little success, to embarrass and intimidate British impe-rial rule first in South Africa and then, later, in India. The objective was to defeat British power in India and secure independence. The notion of a “Ghandi of Islam” is no more sensible than a “Ghandi of Hinduism” or a “Ghandi of Christianity”. As a political campaigning strategy Ghandi’s way does not need any particu-lar religious or cultural accent –– it could be used in different situations; as it was used, for example, in the campaign for black people’s civil rights in the USA. In Western public consciousness, Ghandi’s struggle in India and the Revd. Martin Luther King’s in the USA, are both perceived as the victory of non-violent pro-test against abuses of political and military power. That is a principal reason for Ghandi’s positive image in


Western consciousness. The historical reality is more complex of course –– it is hard to imagine any victory for mass protest against British rule in India if the British had not been so disastrously weakened by the war against Germany, if Churchill (rather than Attlee) had been Prime Minister, if the newly global American power had not favoured decolonisation, etc. Similarly, in the US itself, without the support of the federal government against the local state governments, the civil rights movement is unlikely to have prevailed over the forces ranged against it. Our point in explaining this at some length is simply this: for people who do not want to be brainwashed, it is important to check images against historical reality. Gülen has never projected himself as the Muslims’ Ghandi. Nor is it correct for anyone else to make that comparison. The reason –– Gülen does not have now, nor has he ever had, a political goal. He has no interest in trying to infiltrate or otherwise undermine this or the other state, or somehow to wrest political advan-tage from one group and transfer it to another. On the contrary, his teachings and his practice have been consistently behind the principle that man’s most important relationship is relationship with God, whereas the hunger for political and economic advantage, no matter how motivated, is always a diversion from that relationship. The Movement that Gülen inspired is called “hizmet” (service) because the most practical way to deepen and stabilise relationship with God is –– except for rare, supernaturally gifted spiritual individuals –– to serve the well-being of one’s fellow creatures. It is for that reason that the particpants in the Movement engage in the wide variety of activities that they engage in. It is not about victory of one mind-set over another, or of one religion or culture over another, but of victory over oneself. Service of others is one stage or one aspect of that self-transcendence. The Hizmet or Gülen Movement has been around for over a generation; it has a history; it has substantial physical and material effects. All of these have been and can continue to be studied in good detail. No doubt, in a Movement that has millions of activists in many hundreds of organisations, there will be vari-ation in quality of motivation, service and achievement. By all means let this variety be studied. By all means let the reality be exposed to scrutiny –– and let us not be brainwashed by the shallow, bigoted image-making that motivates this piece.

hIs teAchIngs AnD hIs PrActIce hAve been consIstently behInD the PrIn-cIPle thAt MAn’s Most IMPortAnt relAtIonshIP Is re-lAtIonshIP wIth goD, whereAs the hunger for PolItI-cAl AnD econoMIc ADvAntAge, no MAt-ter how MotIvAteD, Is AlwAys A DIversIon froM thAt relAtIon-shIP


Deconstruction AllegationsI. how gülen PortrAys hIMself

1. This statement is factually incorrect:• Fethullah Gülen does not project himself at all publicly; that why he refuses to give interviews and why he leads a reclusive

lifestyle.

• Fethullah Gülen does not portray himself as the Islamic world’s Ghandi. He is on record on numerous occasions for refus-ing to accept such comparisons and for describing himself as a volunteer activist.

• Fethullah Gülen has stated on many occasions that he does not believe that there is any such thing as the Muslim world, let alone an Islamic world. Therefore Gülen cannot put himself forward as Ghandi for a world which according to him does not exist.

2. Maximilian Popp does not provide any evidence whatsoever to support his statement that Gülen portrays himself as the Islamic world’s Ghandi. Others might make such comparisons, but this would be completely out of character for Gülen. 3. Despite addressing the point of how Gülen portrays himself and how he is perceived, the Der Spiegel piece does not once quote Gülen on how he perceives himself in relation to the Hizmet. Since Maximilian Popp is addressing this point, should he not state how Gülen has repeatedly described himself in answer to similar questions in the past and then give his own account?4. The Der Spiegel piece states that ‘Millions of Muslim around the world idolize’ Gülen without quoting or referring to how participants within the Hizmet perceive Gülen. Gülen is not idolized, but rather respected

Gülen likes to portray himself as a modest preacher akin to a Muslim Gandhi. One of his mantras is: “Build schools instead of mosques.”

Millions of Muslims around the world idolize Turkish preacher Fethullah Gülen, who likes to present himself as the Gandhi of Islam.


as a pious Muslim scholar, thinker and peace activist. In his entire report, Maximilian Popp only quotes once from someone within the Hizmet on how that person perceives Gülen. The person in question does not compare Gülen to Ghandi, a guru or a prophet, but to a ‘philosopher like Habermas’.

II. how the MoveMent PerceIves gülen

1. Notice the number of times the Der Spiegel piece refers to “critics” and the number of times he provides participants of the Movement a chance to reply to these allegations. We have counted over 30 allegations made against Gülen and/or the Hizmet in this piece (in this instance that Gülen ‘does not tolerate dissent and is only interested in power and influence, not understanding and tolerance’). The piece does not include a single reply by a Hizmet participant to any specific allegation made against Gülen or the Movement. Any-thing that resembles a response by the Movement is very brief and general, perhaps because specific allega-tions were not put to Hizmet participants. 2. We have already discussed that Gülen is not perceived by Hizmet as a Ghandi like figure, a prophet or indeed a guru and that he is not idolized. Arguing otherwise demonstrates nothing other than a complete lack of understanding of the people that make up this Movement. As Muslims, such comparisons are considered sinful by Hizmet participants. Gülen is also not seen as an ideologue because he has not established an ideology. 3. The excerpt here argues that Gülen tolerates no dissent. If Gülen tolerated no dissent this Movement would not be so large, diverse, dynamic and engag-ing. It would not attract support from working class and middle class fami-lies, businesspeople, small shop owners, academics, professionals and students. What is more, Hizmet would not be so successful in so many different parts of the world with different socio-cultural, economic and political settings. It is successful because it encourages local decision-making, critical thinking and dissent, which keep the Movement dynamic, innovative and open. 4. A quick search on the internet shows that thousands of people continue

These critics say that… [t]hey (the Movement) describe Gülen as their guru, an ideologue who tolerates no dissent, and who is only interested in power and influence, not understanding and tolerance.


publishing critical, even libellous, blogs, columns, articles, books and other pieces about Gülen and Hizmet without feeling the need to hide their identities. Some of these publications are openly hostile aimed at in-sulting Gülen and Hizmet. Such books are in abundance in almost all bookstores in Turkey. So much so that Hikmet Cetinkaya, a staunch critic of the Movement recently announced that he had said everything that there was to say about Gülen and the Movement and that he had nothing more to add. Nothing has hap-pened to these people or their publications. At most, Gülen’s lawyers pursue a libel case against unfounded criminal allegations made against their client. 5. See row 23 regarding the allegation surrounding Ahmet Şık’s book.

III. the MoveMent Is A sect/cult

1. The Der Spiegel piece does not disclose the identity of the person making these allegations. So there is no way to test their claims. 2. There are many people who have ceased to participate in the Hizmet’s activities. This in itself is proof that people can ‘move in’ and ‘move out’ without any consequences whatsoever. Deciding to no longer participate or be active in the Movement is a personal choice and can be reached for a number of reasons including lack of time. Professor Berna Turam talks about people moving in and out of the Movement in Between Islam and the State (Stanford University Press 2007).3. Gülen is not a cult leader and neither is the term ‘Fethullaci’, ‘Gülenist’ or ‘Gülenism’ appropriate since Gülen is not interested in attracting loyalty to himself. He encourages people to read the works of other theologians and thinkers and often quotes several during his speeches and in his articles. He encourages an extensive, free thinking and critical approach both in theology and practice.4. Hizmet is not ultraconservative and is not a sect. The Movement supports the free market economy, Turkey’s accession to the EU, democracy, separation of church and state and the non-instrumentalisation of religion in politics. Hizmet is not a sect and is against sect-like devotion. Sects try to control what people think, read and say. This Movement does the exact opposite. It is about opening people up to new ideas, new

People who have broken ties to Gülen and are familiar with the inner workings of this community tell a different story. They characterize the movement as an ultraconservative secret society, a sect not unlike the Church of Scientology.


ways of being and thinking. Sects discourage critical questioning; this Movement survives and thrives by it. 5. Without giving any background information about Turkish politics and law, the Der Spiegel piece accuses the Movement of being secretive. Its readers have a right to know that it is still in 2012 a crime to establish Islamic groups, movements and brotherhoods in Turkey. These networks can only exist unofficially and depending on the socio-political situation, the authorities may turn a blind eye to these groups that would otherwise exist legally in Western developed countries. When conditions change, there is nothing to stop Turkish authorities from punishing and persecuting these groups. Thus, as the piece puts it, Hizmet does not have a central address or bank account but this is not its own fault, if it is a fault at all. And this does not mean that the Movement is secretive. It consists of volunteers, schools, businesses and so on. They operate as loose, informal networks; the authorities know about them and the institutions are transparent, legally accountable and regularly inspected. 6. The Der Spiegel piece says nothing of the persecution suffered by observant Muslims in Turkey. Until very recently, religious reactionaryism was considered Turkey’s number one threat. Let us also not forget that elements of the military are accused of planning interventions as recently as 2003, 2004 and 2007 and that in 2008 the Constitutional Court of Turkey sought to ban the governing AK Party for being the centre of religious reactionaryism – that is a year after it received 47% of the vote in the general elections (the party was found guilty but survived being banned by one vote; instead the party was fined.) Surely this goes some way to explain why ‘religious’ movements may find it difficult to be as transparent as they might prefer to be when they are both legally banned and run the risk of persecution.7. Notwithstanding that, the movement has been vigorously proactive in be-ing open and transparent and invited independent scrutiny and critique by both the media and academia. Conferences, researches, interviews, visits and all other forms of discussion, debate and scrutiny have been both encouraged by and cooperated with by various organisations of Hizmet. Examples are numer-ous; in 2009 University of Potsdam’s Institute of Religion and the Forum for Intercultural Dialogue jointly organised an academic conference in Potsdam. Maximilian Popp could easily have spoken to those Germans who presented at this conference putting to them whether the Movement is a secretive sect, cult and stifles dissent. In 2010 Dialoog Academie (a Movement NGO) organised an academic conference in Amsterdam inviting critical academic analysis of every aspect of Hizmet, including finance, structure and gender roles. In fact,


Martin van Bruinessen, one of sources quoted in the Der Spiegel piece, presented his critical paper at this conference. If Hizmet was secretive and sought to silence dissent why would it invite Martin van Bruinessen to speak and present at a conference it was itself organizing? 8. See also row 10 for more on why this Movement is not a sect.

1. There is no way of testing this statement since no real names are given. People can be reluctant to talk for any number of reasons, even if we accept that they were reluctant in the first place. 2. The claim that these people are are reluctant to talk because they ‘are afraid of Gülen and his people, afraid for their jobs, their health and their families’ is unbelievable and defies common sense at many levels:-• The people interviewed are in Germany. Is this Der Spiegel piece asking us to believe that these ‘former members’ believe

that the Movement has ‘also’ infiltrated all parts of Germany that their jobs, lives and families are in danger?

• This portrays Hizmet as an illegal organisation in Germany capable of and willing to threaten people’s jobs, lives and families. If that is the case, why have these people not reported this to the German police? Failing that, why has Ger-man intelligence not picked up on a Movement that is ‘the most important and most dangerous Islamist movement in Germany,’ according to Ursula Spuler-Stegemann, as quoted in this Der Spiegel piece? Why did the piece not put these apparent contradictions to its anonymous interviewees?

3. Hizmet is active in over 140 countries. It is by all accounts extensive and very numerous. If Hizmet was involved in the form of activities mentioned above there would be many ‘former members’ willing to speak up and the Movement would have at least faced criminal charges in a court of law in some part of the world where the rule of law is upheld. Can this piece point to a single court ruling in any part of the world in which Gülen and/or the Movement and/or participant(s) of the Movement were convicted of such crimes?

Iv. the MoveMent Is lIke A PrIson

Only very few former members are prepared to talk about their time in the movement, and those who do insist on not being identified by name. They are afraid of Gülen and his people, afraid for their jobs, their health and their families.

The more Serkan Öz lived his life in accordance with Gülen’s rules, the “Hizmet düsturlari,” the fewer freedoms he had. For example, the cemaat tried to dictate to him which profession he was to choose. He had


almost no friends left outside the movement.

Other former members report that they were pressured to marry within the Gülen movement. In some residences, there are rules that prohibit watching TV, listening to music or reading books that contradict Gülen’s ideology, including the works of Charles Darwin and Jean-Paul Sartre. Some residents were coerced into cutting off ties with their families when the parents tried to resist losing their children to the cemaat.

Serkan Öz decided to move out of the house of light. Now he was a renegade, and the career doors that had opened up for him were suddenly closed. Öz became isolated, losing his friends and acquaintances, his religious home and, as he sees it today, his place in the world.

1. There is no way of testing this statement because Serkan Oz is a fictitious name.2. Hizmet encourages participants to live together in ‘houses of light/light houses’ where they lead a pious and active lifestyle, studying, reading, learning and praying together. This is no secret and many independ-ent academics have researched these houses. What is more, these houses are known to the German police – as Gülen encourages residents of these houses to make themselves known to the authorities. Furthermore, given the religion of its residents, it is without doubt that 3. The alleged practices in these houses (forcing people to choose professions, forced marriage, coercion to cut family ties, stigmatization and alienation of those who leave, etc.) are potentially criminal forms of behaviour. Has there been any investigation by the authorities into these alleged practices? What was the outcome? German authorities have not brought a single case against a single house in Germany; neither has there been any charge brought (let alone successfully prosecuted) against these houses in any democratic country in any part of the world. That being the case, how does this piece ensure that the person interviewed is genuine? Why does Maximilian Popp not ask his interviewee these pertinent questions: ‘Have you com-plained to the authorities?’, ‘If not, why not?’, ‘How does Hizmet continue these practices while avoiding detection in Germany?’5. Free-exit is the most important criterion for civil society volunteer organizations. Preventing people from ‘leaving’ Hizmet is a violation of a person’s human rights and depending on the circumstances, could amount to criminal behaviour. Again, given that the Hizmet is active in 140 countries, why have no charges been brought against this alleged practice of the Movement? We would argue: because it is untrue. And that the terms ‘moving in’ and ‘moving out’ of the Movement are inappropriate terms since the Movement is not an entity; it is rather a state of sympathy that one feels towards Hizmet’s goals and principles and supports as


much or as little as one can. 6. There are no ‘Gülen rules’ as far as we know, either written or unwritten, formal or informal. These houses do have TVs and listening to music is not prohibited (music is broadcast on the Hizmet’s TV and radio sta-tions). Residents in these houses apply their own rules and it is not unusual for people who want to lead a spiritual lifestyle to limit the playing of a certain type of music out loud. As for books, we have not till this date heard of any type of book being banned in these houses. Gülen himself refers to Darwin and Satre as well as to many other Western scholars from different periods.

v. the MoveMent Is A MAfIA, centrAlIzeD AnD hIerArchIcAl

1. Hizmet has no formal legal entity because it is an idea, a set of principles, an outlook that moves people to engage in good works for wider society. It does not avoid having a formal structure for reasons of pre-venting detection or because it is by nature or design secretive. Rather, it has a non-hierarchical structure of netwroked associations because that is the most effective way of encouraging and enabling local decision-making for locally effective policies.2. Hizmet does not operate in secret; it simply operates without formal structures which some people find hard to grasp. 3. Referring to Fethullah Gülen as ‘the godfather’ proves the true intent of this Der Spiegel piece, that is to defame and character assassinate Gülen. What hard evidence has this piece offered to substantiate such a serious and defamatory charge? 4. What evidence does the Der Spiegel piece offer for the structures and hierarchies it says Hizmet consists of? Why does it not offer it readers the chance to compare its account with the Movement’s own accounts

His movement has no address, no mailbox, no registration and no central bank account. Gülen supporters don’t demonstrate for sharia and jihad, and the cemaat operates in secret. Gülen, the godfather, determines the movement’s direction. Some members within the inner circle of power have been serving Gülen for decades. They control the most important organizations within the movement, the publishing houses and foundations. Within the cemaat, individual world regions, like Central Asia and Europe, are managed by a “brother.” The hierarchy extends all the way down to national and local “brothers” in city neighborhoods.


of how it operates.

vI. gülen Is the Most DAngerous IslAMIst

The piece quotes a German academic who says about the Movement’s participants: “They are everywhere.” Hizmet participants are thus being stigmatized in the same way the Jews were in the Nazi era in Germany. Now that is a cause for worry.

vII. the MoveMent’s fInAnces Are Murky

1. The Der Spiegel piece asks us to believe that Hizmet’s finances are murky without providing any evidence whatever to substantiate its claim. Upon what is this claim based?

Germans have devoted a lot of attention to Islam in recent years. There are conferences on Islam and research projects on integration. But the German public knows almost nothing about Gülen and his movement, even though it has more influence on Muslims in Germany than almost any other group. “It is the most important and most dangerous Islamist movement in Germany,” says Ursula Spuler-Stegemann, an Islamic scholar in the western German university city of Marburg. “They are everywhere.”

One of the cemaat’s biggest successes is the Tüdesb High School in Berlin’s Spandau neighborhood. The school has a good reputation, with small class sizes, motivated teachers and modern equipment, and there are always several applicants for each spot. The students, most of whom are of Turkish origin, speak Turkish and German, lessons are based on the Berlin city-state’s curriculum, and some teachers have never even heard of Fethullah Gülen. Others, however, are believed to surrender a portion of their monthly salary to the movement.

The Gülen movement has two sides: One that faces the world and another that hides from it. Its finances are particularly murky. Rich businessmen donate millions, but civil servants and skilled manual workers also contribute to the financing of Gülen projects. Fethullahcis donate an average of 10 percent of their income to the community, with some giving up to 70 percent.


2. Following the money-trail is very important in bringing down organised crime, preventing acts of terror-ism and saving the public purse from loss of revenue. The German authorities demonstrated their ability to follow the money-trail in their investigation into the Deniz Feneri. That being the case, coupled with the allegation made in the Der Spiegel piece that Hizmet is the largest and most influential Muslim movement in Germany with particularly murky finances, why have the German authorities not uncovered any irregu-larities with finances associated with the Movement?3. In December 2009, Der Springer published a book by Professor Helen Rose Ebaugh of Houston Univer-sity titled ‘The Gülen Movement: A Sociological Analysis of a Civic Movement Rooted in Moderate Islam’. The work of Professor Ebaugh is one example of sustained research regarding the Movement’s finances. The research suggests considerable financial transparency in the Movement; for her sociological analysis in 2009 she was able to conduct detailed interviews with over a hundred donors. There are many other similar research projects underway. Why did Maximilian Popp not attempt to interview Professor Ebaugh and put his allegations to her?

vIII. the MoveMent’s lIght houses (AnonyMous resources)

1. Light houses or houses of light were put forward by Gülen in his sermons and writings as ways of protect-ing a person’s spirituality. The houses, rented by a group of 6-8 students, have been the subject of much research to this date. The rules in these houses are set and applied by the residents themselves in accordance with the original inspiration for the houses in the first place. 2. “Serkan Oz” claims that he was drawn to Fethullah Gülen through his teachings and sermons. In that case, Serkan Oz would have known that Gülen is an Islamic preacher who encourages people to lead pious and spiritual lives in accordance with the Qur’an and Sunnah of Prophet Muhammed (pbuh). As a result,

Both the furnishings and everyday life in the residence, says Öz, were more evocative of the frugality and rigidity of a monastery than the relaxed atmosphere of a student dormitory. There were only men living in his house, and both alcohol and visits by women were prohibited. A supervisor, who all residents referred to as “Agabey” (“elder brother”), determined the daily routine, dictating when it was time to work, pray and sleep. “We were guarded as if we were in prison,” says the former member. Öz read the Koran and studied Gülen’s writings every day.


Serkan Oz should not be surprised that theses houses are unlike other student dormitories, that they are not mixed, do not allow alcohol or visits by women and that this is entirely consistent with the whole ethos and purpose of these premises. 3. An ‘agabey’ is the eldest person in the house who usually helps rent the house in the first place and helps maintain the household rota system and other daily routines, which are mutually agreed by the other mem-bers of the house. The next oldest member helps the ‘agabey’ and is considered an ‘agabey’ by those who are younger. The daily routine is not anything sinister or secretive. It is a simple plan which is needed to help the house function in the best way. It includes meal, study and prayer time. 4. If Serkan Oz preferred a more relaxed environment he could have easily left. Why didn’t he? If these houses are like prisons then we hope this Der Spiegel piece will be considered as a formal complaint and fully investigated by the authorities. The claim is baseless and a proper investigatin would prove that it is baseless.

1. The term ‘Fethullahci’ is a derogatory label used in Turkey by those who insist on maintaining that Hizmet is a sinister cult. Serious journalism would investigate and allow its readers to make up its own mind, rather than employing terms that enforce a predetermined conclusion. 2. Hizmet is not a cult and does not seek loyal servants. The houses are not secret. If these houses were en-gaged in any suspect practices, undercover reporting, police investigations or at the very least surveillance by the intelligence services, would have blown their cover a long time ago. There is no such hard evidence. What is offered instead are anonymous allegations through the press (not courts in which claims can be examined) that cannot be challenged. 3. If these houses were engaged in suspect practices they would not seek to make themselves known. How-ever, Gülen encourages those who open such houses to first inform the police and authorities of their pres-ence and who they are.

The houses of light are the foundation of the movement, where young “Fethullahcis” (as followers of Gülen are called) are taught to become loyal servants. The residences exist in many countries, including Turkey, the United States and Germany. There are two dozen in Berlin alone. The cemaat offers schoolchildren and university students a home, often free of charge, and in return it expects them to devote their lives to “hizmet,” or service to Islam.


1. Fethullah Gülen does not encourage Muslims to proselytise. Gülen encourages ‘tamsil’ which is for others to see whatever good is in you that naturally flows from you on account of you being a good person and a good Muslim. 2. The Der Spiegel piece does not provide a reference for this quote. As a result we were unable to find it. It is entirely against Gülen’s nature and teachings to encourage deception.

IX. gülen Is InfIltrAtIng PolItIcs AnD unDerMInIng the turkIsh stAte

1. This speech was doctored by the military junta of the 1997 postmodern coup. Nonetheless Gülen was tried on the basis of this speech as well as any other evidence the prosecutors could find. The trial began in 2000 in which Gülen was accused of being a terrorist engaged in activity that sought to undermine and change the Turkish secular regime. Gülen was acquitted of those charges in 2006. The prosecutor appealed against the acquittal. The prosecutor’s appeal was dismissed and Gülen’s acquittal was upheld by the highest appeal court of Turkey in 2008. It is interesting that the Der Spiegel piece forgets to mention that Gülen was tried on the basis of this speech and acquitted in a trial and appeal that lasted eight years (Gülen’s acquittal is mentioned in the briefest of forms elsewhere in the piece). 2. Those who insist that Gülen is sinister, argue that Gülen was only acquitted on the intervention of the

Residents of the houses of light are also expected to proselytize, and Gülen even offers advice in his writings on how to go about it. The students, he writes, should befriend infidels, even if it means having to hide their true motives. “With the patience of a spider, we lay our web to wait for people to get caught in the web.”

In one of his sermons, he called upon his students to establish a new Muslim age. He advised his supporters to undermine the Turkish state and act conspiratorially until the time was ripe to assume power. “You must move in the arteries of the system without anyone noticing your existence until you reach all the power centers … until the conditions are ripe, they (the followers) must continue like this. If they do something prematurely, the world will crush our heads, and Muslims will suffer everywhere. (…) You must wait until such time as you have gotten all the state power (…) Until that time, any step taken would be too early -- like breaking an egg without waiting the full 40 days for it to hatch. It would be like killing the chick inside.”


governing AK Party. The problem with this argument is that Gülen has been acquitted many times before of similar charges before Hizmet was widespread and long before the AK Party was even founded. Secondly, Gülen was acquitted and his acquittal was upheld in 2008 when the AK Party could not even save itself from being found guilty by the Turkish judiciary of being the centre of religious reactionaryism. 3. Gülen states that in the undoctored part of the recording he was explaining to a group of civil servants who were fed up of being persecuted by their seniors for their beliefs that they should hide their religiosity to avoid being dismissed, as opposed to clashing head on with the establishment. This context of course is not included in the Der Spiegel piece.

1. Alleged claims made by yet another unidentified person, this time a US diplomat without any proof whatsoever. 2. Today, it is becoming more obvious that Erdoğan would not tolerate Gülen’s influence within his party, even if Gülen were willing to seek such influence. Critics of Gülen and the AK party no longer claim that Hizmet has ‘infiltrated’ the party because the claim appears less and less credible as time goes by. 3. As far as we know, there has never been nor is there currently a minister of the AK party government that has a background in the Movement.

1. Alleged claims made by a ‘former senior member’ of Hizmet without any proof whatsoever. 2. Gülen has been tried and acquitted of claims that he is trying to infiltrate the civil service. 3. Gülen encourages Muslims to be take part in every part of society and not to be confined to conventional roles and jobs. He encourages practising Muslims to work in all sectors and industries including the civil service, police, judiciary, media, military and academia because these were sectors knowingly avoided by

According to information obtained by US diplomats, almost a fifth of the AKP’s members of parliament were members of the Gülen movement in 2004, including the justice and culture ministers.

Many civil servants act at the behest of the “Gülen brothers,” says a former senior member. “They were our students. We trained and supported them. When these grateful children assume office, they continue to serve Gülen.”


and closed to observant Muslims in Turkey. Now people are taking heed of Gülen’s advice; more and more observant Muslims are taking up those positions; and this is indeed worrying the Turkish establishment. 4. Gülen does not encourage loyalty to himself. He does not say or recommend any specific form of action that could be construed as encouraging people influenced by him to act in ways contrary to their public roles and positions. He encourages meritocracy, loyalty to the law of the land and following correct proce-dure in public office. It is totally unacceptable if a civil servant favours an interest group contrary to proper procedural practice.

X. the MoveMent Is InfIltrAtIng the PolIce

1. (As above:) Gülen encourages Muslims to be take part in every part of society and not to be confined to conventional roles and jobs. He encourages practising Muslims to work in all sectors and industries includ-ing the civil service, police, judiciary, media, military and academia because these were sectors knowingly avoided by and closed to observant Muslims in Turkey. Now that people are taking heed of Gülen’s advice more and more observant Muslims are taking up those positions and this is indeed worrying the Turkish establishment. 2. It is no secret that as a result of Gülen’s teachings, which has removed the cultural and religious dogmas that previously prevented Muslims from being proactively engaged in society and working in the public sector, many practising Turkish Muslims now work for the police as well as other public services. The ques-tion should not be are there practising Muslims inspired by Gülen working in the police force, but why practising Muslims were discouraged from such jobs and positions – be it in the police force or other public sectors – in the past. Having noted that, a Turkish citizen of whatever philosophical outlook has every right to work as a public official or civil servant in Turkey.3. If the assertion is that members of the police force who are inspired by Gülen are somehow engaged in improper activities (i.e. that they act in the best interest of Gülen and/or Hizmet as opposed to the rule of

In 2006, former police chief Adil Serdar Sacan estimated that the Fethullahcis held more than 80 percent of senior positions in the Turkish police force. “The assertion that the TNP (Turkish National Police) is controlled by Gülen ists is impossible to confirm but we have found no one who disputes it,” wrote James Jeffrey, the then US ambassador in Ankara, in a 2009 cable.


law and proper procedure) then this is not only illegal it is also contrary to Gülen’s teachings and such people should face criminal investigation. But does Der Spiegel does not offer any proof of this. 4. To make such an allegation and state that this is ‘impossible to prove’ is unacceptable. It is not impossible to prove, after all Turkey has an intelligence service that reports directly to the Prime Minister and which has not been accused of being controlled by the Movement. What is more, the burden of proof lies with the accuser. Finally, if it is impossible to prove, how much more impossible is it to disprove?

XI. gülen hAD to flee

1. This is factually incorrect. Fethullah Gülen had already left Turkey before the doctored recording was aired. He was receiving treatment in the United States for a heart condition and was advised by his doctors to remain in the US for the duration of his treatment. Therefore, Gülen was not forced to flee from Turkey as this statement claims. 2. The doctored recording was aired by Turkish TV channels on the recommendation of the then Turkish Chief of Staff in 1999 who staged a postmodern coup and toppled the demo-cratically elected government a few months after Gülen had left Turkey. The recording was aired as part of a psychological campaign operated through the media to legitimise the military’s intervention. The media campaign went so far as to fabricate and promote fictitious ‘sheikhs’ who were then ‘caught’ on cam-era engaged in acts of indecent behaviour (Ali Kalkanci and Muslum Gunduz).

When a recording of this speech was leaked to the public in 1999, Gülen had to flee from Turkey. He claims that his words were manipulated. He has been living in exile in the United States ever since.


XII. gülen sees the west As the eneMy

Anyone who knows anything about Gülen knows that this excerpt distorts what Gülen is saying. Gülen in fact is criticised by many fundamentalist and extremist Muslims for praising and looking favourably on the West. Gülen does not regard the West as a monolithic entity. He applauds those elements of the West that deserve praise such as its methodical and scientific approach and criticises those elements that deserve criti-cism, such as the West’s imperialist and colonialist past. Gülen is not an Occidentalist. Unlike Islamists, his constitutive other is not the West. He, first and foremost, criticizes Muslims for their failures weaknesses and sins. The piece distorts Gülen’s ideas and indirectly insults hundreds of Western academics who have studied the Movement.

XIII. gülen encourAges MIlItAry ActIon AgAInst kurDIsh sePArAtIsM

1. The piece completely distorts what Gülen said in that speech and in doing so demonstrates that it is not interested in the truth but in smearing Gülen ’s reputation. 2. The speech in question was made by Gülen, in which he is talking to a small group of people, following a PKK terrorist attack that killed 24 soldiers. The speech lasts approximately 45 minutes and is available to view online. Gülen dedicates his entire speech to explain that nothing can be achieved by bloodshed, that the

In a November 2011 video message, he called upon the Turkish military to attack Kurdish separatists: “Locate them, surround them, break up their units, let fire rain down upon their houses, drown out their lamentations with even more wails, cut off their roots and put an end to their cause.”

At the same time, Gülen encountered the teachings of Said Nursi, a Kurdish Sufi preacher, and joined his community.

But before he moved to the United States, Gülen treated the West as the enemy. “Until the day of judgment,” he wrote in his book “Cag ve Nesil” (This Era and the Young Generation), “Westerners will exhibit no human behavior.” Gülen condemned Turks who embraced Europe as “freeloaders,” “parasites” and “leukemia.”


Kurdish problem is not an economic problem but a social, cultural, human problem caused by a lack of real empathy and human engagement. He criticises past governments for failing to ‘feel the pain of the people in the region’ and for failing to give the Kurdish people their inalienable human rights such as the right to education. In criticising the military for failing to prevent terrorist attacks on civilians he draws attention to the real possibility that there might be elements within the Turkish establishment that want the suffering of the Kurdish people (and thereby the legitimization of the PKK attacks) to continue. 3. Having spent his entire speech explaining how an emphatic, heartfelt and multidimensional effort needs to be mounted to resolve the Kurdish issue and overcome the PKK terrorist threat Gülen then states at the very end that if, despite all this (reforms, equality, human rights and more), some quarters still insist on con-tinuing their terrorism, then that small fraction alone engaged in active terrorism should be countered mili-tarily. Those who claim that Gülen supports solving the Kurdish issue militarily, as suggested in this excerpt, are those who deliberately misrepresent what Gülen has said. His entire talk is to argue the exact opposite. His general rule is a non-military solution. The exception for those who may still persist with killing despite all the reforms/measures he suggests is to meet only those with force. 4. Here are some excerpts from that speech including the section quoted by the Der Spiegel piece. Is it not curious that the Der Spiegel piece misses what Gülen says in the whole 45 minutes but focuses exclusively on one sentence taken completely out of context?: • “One of the values that many people have lost is that feeling for others, and feeling anguish at witnessing the

suffering of others. If individuals do not feel a burning and anguish in the heart in the face of heart-wrenching events that make people suffer, they cannot find remedies to any problem, and the words they utter to comfort those who suffer under such incidents do not go beyond pretence. Neglecting such incidents is a sin; to express remorse with pretence is both a sin and a lie.

• “Murder as a means of achieving a goal or reaching a target is not approved of by any prophet or saint. Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) lived in Mecca under such an unbearable pressure for thirteen years. Yet he did not even hurt an ant... Attempting to achieve any goal by killing humans and through bloodshed is noth-ing other than an atrocity, murder and cruelty and would bring about no good end for humanity.”

• “However, we couldn’t approach our Kurdish friends in that degree of sincerity and compassion. We couldn’t develop empathy towards them and understand how they think and feel in certain circumstances. Instead of doing that, we thought if we oppress them through aggressive means then the problem will disappear. This method created a vicious circle in which animosity developed and was inherited by the future generations”.


• “If some think that this problem can be overcome and eliminated through violence, rather than solving it by granting people their economic, social and cultural rights, this solution method must be considered as out of touch”

• “We must approach the matter with intelligence, mental alertness and compassion, not by burning, destroying or killing. Except for the 5% who are disturbing the well-being of the majority, the 95% of that community must be embraced with compassion and mercy.”

• “Everyone must seek solution for this problem in the power of prayer; every time we must open our hearts to our Lord and say “O Lord, unite us and increase our number in thousands, make us successful in peace and unity”. Make those enter the right way who are in search of it and rehabilitation, bring peace of mind to them. And bring those down who are not supposed to be righteous and are not looking for righteousness. Destroy their unity, burn their houses and exterminate them.” (This latter prayer is not directed towards the civilians in the region because he has already made it very clear what he thinks about that and how the Kurdish problem should be resolved. This latter part of the prayer is directed at those who after all the measures and reforms he has suggested are done, still persist with killing and those who continue to profiteer from war such as the arms and drug dealers, elements of the deep state and terrorists.)

XIv. gülen Does not belIeve theory of evolutIon

It is factually incorrect to state that “Gülen believes that scientific facts are only true if they agree with the Koran”. According to Gülen, if a scientific fact contradicts our interpretation of the Qur’an, then our inter-pretation of the Qur’an needs to be re-visited and re-understood. But he also underlines that science cannot cover every issue, including faith, miracles, angels etc.

Gülen also disputes the theory of evolution, calling it “unscientific” and an “illusion.” He believes that scientific facts are only true if they agree with the Koran.


Xv. gülen wAs the ADvIsor of tAnsu ÇIller

Gülen only met Tansu Ciller a couple of times. He was not her adviser in any capacity. If by meeting her twice he had become her adviser then Ciller must have had thousands of such advisers, which is a ludicrous claim.

XvI. the Authors’ sources

i. Martin van Bruinessen

1. Martin van Bruinessen is presented here as critic of Hizmet as he is quoted as saying the Movement has parallels with the Catholic secret society Opus Dei. Bruinessen has criticisms about the Movement which are no secret. But the Movement has invited him to write and present these criticisms at public events organised by the Movement proving that it does not stifle dissent as argued by this piece. 2. Martin van Bruinessen does not explain what those parallels are so it is not possible to respond to his reasoning. No doubt parallels could be detected between almost any two human networks Or organisations, but that does not mean that the parallels are useful to understanding either.

ii. Michael Rubin

He founded schools in Turkey and abroad, and he became an adviser to the strictly secular prime minister, Tansu Ciller.

Some experts reach similar conclusions. Dutch sociologist Martin van Bruinessen sees parallels between the Gülen movement and the Catholic secret society Opus Dei.

American historian and Middle East expert Michael Rubin likens the Turkish preacher to Iranian revolutionary leader Ayatollah Khomeini.


1. The Der Spiegel piece refers to Michael Rubin who is considered by many as hostile towards Muslims. Rubin is yet to provide reasoned criticism of Gülen and Hizmet. What he says here is typical of Rubin, which is to make an unbelievable accusation (that Gülen is like Khomeini) without providing any reasoning whatoever. How Gülen is like Khomeini is not a question Maximilian Popp feels the need to ask. We suggest that Rubin makes the comparison for no other reason but to scare those concerned with the Iranian revolu-tion and regime by associating it with Gülen. 2. The Der Spiegel piece forgets to mention that Gülen has repeatedly renounced political revolutions and has counselled against anything resembling revolutionary behaviour including and even peaceful protest and demonstrations. Gülen keeps reminding his listeners that the Prophet (PBUH) rejected an offer of leadership in Mecca with compromise of his faith, but instead he chose to leave the city in order to convince individuals with piety, sincerity and reason.

iii. Ahmet Şık

1. Ahmet Şık is a suspect in the ongoing Ergenekon prosecution. The meta-defence narrative offered by the suspects of this case is that it is a witch-hunt orchestrated by Hizmet. Therefore, Şık has a vested interest in implicating Gülen and the Movement. 2. The Der Spielgel piece states that, “Ironically, it was Şık who, together with a colleague, had exposed the secret coup plans of an Ergenekon admiral in the weekly magazine Nokta in 2007 and who had repeatedly targeted the Ergenekon network”. Alper Gormus, editor of the Nokta weekly which blew the story on the

Istanbul-based journalist Ahmet Şık suffered a similar fate. He was arrested in March 2011, shortly before his book about the Gülen movement, “Imamin Ordusu,” (“The Imam’s Army”), was to be published. Security forces searched the offices of his publishing house, and the manuscript, in which Şık describes how the Gülen movement has allegedly infiltrated the police and the judiciary in Turkey, was confiscated. The investigative reporter was charged with being a member of Ergenekon. Ironically, it was Şık who, together with a colleague, had exposed the secret coup plans of an Ergenekon admiral in the weekly magazine Nokta in 2007 and who had repeatedly targeted the Ergenekon network. Şık was released a few months ago, following international protests.


plans referred to here, has repeatedly explained that Şık was not involved in uncovering this story and that the first time Şık found out about the secret coup plans was when it was published and on the shelves of the newsstands. 3. The books of Ahmet Şık and Hanefi Avcı do not contain anything new about Gülen. If the Turkish ju-diciary are ‘punishing’ these authors for their allegations against Gülen then by extension, others who have published and continue to publish against Gülen and the Hizmet would also be punished. But they have not and will not unless for unrelated reasons as in the case of Şık and Avcı. 4. To claim that Şık and Avcı have been investigated, arrested, charged and held on remand while standing trial for being members of a terrorist organisation known as Ergenekon for no other reason than to silence and punish them for criticising Gülen and the Hizmet suggests an amazingly complicated conspiracy impli-cating the police, judiciary and government all at once. The argument that the Movement is so powerful and that it has orchestrated a witch-hunt against Şık, Cihaner and Avcı is paradoxical. Why should a Movement that is so powerful that can pull-off such a complicated ploy bother doing so, and thereby draw attention to itself, when it knows that nothing these people can say or do can harm it in any way? 5. Those who would have us believe that Şık, Cihaner and Avcı are being tried as part of a witch-hunt to have them silenced (that is apparently why all copies of Şık’s book drafts were pulled from the market) argue that Hizmet is powerful and extremely sophisticated. How else could such an extravagantly complicated plan be executed. Since no hard evidence is offered to substantiate this claim we can only address the logic on which it is founded. The problem with the logic is simple: Any alert person knows that the best way to advertise a book is to ban it; that in the present time of advanced and instantaneous modes of communication, when even the mighty power of the US administration is incapable of censoring the publication of its top secret documents, that it itself stands no chance of doing so and that any attempt at banning a libellous book about Hizmet would ultimately harm the Movement more, whatever the reason for the ban in the first place. So the internal logic of Şık, Cihaner’s and Avcı’s arrest and ongoing trial is flawed and at the very least should have been put by the Der Spiegel piece to those who suggested it.


iv. İlhan Cihaner

1. Ilhan Cihaner is a suspect in the Ergenekon prosecution. Ergenekon suspects are trying to draw Gülen and Hizmet into the trial to give the impression that this is a fight between the religious fundamentalists (allegedly, Hizmet) who are trying to undermine the Turkish secular state and the secularist Turks (Ergene-kon suspects) who are trying to protect the modern Turkish regime. As a result, Cihaner is not an objective outsider commenting on the Movement. This background information is not given in the Der Spiegel piece. 2. The Der Spiegel piece case gives the impression that Ilhan Cihaner was acquitted from the charges he was facing (‘Cihaner was accused of being a member of the ultranationalist Ergenekon organization, a group of conspirators who had allegedly planned to overthrow the government... Cihaner was eventually released because of insufficient evidence against him.’ [emphasis added]). This is factually incorrect; Cihaner’s trial is ongoing. He was simply released on bail while the trial continues.

But Ilhan Cihaner experienced in Turkey what can happen to critics. “Anyone who messes with Gülen is destroyed,” says the former chief prosecutor. He has been a hero among secular Turks since he investigated the Gülen community in 2007. Cihaner says that he had received information about illegal financial transactions within the cemaat. But then, in response to pressure from the government, he was taken off the case. He was arrested in 2010.

Cihaner was accused of being a member of the ultranationalist Ergenekon organization, a group of conspirators who had allegedly planned to overthrow the government. Even Cihaner’s political rivals believe that the charges against him were absurd. The former prosecutor had acquired a reputation for his staunch campaigns against mafia-like networks. And now he was being accused of working with Ergenekon and planning to plant weapons in dormitories where Gülen supporters lived so as to discredit the movement. The prosecution based its case on statements by anonymous witnesses. Cihaner was eventually released because of insufficient evidence against him. He is now a member of the opposition in the Turkish parliament.


v. Hanefi Avcı

Similarly, Hanefi Avcı is a suspect in the ongoing Ergenekon prosecution. The meta-defence narrative offered by the suspects of this trial is that it is a witch-hunt orchestrated by Hizmet. Therefore, Avci has a vested interest in implicating Gülen and the Movement.

vi. Dani Rodrick

1. So far the piece has quoted 6 critics by their real names. 4 of those 6 are people are facing very serious prosecutions in Turkey (Şık, Cihaner and Avcı) or are closely connected to someone facing such a criminal prosecution in Turkey. 2. The Der Spiegel piece quotes serious allegations from Dani Rodrik who says the Movement is ‘up to its neck in dirty tricks’, that the Movement is a ‘mafia’ and that there is no ‘disinformation they will not peddle to further the causes they support’. The Der Spiegel piece introduces Dani Rodrik to its readers as a ‘pro-fessor of international political economy at Harvard University’. What the Der Spiegel piece does not do, however, is to inform its readers that Dani Rodrik is the son-in-law of Cetin Dogan, the infamous retired general who is the chief suspect in the Sledgehammer prosecution wherein Dogan is accused of planning to stage a violent coup against the government in 2004. 3. Like the Ergenekon suspects, the Sledgehammer suspects argue that the case against them is completely

In September 2010, Hanefi Avci, a former Turkish police chief and former Gülen sympathizer, was arrested and accused of having participated in the Ergenekon conspiracy. He had just published a book in which he accused Gülen members in the police of illegally wiretapping their enemies’ telephone conversations and manipulating trials.

“The movement is up to its neck in dirty tricks,” Dani Rodrik, a professor of international political economy at Harvard University, said in a recent interview. Zaman, he added, supports this “mafia” with “false and misleading accounts” and “manipulations.” “There is no disinformation they will not peddle to further the causes they support,” said Rodrik.


false and carried out by Hizmet to avenge themselves and weaken the military’s resolve to fight religious re-actionarysm in Turkey. Rodrik who is actually an economist not an expert on Islam, Turkey or the Hizmet, is using his Harvard affiliation to voice these groundless accusations and has been doing so for some time. Is it not curious that the Der Spiegel piece does not mention this pertinent fact? Without knowing the familial ties to Cetin Dogan, would not thea rticle’s readers think that Rodrik is an independent outsider? 4. If the Der Spiegel piece has withheld such vital information with people whose identities are given, what other important information has it withheld from those whose identities are not given in this piece?5. The Der Spiegel piece also fails to mention that Çetin Doğan recently took his case to the European Court of Human Rights but the court underlined that the evidence against him was considerable and serious. 6. Instead of talking to real experts that have studied the Movement, the Der Spiegel piece only refers (with the exception of Martin van Bruinessen) to fierce enemies of Hizmet but presents them as if they are neutral experts on the Movement.

XvII. no chAnce to resPonD to sPecIfIc AccusAtIons

1. So far we have counted over 30 specific accusations made against the Movement in this Der Spiegel piece. We note that the piece does not include answers from Hizmet participants to these specific accusations. Is that because they did not have anything to say when those specific allegations were put to them? In which case, should not the Der Spiegel piece tell us this? Or is it that these specific allegations were not put to Hizmet participants? We believe it is the latter because these are very commonplace accusations and all of them are easily answered. Our experience is that some journalists are happy to publish specific allegations about the Movement but when it comes to interviewing Hizmet participants or sympathisers, they only put

There is no evidence that Gülen was behind the arrests. He lives a reclusive life in the Pennsylvania mountains and behaves as if the accusations have nothing to do with him. He declined a request to be interviewed by SPIEGEL.

Cebi denies all accusations. His newspaper is guided by Gülen’s ideals, he says, but it doesn’t take orders from him. Gülen is not a sect leader, says Çebi. Instead, he compares him to one of Germany’s leading public intellectuals: “He’s a philosopher like Habermas.”


a generalised version of the accusations. As a result, on paper there is a specific allegation but only a general response which does not address the specific point made. 2. Here again, having made so many allegations against Gülen, the Der Spiegel piece grudgingly notes ‘[t]here is no evidence that Gülen was behind the arrests’. Other than that only the brief response by Cebi is included in defence of Gülen and the Movement. 3. Having given so much space specific allegations against Gülen and the Movement is it not telling that the piece only allows Hizmet a few lines to refute them.

XvIII. Der sPIegel obvIous AtteMPt to MIsleAD Its reADers

1. How is it relevant that Gülen happened to attend a mosque when a very young child which was also fre-quented by Cemaleddin Kaplan, who would later become a fundamentalist seeking to establish an Islamic state in Turkey? Is Maximilian Popp suggesting that there is some kind of affinity between Gülen and Ka-plan? Evidently Popp is trying smear Gülen by somehow associating him with a known extremist. 2. Is it not peculiar that Maximilian Popp seeks out and includes the most ob-scure, weak and irrelevant details when it strengthens the narrative he is offer-ing, but overlooks other facts that are most relevant and pertinent to the story that he is telling (e.g. that Ilhan Cihaner’s trial is ongoing, that Dani Rodrick is the son-in-law of Cetin Dogan the chief suspect in the Sledgehammer case etc). The fact that Maximilian Popp can pick up on one irrelevant and obscure ‘fact’ but completely ignore others that are most relevant to the story he is telling shows that at the very least Popp is prejudiced against Hizmet. 3. We do not see the need to address the point as to whether or not there is any similarity between Gülen and Kaplan.

Gülen grew up as the son of a village imam in Anatolia. He studied at a mosque in Erzurum, a city in eastern Turkey, together with Cemaleddin Kaplan, who would later move to Germany where he was known as the “Caliph of Cologne” because of his radical preaching.


The Der Spiegel piece mind-reads why the books of “The Diary of Anne Frank” and “The Bible in Fair Lan-guage” are on the shelves. Apparently they were placed there with the intent ‘to convey the following message to visitors: Look, we’re good Muslims. We mourn the dead of the Holocaust, we are interested in theological discussions of Christianity and we are democrats.’ Did Maximilian Popp put this suggestion to his host? If not, why not? And why does Popp assume this? If Popp assumes that the books were simply placed there to mislead people, does this not in itself show that Popp is prejudiced against this Movement and that there is very little the Movement can say or do to prove otherwise.

Since there is no hierarchy in the Hizmet and since Karakoyun would know that, as he is a participant of the Movement (or ‘even if there was a hierarchy since the Movement denies this and that Karakoyun knows that the Movement denies this’), Karakoyun could not have said that ‘[h]e rose up through the hierarchy until he became a “brother” himself.’ That being the case, is it not completely unethical that Maximilian Popp puts words into Karakoyun’s mouth and misrepresents what Karakoyun actually said?

The book selection [at the Forum for Intercultural Dialogue (FID) in Berlin, which has Gülen as its honorary chairman] seems balanced and judicious, with a little of everything and nothing too controversial. It seems intended to convey the following message to visitors: Look, we’re good Muslims. We mourn the dead of the Holocaust, we are interested in theological discussions of Christianity and we are democrats.

Karakoyun found his way to the movement through a “brother” who addressed him in front of a mosque in the western state of North Rhine-Westphalia when he was a teenager. He began reading Gülen’s books. He accompanied the “brother” to Turkey and became involved in the cemaat, recruiting new members at the university and in high schools. He rose up through the hierarchy until he became a “brother” himself.

deconstructing der spiegel’s defamatory piece

Documents

islamic glen movement

hizmet movement

fethullah glen

extensive movement

movement claims

spiegels defamatory

piece asserts

dialogue societies