Carl wrote:brihaspati wrote:The point to note is that - again - "Sufi" memes, and Rumi and Arabi is being used as cover for what is essentially political Islam in its classic form. That classic form which aims for complete Islamization of the as yet non-Muslim world. Moreover, Gulenism can successfully use "sufism" to hide its connections to AKP ideological framework, and the Islamist neo-Ottomanization programme.
I believe there is more than a motivational neo-Ottomanism to Gulen's movement, which is important to recognize if we are to meet it and work with or against it. Most Islamist movements are driven mainly by recedivism or harking back to past glory. Very few of them actually have a somewhat deeper root, and this is important to recognize. IMHO, a cynical dismissal of this deeper aspect would cause us to undermine its staying and spreading ability in different circumstances such as material or political setbacks. This will confound our own calculus.
I think, we are returning to a fundamental difference in how the two of us view the philosophical basis of what goes as Islam. Moreover, I have learned not to model the "other" by my own self-concept. Gulen-ist propaganda, just like many such other sufi-non-sufi spins - really does not move beyond the very recedivism or "harking back to past glory". He clearly and consciously, justifies what seems like "reform" to outsiders, from within the tradition and practice of early Islam. Moreover there exists plenty of material that shows his claimed target of a revivalism based on his reconstruction of early Islam and "Turkic" "Islam" - one of the primary reasons that he is seen with great suspicion in the CAR countries under the shadow of "Turkmen-ism".
You think that "few" or some within Islamism have a "somewhat deeper root". "Deeper" than "zar/zan/zameen"? I can show very clearly, that these three are never really out of sight, and whenever they do go outside - it creates an unstable movement that implodes out of its own impossible tension as a paradigm to be sustained within the framework of Islam. The main reason, as I have repeatedly pointed out - that all sufi pretensions ultimately submit to a hardcore mollahcracy that simply uses the mobilization/public-emotion aspect [derived from specific pre-Islamic religio-political roots] to consolidate the Islamic state.
I don't think Gulen's links with AKP are really hidden, though Gulen does make an attempt to be seen as somewhat aloof, a hermit, the "jabarooti" power behind the transformation. His role as a behind-the-scenes orchestrator seems to be more about giving his "blessing" to this or that figure rather than closer management. Even his close followers say don't see him in the classical mould of a Sufi Sheikh, but more like an "Imam".
Gulen's critics are getting picked up by the state security forces, and I have already mentioned one instance of Ahmet Sic - one of the two main journalists who apparently broke the news of a coup conspiracy against this very same regime. Moreover you know what calling someone an "Imam" means - and how it is more potentially dangerous in concept than a "Shaykh".
Also, Gulen does encourage Sufi practices in some disciples, but maintains that most followers are "20 years away" from being able to understand and practice tasawwuf. He emphasizes "service" for the mass of followers. However, many do begin to get deeper into Sufi practices with time, some of them becoming vegetarian, more detached in their service, etc.
Gulen's ideological packaging serves the basic purpose that the AKP neo-Ottomanists need to be achieved. It projects a veneer of "liberalism" that apparently is suitable for presentation to the western "public" - and may serve both Turkish as well as "western" government/agency strategic considerations. We have a long history of one or more of the Anglo-Saxon coterie propping up or painting/reconstructing this or that of competing power centres within the Islamic world. In the ME, the three current groups are Iran, Turkey and KSA. When the Ottomans were ripe - the Brits took up promoting Arabs and the Germans took up the Ottomans. At the time, Iran was within Anglo-Saxon ambit. Now, USA needs a handle to isolate Iran - and will need Turkey and Arab both at the same time on one side. So we will see a lot of dramatics of the Gulen type.
Another nitpick re: your comment about celibacy: In general, Islam frowns on celibacy, but properly speaking, the Qur'an disapproves of institutionalizing celibacy, or considering it as a necessary condition for personal self-realization. OTOH, the same book recommends great reverence for celibates (raahib). Gulen's choice of life pattern is not unique to Moslem auliya. Dozens of respected teachers in the past were either celibate, or retreated from their family life for several years.
Yes. But the proportion is the key. Very few are lifelong celibates. Gulen's own justification about this is interesting from a psycho-analytical viewpoint, and some of the key points he repeatedly uses [inlcuding quotes from Rumi and Arabi] can have pretty explosive interpretations. Not that the issue I am hinting at is not a thorny one even within Islam. I am not prepared to discuss them here on a family friendly forum. Quran's discussion of "celibacy"? some other thread perhaps!
To return to the point I was making in the 1st para: If you characterize Islamism as motivated purely by "zar zan zameen", its spread or resilience will confound you.
On the contrary, those are very basic motivators of certain societies. Moreover, there is little that you will be able to show from within the Islamic tradition that goes beyond. Those others - "intense spiritual union" - come from pre-Islamic traditions and have never sat well within Islam, and is in constant tension and almost always defeated in the end to mullahcracy.
IMHO, this chapter of history and its wars could be fought on newer psycho-physical and psycho-spiritual levels than before. One can argue there is a progressive drill-down towards this in recent history.
I was enamoured of Hegelian romanticism about the hidden hand of history - but only as a teenager. Greater details and search for me has led to rejection of that romanticism.
Very sketchy depiction would be like -- (a) WW1 - Imperial and colonial feudal competition and internecine warfare, emergence of importance of class struggles.
Class is undefined, never definable in practice - at best a vague ideological and theoretical construct, useful for propaganda for mobilization for political purposes. WWI was primarily about transition from predominantly western-mixed-industrial-feudalism to industrial expansion needs to turn the world into a bigger single market.
(b) WW2 - Occult nationalist fascism, emergence of importance of industrial might in winning wars and anti-racist idealogy.
It was about primitive accumulation - but this time on a global scale. Fascism or communism or oligarchical authoritarianism - all different attempts at a mad rush to accumulate capital, thinking of the world as single source and sink. It really had nothing to do with anti-racist ideologies - those were just tactical pretensions - again to mobilize support. Nothing has changed a single bit in terms of underlying forces of racism.
(c) Cold War - Idealogical warfare between socio-political-economic idealogies, emergence of the importance of free market laws, as well as freedom of expression and soft power gimmicks, etc as safety valves.
Again however romantic a spin we may give it - that warfare had nothing to do with ideology. It was about competing on a global scale to ensure market share on a wider sense to carry on the "primitive accumulation" started in early 20th century. No market has ever been free, they are just rhetoric again to win constituencies. Markets have always been intervened in - in favour of the loudest and most influential group. "Free" is onlee when such dominant interests can "freely" intervene and manipulate. Apparent Freedom of expression/free market laws - are consequence of the completion of "primitive accumulation" stage, not any conscious desire or policy change. Further accumulation needs willingness of those without control over capital to submit to further exploitation of their productivity.
(d) Today add the idea of attitude towards God, death and spiritual practice to the mix. This psychological level potentially transcends identification with social class, economic system, national identification and even social relationships. One has to factor this into a strategy of love and war.
Yes those who need this to be implemented are the greatest dangers to human progress and freedom. Because they are using this to essentially keep a tight lid and control on consumption and productivity. Think of why Calvinism or Puritanism was so deeply connected to early capital accumulation - as well the Church. When Gulen type Islamists use this language, it means a backdoor way to reinstate the 7th century deserts of Arabia.
Therefore, IMHO Sufism being used by "classic Islamism" doesn't change anything I said earlier about our need to engage according to our own resources in the subject area. For that, an equally or more profound disciplic force is needed, which is expansive irrespective of these boundaries. Mere "cultural nationalism" won't cut it, though it certainly could be used to encourage such a broader renascence movement.
Yes it does not change anything from the fact that "sufism" ultimately is a pretension, a tactical hiding of the imperialism and genocidic tendency - and make it easier for those non-Muslims somehow getting attracted to Islamism on the sly. Regarding tackling by more "dsiciplic" force - we can discuss it elsewhere. Cultural nationalism is the key. Many have gone down the road of "dsiciplic" force - thinking falsely that the Islamist tactic can be turned around and used on Islamists. But that was because they never understood Islam, and were gullible to the pretension - thinking that this "other" aspect was genuine one, something compatible to what they modeled their own philosophies as - and hence an interface. But this goes OT. This thread is about sectarianism within Islam and not about methods to tackle Islam.
I'm not disagreeing with a lot of what you say. To reply briefly to your digressions:
All other spiritual traditions have truth. But IMHO Madhvacharya's Vedanta is the ideal point of departure for complete conceptual understanding of dharma and its defence.