Fethullah Gülen, once influential in Turkey, dies in Pennsylvania, marking the end of Gülen movement era amidst controversy.
**
Summary: Fethullah Gülen, a significant yet polarizing figure in Turkey’s religious and political landscape, has passed away in Pennsylvania, marking the end of an era for the Gülen movement. Once a prominent preacher, Gülen’s career took a drastic turn as he became associated with a failed coup attempt in 2016, leading many to label him the leader of a terrorist organization. While his followers revered him as a spiritual leader, the events surrounding the coup revealed a more complex and troubling agenda that went beyond religious faith.
Gülen’s departure to the United States in the late 1990s has been interpreted as a stark reversal from his previous ideals. In various confessions, he alleged that he collaborated with the CIA, raising eyebrows about his motivations and methods. Reports surfaced of him encouraging followers to infiltrate military and police ranks, as well as promoting unorthodox practices among his adherents, such as drinking wine—a stark contradiction to Islamic teachings.
The Gülen movement, which expanded its influence globally, especially in Pakistan, positioned itself as a proponent of “moderate Islam.” Its vast network of schools, charities, and institutions was often touted as a means of fostering goodwill and education. However, critics argue that Gülen’s real aim was the consolidation of power and resources for his personal agenda.
In a recent interview on V News English, Professor İbrahim Kalın, an expert in international relations and Turkish politics, provided insights into Gülen’s complex legacy. He noted that while Gülen amassed a significant following, his agenda was ultimately self-serving. “He used religion as a tool to achieve personal goals,” Kalın stated, emphasizing that Gülen’s teachings diverged from genuine Islamic principles.
As Turkey navigates its current political landscape, questions arise about how Gülen will be remembered. Kalın suggested that the majority of the Turkish population may not mourn his passing, viewing him more as a divisive figure than a unifying leader. “People are relieved by his death; he was not representative of any specific faction,” he said.
The implications of Gülen’s death extend beyond individual sentiment. Turkey’s political environment remains fraught with challenges, including economic instability and fluctuating public support for President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. While some analysts believe that Gülen’s demise could lead to greater political stability, others caution that the underlying issues plaguing the nation persist.
In discussing Turkey’s current state, Kalın remarked, “Turkey is in the middle, balancing between religious conservatism and secularism.” The societal shifts prompted by the Gülen movement and the subsequent coup attempt have led many to distance themselves from religious institutions. This growing skepticism may redefine the future of religion in Turkey, as younger generations grow up without a robust religious education.
In summary, Fethullah Gülen’s legacy is a multifaceted one, characterized by a blend of religious fervor and political ambition. As Turkey moves forward, the impact of his movement, both positive and negative, will undoubtedly continue to influence its socio-political dynamics. The questions surrounding his ideology and its relevance in Turkey’s evolving landscape remain open for discussion, as the nation grapples with its identity amidst ongoing challenges.
***
Tell us something about Fethullah Gülen. He began his career as a preacher in Turkey, but in the end, he became the leader of a terrorist group because he attempted a coup. He was a significant figure for his followers, but when the coup attempt occurred and during the events leading up to it, people understood that it was not about religion or serving the country. His departure to the United States marked a complete 180-degree turn from his previous ideas and beliefs. According to his own confessions, he claimed to have collaborated with the CIA. He also ordered his followers to drink wine and to conceal themselves in the army. He used religion as a means to fulfill his personal goals.
The Gülen movement expanded into various parts of the Muslim world, particularly in Pakistan, and they themselves confessed to acting alongside the CIA to spread moderate Islam. What do you think will happen after his death? Will he be remembered in Turkey’s religious and political circles, or will people forget him and his ideology? People will certainly forget him because it is characteristic of human nature to forget.
Where does Turkey stand now in terms of being a religious or secular state? I think Turkey is currently in the middle.
Hello and welcome to the program “Inside” on V News English. Dear viewers, there is a leading and very important but sad development: one of the leading Turkish religious scholars and nationalist leaders, Fethullah Gülen, has passed away and returned to Allah Almighty. With this, there is an end to the Gülen movement. He was in the United States, in the state of Pennsylvania, but he has left deep footprints on Turkey’s political, religious, and national horizon.
Why was he in the United States, and what led to his departure from Turkey, where he spent decades in various movements? He became a very popular figure in both religious and political circles. Under the Gülen movement, there have been worldwide charities, schools, hospitals, and many other initiatives. Today, we will discuss Gülen’s departure, his ideology, and what led to his differences with the Turkish political leadership. After his departure, will the people of Turkey remember him? To discuss all this and to understand Fethullah Gülen and his movement, we are fortunate to be joined by a renowned scholar, analyst, and expert in international relations, Professor İbrahim Kalın.
Professor Kalın, welcome to the program “Inside” on V News English. As an expert in international relations with a deep understanding of Turkish politics, regional politics, and international affairs, please tell us something about Gülen, who has died in Pennsylvania but was quite popular in Turkey’s religious circles. He was a scholar and a significant figure in Turkish politics. Tell us about Fethullah Gülen and his movement.
Yes, he began his career as a preacher in Turkey, but in the end, he became the leader of a terrorist group because he attempted a coup. He was known as a preacher and had a religious congregation until that point. However, his secretive agenda was revealed by him and his followers. While in Pennsylvania, he ordered his followers to infiltrate the army and the police, and they attempted a coup. However, due to the resistance from various factions of Turkish society, the coup failed. Since then, he has been living in Pennsylvania, which has created significant diplomatic problems between the U.S. and Turkey. If we look back, he gathered a substantial following, which has had lasting implications.
His followers in Turkey were known as a congregation, and it was possibly the largest and richest in history. This so-called congregation collected money from people, including regular donations from wealthy individuals. He primarily targeted more intelligent students and wealthy people, adding them to his group. He had two main targets: clever students and rich donors. Indeed, it became an empire spanning all over the world. His schools were operating in more than 100 countries, and people thought he was teaching Turkish and Islam there. However, it was later understood that his agenda had nothing to do with religion or Turkish nationalism; it was just serving his personal interests.
For his followers, he was revered as a figure above prophets. When the coup attempt occurred, along with some events just before it, people began to realize that it was not about religion or serving the country. It was about praising him and showing that he was an important figure, attempting to create connections between religions through dialogue, etc. Now that he is dead, I guess his empire is over from today onward.
Professor Kalın, as you mentioned, his empire is over. He had a network of schools in more than 100 countries. But tell us why he chose the United States and why he lived there, despite being a nationalist and religious leader who wanted to incorporate religious elements into Turkish politics. His departure to the United States represents a complete 180-degree turn from his previous ideas and beliefs. According to his own confessions, he claimed to have collaborated with the CIA. In one of his speeches, he stated that the CIA thought they were using him, but he was actually using them. We know that some English teachers in his schools in other countries were CIA agents.
I think it’s not just my thought; it’s a known fact that he was aligned with certain parts of the CIA, not the entire American establishment. Yes, the establishment. You know, America is a very powerful country, the superpower of the world. I believe he was personally worshiping power, siding with the most powerful country to expand his empire. While he was in America, he had many followers who were in contact with both Democratic and Republican parties. They were donating to them under Gülen’s orders.
After breaking with Erdoğan, I know they began anti-Turkey lobbying on Capitol Hill. It was all about power, and his alliance was not only with America but also with Israel. He maintained very good relations with Israel, and some of his followers referred to Israel as the “lovely country” in the south, as Israel is located south of Turkey. By collaborating with them, he thought his throne would prevail and that he could become a significant figure with their help, realizing his goals in Turkey, which included seizing control of the state.
Before the coup, there was a term called “parallel state” in Turkey. The parallel state meant that while there were governors and mayors, many of them were Gülen members, siphoning off state funds and redistributing them to the Gülen movement. It is estimated that they amassed more than $50 billion in revenue gathered from the state, wealthy individuals, and ordinary people.
Yes, $50 billion is a huge amount. Now, tell us, Professor İbrahim Kalın, that being a nationalist leader and a religious figure, Fethullah Gülen was once close to Erdoğan, who is also a nationalist Turkish leader and currently the president of Turkey. He is an Islamist, and Gülen was also seen as an Islamist. What led to the differences between these two, despite their similar ideologies of nationalism and Islam?
I don’t believe Gülen is a true Islamist. While he may have appeared to be one, he deceived people. Yes, he was a preacher who claimed to promote Islam, but it was merely an instrument to deceive people, to extract their money, and to expand his congregation.
I was aware that he was not an Islamist. A sign of being a respectable Islamic scholar is not to lie, but he did lie. You can’t go against the rules of Islam, which we call *farz*; they are compulsory. You should obey them and live according to those rules, and you should tell your followers to do the same. However, he abandoned many of these truths. For example, he dismissed his luxurious lifestyle as just a detail and ordered his followers to drink wine to hide themselves in the army and other places. So, I think he was just an egoist. The most influential aspect of his character was his egoism. Some people try to benefit for themselves, not for society or religion.
Muslims are expected to share the burden of religion and carry its responsibilities. However, Gülen used religion as a means to fulfill his personal goals. Religion was not a burden on his shoulders; this is the difference. If someone looks carefully, they could understand it, but they realized it much later. Erdoğan had to collaborate with him because he thought Gülen was an Islamist like him, believing that together they could create a space in politics. I guess Erdoğan understood the truth much earlier and had nothing to fear from Gülen.
In one of his meetings in 2004, Gülen claimed that Erdoğan’s main goal was to remove him, meaning to eliminate Gülen. I believe Erdoğan already knew who Gülen was and what his agenda was. In 1996, when Erdoğan was a mayor, Gülen collaborated with his rival, which shows he was already engaged in political maneuvering. I am very sure Erdoğan knew who Gülen was and what he was up to. However, being alone, he couldn’t do anything against Gülen and his group until he gained power in 2012 and 2013. Then they began to fight; they were completely different, but in front of the public, they seemed similar.
Today, after the news of Gülen’s passing, what were the sentiments and feelings of people from different sections of society—religious, secular, and nationalist? You might have also seen the media’s reactions. What was the response in Turkey regarding his death?
People were expressing grief and sorrow, or did they have neutral sentiments? I think there was no grief. I believe that 99% of Turkish people from all factions were happy with his death because he was not a person representing any particular faction. He had his own ideology that went against all other ideologies in Turkey. When he attempted to control the state in 2016, he viewed all other factions as enemies and threats. He ordered soldiers to kill civilians; there were three other coup attempts in Turkey before, but in none of those were civilians killed.
So people were relieved by his death. His followers, however, were likely not happy because his existence had empowered them spiritually to resist the problems they faced. Now, they must find new ways forward. Some of them may surrender or confess their affiliations. Overall, I can say that the Gülen threat is almost over in Turkey.
Professor Ibrahim Karataş, as you said, Turkish people are not regretting his death. They have different feelings; when someone dies, people are not typically happy, but in this particular case, they had no attachment or love for him. However, tell us about how the Gülen movement extended into different parts of the Muslim world, particularly in Pakistan. Despite being friends with Erdoğan, when the Turkish president visited Pakistan a couple of years ago, he requested that Gülen-affiliated schools be closed. How did he manage to expand his network into various parts of the Muslim world, especially in Pakistan?
He approached Pakistani brothers as a religious group, aiming to educate Pakistani students to become good individuals with respectable professions. If someone from Pakistan or any other Muslim country came to Turkey and opened a school, people would embrace them. Their religious sentiments were exploited by the group. For example, when Gülen went to Pakistan, Bangladesh, or other Muslim countries, he presented himself as a religious figure. But when he went to America, he suddenly shifted his narrative, claiming they were there to promote intercultural dialogue and interfaith dialogue.
I know that when they were in South Africa, they promoted intercultural dialogue and instructed their teachers not to teach Islam there because that was not their goal. However, in Pakistan, they likely claimed, “We are all brothers, working for Islam and spreading it worldwide.” This is an example of deception. There’s a word in Arabic called *taqiyya,* which refers to acting with a facade. This is what they did everywhere; their roles changed based on the context. In the West, they presented themselves as advocates for intercultural dialogue, while in the Muslim world, they aligned with Islamic sentiments.
For instance, they were not allowed to open schools in Russia, where they were sent back to Turkey. In other countries, they faced similar restrictions because they were seen as agents of America. However, in general, they were almost everywhere and even confessed to acting with the CIA to spread “moderate Islam.” The key phrase is “moderate Islam.” While radical Islam exists, Gülen’s group claimed to spread moderate Islam, which is how they captured the attention of American interests.
Now, Professor Ibrahim Karataş, do you think that after his departure—he was already living in the United States—what will be the impact of his death on Turkey’s national politics? You mentioned that he was a factor in instability and was behind the 2016 coup. Where does Turkey stand now? Do you think Turkey will be able to achieve stability in the coming days, especially considering the terrible state of its economy and the political challenges Erdoğan is facing, such as a decline in votes?
The Gülen movement was only one of many problems Turkey faced. There are several other issues, and the influence of the Gülen movement has already diminished. With Gülen’s death, the threat is almost over. I don’t think that…
They will prepare new plots against the government and the people. They will probably act individually rather than as a large network. There may be some big or small factions within the FET group, but I think over time, it will disappear from current politics. Yes, the main problem is the economy; it’s better than last year, but problems continue. There are also external issues, like Gaza, for example. Turkey is actively involved and pursuing what is going on there. Yes, because of the economy, Mr. Erdoğan is losing votes. The losses are almost over; I mean, he’s trying to recover to some extent. He has seen some little recovery. If he can repay the economy within two years, maybe he can get the votes again.
In Turkey, the opposition has never really been an alternative to Mr. Erdoğan. If he is losing, it is because of the economy and other problems, but not because the opposition is performing well. The opposition is always stable. If Erdoğan can boost his position with the economy and other developments, I think he still has the biggest chance. If an election were held tomorrow, Mr. Erdoğan would likely win, as there is no strong alternative or rival that can compete with him.
Do you think, despite being on an extremely different line of politics, he had a network of schools in more than 100 countries and a specific group of followers? What do you think—after his death—will he be remembered in Turkey’s religious and political circles, or will people forget him and his ideology?
People will certainly forget him because it is a characteristic of being human to forget everything; otherwise, you can’t live with what you experience. Especially bad experiences are forgotten very easily; you have to forget them so that your life doesn’t turn into hell. But let me tell you something else—this is very important. Unfortunately, his crew’s coup in 2016 was spiritually successful. Yes, they failed; his soldiers were arrested, jailed, and maybe some were killed (though not many—maybe 25 or less).
Because people don’t trust religious congregations, they wonder what will happen if this new group grows inside the state. Will they try to control it? Will they attempt a coup? Aren’t they preachers supposed to teach religion? In the last 10 years, fewer people have sent their children to religious groups to learn the Quran and Islamic knowledge. Now the state has automatically secularized. In the past, people were worried about their children and sent them to religious groups for Quran courses, but now they hesitate. Parents fear that if the place they send their children to is similar to FET, their children could be arrested in the future for attempting a coup or being seen as enemies of the state. There is mistrust against religious people.
So, the main issue is not just the state. The coup was over in one day; it failed, but its impact on religion and people’s faith is still ongoing. That’s why I say it was successful. Where does Turkey stand now in the Muslim world regarding serious challenges, including the issue of Palestine and the aggression of Israel against Gaza? Where does Turkey stand as far as Israel’s aggression against Gaza and Palestine is concerned?
At the moment, Mr. Erdoğan is trying to oppose Israel using diplomatic tools because he knows that, as in the past during the Arab Spring, he sided with popular uprisings. In the end, all these uprisings faded, and authoritarian regimes remained in power. Turkey suffered from strained relations with countries like the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, which were not good at all. Economic relations were cut, and exports to these countries dropped dramatically.
He wants to lead and do something positive for the Muslim world, but he knows he is alone. Maybe Qatar and Pakistan can come together, but their power is limited. He is aware that he will again be left alone, so he is trying not to enrage other Muslim countries as well as Western countries. I know that Mr. Erdoğan is a Muslim; his stance is very clear. However, being a righteous and good person doesn’t mean you will solve all problems in the Muslim world. For that, you need military strength and economic strength. You should act according to your own capabilities.
We are sure about the seriousness of Mr. Erdoğan, but he is just a man, and there is no longer an Ottoman Empire. Therefore, I think he can’t do much about the ongoing genocide in Gaza unless Israel directly attacks Turkey. For now, he can only use words and economic means, such as cutting export-import transactions between Turkey and Israel.
Lastly, regarding Mr. Gulen, you mentioned that he has been collaborating with the American CIA to destabilize Turkey’s regime and overthrow Mr. Erdoğan’s government. After his death, do you think one of the major threats to political stability in Turkey has come to an end?
Yes, that was one of the biggest threats, but this threat was already neutralized on July 15, and their power was gradually diminishing. It has already come to the lowest level. Erdoğan’s politics have made clashes with those of America; for example, he remained neutral in the Russia-Ukraine war. In the case of Israel, he is opposing their attacks on Palestinians, but such problems are not enough to topple him down. What Americans or others can do is invest in the opposition to help them win elections. A direct intervention is not possible, and the main threat does not come from external powers but from internal forces.
We may also discuss internal problems that will challenge his power later. Can you tell us where Turkey stands now as a religious state or a secular state? What path is Turkey adopting under Erdoğan? As you mentioned, a portion of society is not sending their children to Islamic schools to learn the Quran. Do you think Turkey is on the path of secularism and modernism, or is it still holding on to conservative values?
I think Turkey is now in the middle. In the past, it was more conservative, and religious congregations worked hard to change people’s beliefs towards conservatism. However, along with FET, there are also other religious groups that have disappointed people. At least the new generation is growing without any religious thought or education.
Many people now see that something bad is happening in Turkey, especially for the new generation. Over the last 10 years, many children are growing up without any religious education. I don’t think they are the ideal generation we expected. However, perhaps those who are 10 or 12 years old are looked after more carefully by their parents.
My opinion is that if there were no religion—let’s suppose Islam were removed from our lives—people would create another religion. Humans can’t live without any rules; we are not animals. We need something to follow. The Turkish people have used Islam as a guide, but because of the coup, many are keeping away from religious groups.
Thank you so much, Professor Ibrahim Kasha, a prominent scholar and analyst, for speaking to our program, Inside, on V News English. You comprehensively discussed Mr. Fat Gulen, his movement, and his impact on Turkey’s religious and political circles. You also spoke about where Turkey stands now, whether on a strong religious path or a secular path. Ibrahim Kasha stated that Turkey is in the middle and is trying to overcome economic and other internal challenges. Thank you once again for joining us on Inside, V News English, and dear viewers, we look forward to seeing you in our next program. Goodbye from the studio.
