Fethullah GulenEdit
Fethullah Gülen is a Turkish cleric and the figurehead of a broad civil-society movement known for its emphasis on education, rule of law, and interfaith dialogue. Since leaving Turkey in 1999 and seeking asylum in the United States, Gülen and his followers have built a substantial global network of schools, universities, charitable organizations, media outlets, and community initiatives. The Hizmet movement, as it is commonly called (from the Turkish word for “service”), presents itself as a nonviolent, reform-minded force that seeks to improve societies through moral education, meritocracy, and cross-cultural cooperation.
Gülen’s early life and intellectual milieu Born in 1941 in Erzurum, in eastern Turkey, Gülen rose within a traditional religious milieu while engaging with modern ideas of science, education, and civic participation. He developed a form of Islam that stressed personal piety alongside active service to society, a stance that appealed to a broad spectrum of people in Turkey and beyond. His approach bridged religious faith with a confidence in secular institutions and the value of education as a means to lift people out of poverty and ignorance. This blend of piety, practical ethics, and emphasis on learning helped galvanize a vast and diverse following that would eventually extend far beyond Turkey’s borders. For readers exploring the larger landscape of modern religious movements in the era, Gülen’s project sits alongside other initiatives that seek to combine traditional belief with constructive social engagement Islam Education in Islam.
The Hizmet movement and its institutions Rooted in the idea of “service” to society, the Hizmet movement built a vast network of educational and charitable institutions. The core aim was to equip individuals with knowledge, critical thinking, and ethical leadership so they could contribute constructively to their communities. Across many countries, affiliated schools and universities offered curricula that emphasized science, technology, and the humanities, while also promoting character development and service to others. Notable components of the network included private schools and higher-education facilities such as Fatih University, which served as a platform for graduates to enter professional life across various sectors. Media organs and charitable associations carried the message of civil society in practice, seeking to demonstrate that religiously motivated reform could blend with modern standards of governance and social responsibility. For a broader sense of how such networks operate, see Hizmet and Fatih University.
The Turkish context: alliances, tensions, and a dramatic rupture Gülen and his followers enjoyed a period of close cooperation with parts of Turkey’s political establishment in the 2000s, integrating into a reformist project that aimed to modernize the economy, expand education, and promote a more open civil society. This alliance helped push a reform agenda that many observers on the center-right valued for strengthening meritocracy, reducing corruption, and expanding access to education. Yet, as political dynamics shifted, tensions emerged. After 2013, disagreements over power, policy, and the direction of reform led to a sharp break with the ruling coalition under Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. The Turkish state began to describe Gülen’s network as a “parallel state,” arguing that it sought to influence the judiciary, security services, and other state organs for its own ends. The term used in Turkish politics is FETÖ, a label that became a badge ofaccusation and legal action in Turkey and among some international partners Recep Tayyip Erdoğan FETÖ Parallel state.
The 2016 coup attempt and its aftermath The most consequential and highly controversial moment in the Gülen story is the 2016 attempt to overthrow the government in Turkey. The Turkish authorities maintained that elements of the Gülen network orchestrated the coup, while Gülen and his spokespeople denied involvement, insisting they had no role in such an action and that the movement seeks peaceful reform through education and civic engagement. The aftermath was a broad crackdown against the Hizmet network inside Turkey, including shuttered schools, media closures, and thousands of arrests and dismissals from public service. International observers have debated the sufficiency of evidence linking Gülen personally to the coup, the methods of the crackdown, and whether due process was consistently observed in the post-coup period. The episode remains a focal point of controversy in Turkey and among international partners who weigh security concerns against civil-liberties protections 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt.
Global footprint, diplomacy, and ongoing debates Outside Turkey, the Hizmet movement continued to operate schools and programs that popularized a form of reform-oriented Islam compatible with modern pluralistic societies. Proponents argue that the global network underscored the importance of education as a universal good, the rule of law as a protective framework, and interfaith dialogue as a bridge across cultures. Critics, however, contend that a large, decentralized network of schools and media can exert outsized influence and raise questions about transparency and accountability. Advocates of civil society and pluralism maintain that such networks, when conducted openly and with robust oversight, contribute positively to social resilience and international cooperation. The balance between religiously motivated civic action and the risk of undue influence continues to be a live area of debate among policymakers and scholars, including those who study Muslim-majority societies and their interactions with Western institutions Education in Islam Interfaith dialogue.
Controversies and debates from a practical perspective - Responsibility for the coup vs. deniability: Critics in Turkey and elsewhere have asserted that the Gülen network had deep state-like reach and that elements within the movement could have attempted to manipulate political outcomes. Gülen supporters deny any responsibility for violent action and emphasize nonviolence, lawful reform, and peaceful civic engagement. In assessing such claims, observers stress the difficulty of proving direct command-and-control links in a highly decentralized organization that operates across borders.
Education as influence: The movement’s emphasis on education has been widely praised for raising educational attainment in many communities, but it has also drawn scrutiny about whether influence in education translates into political leverage. Supporters argue that a well-educated citizenry strengthens democracy, while critics worry about the potential for disproportionate sway in public life.
Civil society vs. political power: A central question is whether large, religion-linked civil-society networks can remain apolitical while shaping public life through institutions like schools and media. Proponents argue that such networks can diffuse social capital, promote rule of law, and foster civic virtue; skeptics warn that without clear boundaries they can blur lines between religion and governance, especially in fragile political environments. From a practical standpoint, strong, transparent institutions matter most for stability and trust in government Civil society.
International reactions and human rights concerns: The crackdown on Hizmet-linked institutions in Turkey has drawn attention from human-rights organizations and some foreign governments, who have urged proportionality, due process, and respect for educational rights. Proponents of a stronger civil-society framework contend that legitimate security concerns should not justify blanket suppression of nonviolent, educational initiatives, and they highlight the positive contributions of many former Hizmet-affiliated schools and programs around the world. The dynamics illustrate the broader tension between national sovereignty, anti-corruption and security efforts, and the protection of civil liberties in a global context Human rights.
Why, from a practical, governance-oriented perspective, some criticisms miss the mark Critics may label the Hizmet movement as a secretive or coercive force aiming to capture the levers of power. From a pragmatic viewpoint that values open institutions and nonviolent reform, such characterizations risk conflating legitimate civil-society activity with clandestine political maneuvering. A robust defense emphasizes transparency, voluntary participation, and the diffusion of influence across many countries and sectors, rather than a single centralized command. In that sense, the movement’s emphasis on education, merit, and peaceful civic engagement stands as a counterpoint to violence and coercion, and it aligns with time-tested democratic ideals of empowering individuals through knowledge and lawful institutions. Critics who dismiss this by overgeneralization miss the nuance of a decentralized, pluralistic movement that has contributed to education, interfaith dialogue, and civic service in numerous communities Civil society.
See also - Hizmet - Fatih University - Zaman (newspaper) - FETÖ - 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt - Recep Tayyip Erdoğan - Turkey - Interfaith dialogue - Education in Islam