The Turkish government had commenced to negotiate with the PKK in order to resolve the most prominent issue that it inherited since the very first years of the Republic: the “Kurdish issue”. As a result of Erdoğan’s initiative in 2009, negotiations between the National Intelligence Organization (MIT) and the PKK started. After a while, transcripts of proceedings between MIT and the PKK in Oslo were published in a daily. At the time, nobody knew that these were leaked by FETO, which had infiltrated the state and established a parallel structure over 40 years. Only two things were known about this organization then: firstly, it was a religious congregation with a significant financial power that opened schools all around the world and possessed multiple media outlets and business associations. Secondly, they had racist tendencies towards Kurds that were made apparent by their media outlets and speeches by Fetullah Gülen.

Known for being comparatively more sensitive towards Islam than western parts of Turkey, not many in the Eastern and Southeastern Anatolia regions really liked Gülen’s congregation due to their racist tendencies. Moreover, the majority of Kurds who still preserved the medrese and dergah traditions (traditional educational and religious institutions) inherited from the Ottomans didn’t perceive the said congregation as “religious” and didn’t find its leader’s residence in the US ordinary. Even though FETO infiltrated the bureaucracy, military and universities in the region, they were only able to gain a few followers among the people.

On February 7, 2012, during the early hours of the day, a news flash: Istanbul’s Specially Authorized Prosecutor Sadrettin Sarıkaya who was conducting an investigation into the PKK-linked KCK organization, requested MIT Undersecretary Hakan Fidan to come to the courthouse on Thursday. I have to repeat this as it isn’t a situation that could be comprehended at the first. Try to think of this event occurring in the UK. The then Prime Minister Erdoğan and his government initiates a reconciliation and peace process and a prosecutor in Istanbul calls the head of MIT to the courthouse as a suspect!

http://thenewturkey.org/fetos-civil-administrators-and-their-trips-abroad-before-the-coup-attempt/

Istanbul’s Specially Authorized Prosecutor Sadrettin Sarıkaya personally called MIT Undersecretary Hakan Fidan, former Undersecretary Emre Taner, former Deputy Undersecretary Afet Güneş and two other former MIT employees and demanded they give statements as a part of the KCK investigations. The prosecutor was accusing Fidan and his colleagues of having committed a crime for being part of the negotiations with the PKK in Oslo. There was another interesting situation. On the same day, the Prime Minister was in Istanbul to undergo a medical operation, which the public did not know about. However, due to security concerns, the time of the operation was changed. For this reason, when Hakan Fidan called the Prime Minister he was able to talk with him. Erdoğan sensed something foul about the situation and told Fidan not to go to the courthouse and give a statement. Even though Erdoğan said on TV after the incident, “They would first arrest the head of MIT and then me. I had authorized the head of MIT. So, they should personally call me to the courthouse”, nobody – with the exception of those who were interested in the Kurdish issue – cared much about this statement. It was widely known that the prosecutor was close to FETO. However, the incident was perceived by many as the group’s exaggerated sensitivity towards the Kurdish issue rather than a Gülenist attack on Erdoğan and the state.

The Gezi Park incidents in June 2013 followed this event. The protests were initially started by people whose concerns were environmental and who objected to a construction project that was to take place in a park in Taksim. Yet, it didn’t stay as a protest by environmentalists. After a little while Kemalists, later joined by the Alevis, joined the protests alleging that “their lifestyle was under threat.” It became apparent that FETO had a finger in this incident. Gülen and his organization tried to provoke the protesters with their associates within the police force through the use of violence. Zekeriya Öz, a fugitive Gülenist and a former prosecutor, tweeted the following on this subject: “If the PKK had participated in the Gezi Park protests, those who are governing now wouldn’t be in their seats. I don’t know who ordered them, but the PKK didn’t join.”

There were other prominent Gülenists that were trying to spark new conflicts by provoking the protesters that were completely organized over social media. For instance, a renowned Gülenist fugitive Emre Uslu, who now lives in the US, tweeted that PKK militants turned a car over which had female passengers with headscarves in Maltepe, Istanbul (however, such an event didn’t transpire). Efforts to evolve street protests into a civil war through constant provocations were apparent. While Gülen’s media outlets openly supported the Gezi Park protests, the Gülenists changed their tune towards the end when a group in İzmir vandalized their school. Participating in the Gezi Park protests with various reasons and motives, the majority of the youth seemed unaware of this effort to exploit the situation.

We started to hear that a new wave of street protests similar to the Gezi Park protests were to take place in November. These could’ve been just a rumor, of course. Still, I had heard this from an academic who lived in the US and from a journalist that had ties with FETO. The Gülenist journalist had said “I don’t know if 10 or 15 soldiers will be killed, but something will happen and Erdoğan will go.”

6 months after the Gezi Park protests, on January 9, 2013, three women including Sakine Cansız, who was one of the founders of the PKK and who supported the peace process, were killed at the Kurdish Information Bureau in Paris. These killings took place right after the government announced that they were negotiating with Abdullah Öcalan for the resolution of the Kurdish issue. This incident pitted the two sides against each other. It was a sensitive and fragile issue as after all there were negotiations with a terrorist organization and the Turkish public’s top enemy Abdullah Öcalan. The person who was caught by French security forces had a trace of gunpowder on his coat. His name was announced as Ömer Güney. According to the information gathered from the French security forces, Güney was close with the terrorist organization to an extent that he could be deemed a PKK sympathizer. This information consolidated the theories that it was an intra-organizational execution. There was great outrage and this outrage poured onto the street. The funeral of Cansiz in Diyarbakır was attended by tens of thousands of people.

Eleven months after the murder, the December 17-25 operation that was conducted by the Gülenists within the judiciary, security forces and media aiming to depose the government with the accusation that it was corrupt took place. For the first time, regardless of their political views, all witnessed and became aware of the intimidating operational capacity of FETO. During those days, Gülenist media outlets started to spread disinformation that MIT was responsible for the murder in Paris. Moreover, they alleged that Ömer Güney was actually a member of MIT. Yet, almost nobody cared about this subject as there were more pressing issues present.

In January 2014, PKK-affiliate KCK stated that the murder of the three women was carried out by FETO’s members within the state and that Ömer Güney was actively engaged with Gülenists. Ömer Güney, who was to be tried after a two-year long investigation by the Paris Prosecutor’s Office, was taken to a hospital for an ailment in his brain. In January, just one month before his trial, he died. It was later discovered that Ömer Güney was visited by three individuals from Turkey and that those individuals were FETO members.

Then, the terrible event known as the Kobane incident took place. Using Daesh’s attack on Kobane and the alleged inaction by Turkey as excuses, the leader of the Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP) Selahattin Demirtaş and his colleagues called for countrywide streets protests on October 7. I said to myself “this must be the second Gezi Park protest that was being discussed.” Protesters built barricades and engaged with the security forces. 50 died and 682, 139 of them police officers, were wounded. 1,113 buildings, including 25 district governor offices, 67 police headquarters and 29 political party offices, were damaged.

One of FETO’s media outlets, Zaman Daily’s Editor-in-Chief Ekrem Dumanlı visiting Diyarbakır’s Mayor Gülten Kışanak and their open support for HDP while the aforementioned events were taking place were intriguing. When news of the visits by HDP deputy Ahmet Türk and former HDP deputy Nazmi Gür’s paid to Fetullah Gülen in 2014 in Pennsylvania was heard, it astonished many. There were many news pieces on FETO providing intelligence to the PKK and deciphering the code names of state operatives within the PKK. How the PKK dug trenches in many cities, especially in Diyarbakır, in order to start a war despite the people’s objections was made clear after the July 15 coup attempt. The FETO-member military officers and pilots bombed the Parliament with F-16s that flew from Diyarbakır. FETO militants did whatever they could to both provoke the public and enable the PKK.

Two years after these events two HDP deputies, one of them in prison, made two statements. These two statements are unprecedented, considering HDP’s disposition in the last two years. In his interview with journalist Ruşen Çakır, HDP deputy Sırrı Süreyya Önder said the following: “October 6-8 Kobane events might have never taken place, because the ‘prevalent state perspective’ [AK Party] was foreseeing solidarity with Kobane. I will be extremely clear about this; the said solidarity was obstructed by FETO-affiliated generals whose roles in the July 15 coup attempt is apparent. They put an extreme pressure on Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu. Now, generals who commanded the units in Sur, Nusaybin and Cizre are being tried as the perpetrators of the coup attempt. I have seen how these generals obstructed the solidarity between Turkey and Kobane-Rojava.”

Accused of “being a member of a terrorist organization,” “inciting to commit crime” and “inciting the public to unlawful meeting and demonstration,” HDP deputy Ayhan Bilgen made a similar statement very recently during the session of his trial at Diyarbakır 5^th Heavy Penal Court:

“October 6-8 was a demonstration of a civil war in this country. Who incited these conflicts must be investigated thoroughly. It should be investigated whether these were the same people who wanted to depose the elected government on July 15.”

The fog of war is slowly fading, yet unfortunately it isn’t possible to talk about a social base that would support the reiteration of a peace process, not in the short-term. FETO is an important component of this issue and so is the PKK. How these two terrorist organizations came together after years and their role in all that transpired must also be taken into account.

Men claiming to be the Messiah or the Mahdi – including Fetullah Gülen – are not a new phenomenon.  Since the earliest decades of Islam, many have built a following around them, using charisma and exploiting societal and political upheaval to convince followers they are the promised saviors, and their community is destined to herald the final utopia before the current world ends. Faruk Yaslıçimen talked with Dr. Ahmet Yaşar Ocak, professor of History at TOBB University of Economics and Technology, about the striking commonalities between modern day “Messiahs” and the phenomenon seen throughout centuries. Prof. Ocak is a prominent historian with his numerous pioneering books and articles on Islamic heterodoxy and heterodox communities in the Ottoman Empire.

---

Prof. Ocak, you believe that there are common characteristics of Messianic movements in history. How far can we take this? Can you give us a few examples?

Messianic movements usually emerge under similar conditions and with similar characteristics. Historical trajectories both in the West and East attest to this. One should keep in mind that any attempt to understand such Messianic movements by focusing merely on ideology and theology would be incomplete. These movements are, indeed, the products of their time and political, social, economic, cultural, ideological as well as geographical factors play their roles. Messianism is actually a mentality that was largely created by these conditions.

I should emphasize that one should search for theological and political explanations only after studying the sociological and psychological dimensions of these movements and their leaders in detail.

Do you think Messianic movement can be categorized?

Well, actually it is possible to categorize these movements into two groups: in the first group, there are Messianic movements that result from political and economic strains. In the second group, we see such movements emerging out of political ambitions. Messianic movements are found not only in the Islamic world or in the pre-modern societies, but also today, in any part of the world. These movements are closely linked to several political, sociological, economic, and ideological factors and have many characteristics in common. To give but a few examples, almost all the leaders of the Messianic movements in history argued that the existing order was corrupt and the political leader was unjust and cruel. These Messianic figures claimed themselves as the creators of the fair and ideal socio-political order.

Well, how does this process work in practice?

There are several ways. A self-claimed Mahdi might see himself as the chosen one, entrusted with the mission to cure prevalent socio-political crises, and imposes this idea on those around him. He sometimes sincerely puts forward some suggestions to construct his ideal society. Messianic figures may also engineer a systematic propaganda mechanism to satisfy their political ambitions. Some of them perpetuated this propaganda very successfully, with incredible methods. That’s exactly where the problem begins. Why does a person claim to be a “Mahdi” and how does he become a candidate for solving the problems he believes exist and formulate his propaganda accordingly?

You have mentioned earlier a socio-psychological factor.

Yes, I think it is possible to explain this factor in two stages. In the first stage, the person who puts forward the claim of being a Mahdi questions the troubles that he had experienced in his inner world, thinks about their reasons, and finally finds the political authority responsible for all the troubles. In the second stage, he starts believing that he is the one chosen by a divine power to end injustice. It is this two-stage process that we call the “socio-psychological factor.” What one needs to be aware of here is that this process leads the individual with the mindset of the “Mahdi” to an inevitable psychological position.

I wonder, which individuals come to your mind first in this regard?

Several such figures emerged in almost the same manner in the Islamic world and in Europe.

The case of Baba İlyas is one of them. To put it briefly, one begins to believe that he is responsible for removing injustices. Or, as in the second group of Mahdi movements I mentioned earlier, the politically-motivated Mahdi acts as if he is the one chosen by the divine power to offer a remedy to the prevailing problems. He believes in his mission and begins to convince the others.

There are several Mahdis in history that achieved their aims. The oldest messianic claim in the Islamic world, for instance, was put forward by Muhtar es-Sakafi, who rivaled the Umayyad power in 684. He aimed to satisfy his political ambition and became a headache for the Umayyad government.

As you can see, there are similar psychological factors in the first and second group of the Messianic movements. To be able to understand these factors correctly, we must have recourse to psychological analysis, which is largely lacking in Turkish historical studies. As far as I know psychological biographies of historical figures and political leaders – except for a work on Atatürk – have not received the attention they deserve in Turkey.

Do we have any example of messianic movements, which emerged in Anatolia?

Of course, the Babai revolt, which took place in 13th Century Seljuk Anatolia under the leadership of Baba İlyas, is a typical example of these movements. I studied this revolt for my doctoral dissertation and looked into what were the main motivations for people who took part in the revolt. I asked the question of why Baba İlyas and his followers felt the need for opposing the political authority in such a self-sacrificing manner. Historical accounts in our hands indicate that Baba İlyas sincerely believed that God guided him. There were several reasons behind his revolt: the Anatolian Seljuk Sultan Gıyasettin Keyhüsrev II’s unfair and incompetent administration, oppression of the Turkmens, and heavy taxation. The revolt started when a tax collector insulted Baba İlyas in Adıyaman. Another typical and tragic example, which the leftist circles in Turkey are more concerned with, is the revolt of Shaykh Bedreddin in 1416 during the early Ottoman period.

So, what were the fates of Baba İlyas and Sheikh Bedreddin?

When we look at the historical accounts, it seems that Baba İlyas really believed that God appointed him. He sincerely believed Gıyasettin Keyhüsrev II was a cruel ruler, that his government must be overthrown, and that it was himself who would do it. When Amasya was besieged by the Seljuk forces, Baba İlyas received a fatal wound between his shoulders. He felt he was dying. When people around him asked, “Why are you injured and about to die although you told us that you are immortal,” he said, “I will consult with God and ask why this misfortune has come to us.” Baba İlyas died in seclusion. His followers did not find his body immediately. They chose to believe that he did not die but went into the presence of Allah to bring help to them. They continued to fight until their last strength. The same process also took place in the revolt of Sheikh Bedreddin.

Then what happened?

The Seljuk forces found the body of Baba İlyas, they desecrated it, dangling it over the walls of the city. Their goal was to convince the Turkmens to believe that Baba İlyas died and thus to put an end to the revolt. In the case of Sheikh Bedreddin, his opponents hanged him at Serez in front of his disciples.

Let me remind you here once again that the figures who initiated and directed these movements were those who sincerely believed in their missions. It is necessary to distinguish these figures from the ones who revolted against the authorities out of their political ambitions.

You mentioned that the Mahdis are usually charismatic people. How does charisma work? In what stage does the charismatic person proclaim himself as a Mahdi? When do his followers begin to believe in this claim?

Max Weber had several interesting observations on how charisma works. Suffice it to say here that charisma is partly related to the nature of the person in question. Some people have inborn reactive qualities to certain physical, behavioral, and external factors. Most importantly, they are persuasive figures. Their words and deeds have an influence on those around them. A person who believes that he is the “Mahdi” and who is regarded as such in his circles uses his charisma to increase his followers and controls them psychologically to achieve his goals. The “Mahdi” becomes ready for his mission when he feels it fully. Those people around him are already mentally ready to accept it. Of course, this is a simplified version of the events. This process is not as easy and simple as I narrate it here.

You are saying that these movements reconstructed exclusive worldviews and historical perceptions. How does this process take place? How do they build legitimization processes, rationality, and a different way of thinking, believing, and perceiving than the rest of the society?

It was the political, social, and economic turmoil and crises, which helped these movements to build their legitimacy and discourse. A disrupted socio-political order leads people to search for an idealized world. This search inevitably asks for a new worldview and a different perception of reality. It also requires a virtual sense of history based on an ideal “age of happiness” (asr-ı saadet) and a “golden age.” The so-called Mahdi and his followers focus on how to bring about this “age of happiness” in their lifetimes. This is a very strong psycho-social motivation behind the Messianic movements. Without such a strong motivation, it would be hard for the leaders of these movements to set their followers into motion.

Do these movements have primarily a political or a religious motive?

Since the aim of these movements is to remove and replace the existing political authority, which they accept as the cause of the prevailing political and socioeconomic crises, their motive primarily is a political one. To explain his cause to his followers and to ensure legitimacy for the movement, the Mahdis use religion, which is the most valid argument. Historical accounts show us that the leaders of messianic movements and their followers believed that a divine authority appointed them for a special mission. They were convinced that they would succeed in their actions with divine support. Without this belief and hope, it was impossible for these movements to emerge and pursue their claims.

Politics is starting to get into the business after a while.

Of course, their goal is to remove the political authority that they oppose, to exercise power in person, and to establish their idealized “worldly paradise.”

Do these movements have certain characteristics that are specific to the Shi’ite or the Sunni world?

Shi’ite influences and efforts of the Sufis played a great role in the spread of these movements in the Sunni world. There are many hadiths attributed to the Prophet Muhammad in this regard, but neither their chains of narration (sanad) nor their texts (matn) are authentic. These hadiths are revealed in books written after 950 AD, when the Abbasids took power. It was the same time period when the Shi’ite ideology emerged with a claim that the imamate, or the leadership, belongs to the Shi’ites. The term “imam” means here the person appointed by God to rule the society. He is an infallible figure who takes his knowledge directly from God via inspiration. According to this ideology, the imams are the deputies of the Prophet Muhammad. The Mahdi concept of the Shi’a, with all these characteristics, has a reflection in the Sunni world, especially in the mystical circles. So, there is not much difference.

You are talking about the Mahdi belief in Shi’ite…

Yes, this is the position of the Mahdi in the Shi’ite ideology. The 12th Imam Muhammad al-Mahdi, the son of the 11th Imam Hasan al-Askari, is believed to have disappeared in Samarra. It is held that he will emerge at a date close to Doomsday. Today, historical studies show us that Hasan al-Askari had never had a son. But the Shi’ite theology created a fictional 12th Imam to have an everlasting idea of the imamate in its ideology and to keep the Mahdi belief alive among the believers. Although Muhammad al-Mahdi was a person who never really existed nor ever lived, the Shi’ite doctrine chose to maintain the Mahdi belief in the form of a virtual imam.

At first, there was not any place for the idea of the Mahdi in the Sunni doctrine. With the intensification of Sufi influences in the beginning of the 10th century, however, we see the emergence of this motive in the Sunni world. Many leading Sufis such as Hâkim Tirmizi and Muhyiddin Ibn Arabi played a role in the spread of this idea. In the 14th century, Ibn Khaldun felt the necessity to point out that the idea of Mahdi was not a part of Islam and had nothing to do with it.

In fact, the origin of the term the “imam of the universe,” which was attributed to Fetullah Gülen by his disciples, has its roots in these centuries. This Shi’ite expression has become widespread among the Sunni people through mysticism.  Although there is no such thing in the Sunni doctrine, people chose to believe that a Mahdi would emerge in times of troubles. This idea was widespread both at the time of the Seljuks and the Ottomans, and to some extent, even today. From the 10th century on, people fabricated some hadiths on the emergence of the Mahdi at a date close to the end of the times. These hadiths, some which were included into collections of reliable hadiths, narrate the characteristics of the Mahdi in detail. There were and still are several Sunni scholars who have rejected these hadiths. Although this is the case, refuting the idea of Mahdi in Islam might cause trouble even today. The fanatics of this belief will immediately prepare a place for you in hell.

Do we have any example of counter-propaganda by political authorities against the Messianic movements in history? If so, what is the nature of it?

Yes, there is counter-propaganda against the messianic movements. We can give the example of Firdevsi-i Rumi in making propaganda for the Ottoman Sultan Bayezid II (r. 1481-1512) in his Kutbnâme against the Şahkulu Baba Tekeli rebellion in 1511.

Şahkulu Baba Tekeli proclaimed himself as the Mahdi and rebelled against the Ottoman government. He gathered around 30-40 thousand men – there are different numbers in the chronicles – and defeated the Ottoman forces more than seven times. There was intense Shi’ite propaganda in Anatolia at that time, initiated by the newly emerged Safavid state. The belief in the Mahdi was also widespread among the Sunnis because of this propaganda. Firdevsi-i Rumi, one of the leading authors of the period, claimed that the true Mahdi was Bayezid II. He wrote his Kutbnâme to support this claim. This was a counter-movement aimed at reducing the pro-Iranian messianic movements in Anatolia to an illegitimate position in the eyes of people, thus ensuring the security of the Ottoman state. Similar movements and rebellions continued during the reign of Süleyman the Lawgiver (r. 1520-66), when the Ottoman army was enjoying great victories on the Western front. Melami circles, for instance, took an opposition stand. They engineered a different type of propaganda and implied that the Ottoman sultans were cruel, they were not able to govern the people, and their sheiks, whom they called “Qutb,” had to take over the administration. The Melami movement was, in fact, a messianic movement. Although it is hard to find it in their sources unequivocally, one needs to read between the lines to find this.

Well, does this really have anything to do with the lack of political foresight, or with the military and economic losses the state experienced at that time?

Of course, these factors played a significant role. These movements emerged after severe political, economic, and military crises. Think about the battles that the Ottomans fought on numerous fronts, in the Balkans and Eastern Europe. The Ottomans were also fighting with the Safavids in the east and with the Mamluks in the south. Military activities mean a loss of money, property, and human resources. It also means that society cannot be sure of its future. The state levies extraordinarily high taxes, called avârız, on people to finance the military expeditions. It is even said that Yavuz Sultan Selim (r. 1512-20) received loans from Jewish bankers to meet the expenses of the Egypt campaign. These initiatives created a disturbance among the people.

The tax issue is very important. The heavy taxes that the Seljukids demanded from the Turkmens also created an important reason for the Babai to revolt. It is known that the Turkmens were not willing to pay taxes throughout history. If you impose extra taxes during a war to meet military expenses, it will spark a further reaction. The propaganda of the Shi’ite Safavids and the heavy taxes caused a series of messianic rebellions during the reign of Suleiman the Lawgiver. As historian Cornell Fleischer said, some Ottoman intellectuals engaged in propaganda on behalf of the Ottoman Sultan, saying he was the true Mahdi, to suppress these revolts.

How did the society react to this claim?

It is possible to argue that people accepted this claim. The historical sources, however, do not provide us many details of their reaction.

The sultans are considered “blessed” people. Does it have anything to do with it?

Yes, these two are related. Since the Middle Ages, Turkish rulers were seen as divinely blessed. It is written in the Orkhon inscriptions that “Bilge Kagan, who found kut [favor] in the blue sky.” According to the pre-Islamic Turkish tradition, God blesses the ruler. The one blessed by God has the right to rule. Other members of the dynasty have no such right. That is the reason people had not interfered with the power struggle among princes in Turkish history. Turkish princes had their support base among bureaucrats and soldiers, not laypeople, since laypeople believe that whoever God wills, it is he who will rule. Tursun Bey also refers to this belief in his Tarih-i Ebu’l-Feth. Whoever wins, that is the will of God. Obeying him is, therefore, considered obedience to God.

If we talk about the present, do you think that Fetullah Gülen’s case is the most recent messianic movement in the Islamic world?

We know that Gülen has received his early education and training in the Nur movement (also called Nurculuk). As an academic working on religious movements, I was following the publications of various religious circles in the 1980’s. It was at that time when I read Said-i Nursi’s Sikke-i Tasdik-i Gaybi and understood that Said-i Nursi, the founder of the Nur movement, had a belief in the Mahdi. I also listened to and watched some the sermons of Gülen – I even owned around 10 cassettes belonging to him – I wanted to know and to get an idea of this movement. Although his sermons gained popularity in the 80’s, I never believed in the sincerity of Gülen. Some television stations used to broadcast his sermons. I carefully watched these sermons and examined his gestures. It seems to me that he was doing theater. He was crying and acting hectically and in a tumultuous way.

On the other hand, Gülen has his own charisma. What does this mean for his alleged Mahdism?

Gülen is a charismatic figure and I think we should mention him in the first group of Mahdis. In other words, Gülen is a sincere believer in his mission. He claims that he communicates with the Prophet and even with God. Remember the case of the Babais I mentioned earlier. Baba İlyas too claimed that he was having a conversation with God. Gülen was able to gather around hundreds of thousands people due to the rigid Kemalist government, which pushed religious people to look for ways to survive or, better, to find ways of ending the cruelty. These were the main political and sociological factors that prepared the ground for Gülen’s messianic movement. Then come the other factors, like the personal one, I mean the one related with the leadership of the movement.

Recently, Gülen was claimed to be a Sabataist, actually a crypto-Muslim disguising his Jewish faith and that his Messianic mission was linked to this culture. You know, such claims are occasionally made and it’s not possible to prove them. Yet, it is well-known that when Sabbatai Zevi, founder of the Sabbatean movement and claimed to be the long–awaited Jewish Messiah, appeared in the 17th century during the time of Sultan Mehmed IV, he was able to find many followers from Ottoman Jews. Zevi disguised his Jewish faith by pretending to be a Muslim and there is an abundant literature and information, both speculative and scholarly, on Sabataists in the Ottoman Empire.

Do you see it as a kind of schizophrenia that the leaders of such movements have?

I do not know that. But when we look at the other examples in history, it is possible to argue that these types of Mahdis are usually schizophrenic.

How?

For example, they say that “the Prophet came to me tonight, I chatted with him, and he said to me this and that,” or “Khidr came to visit me after the Isha prayer,” “Khidr performed the Isha prayer behind me,” etc. We can give many other examples: “After performing the Fajr prayer Khidr took me with him. I traveled with him through the seven skies. On the first level, I chatted with the Prophet Moses. On the second level, I chatted with the Prophet Idris.”

Many Sufi sources, particularly the hagiographies, are full of these and other similar stories. In some modern publications, the Prophet Idris was portrayed as a Qutb rose to the second heaven to command all the celestial / empyrean affairs. Some studies refer to the God Thoth in ancient Egypt as the figure who has the power and privilege of commanding the celestial affairs. These studies establish similarities between him and the Prophet Idris.

In short, there is a need for creating a “Mahdi” typology based on examples in history. While doing it, we should do historical, theological, sociological, and especially psychological analysis and put them into good use. I think this is an important job not only to understand what happened in history, but also to understand similar cases today.

Thank you very much Prof. Ocak for this very illuminating interview.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s two-day visit to Pakistan on November 16 is largely viewed as a fresh move to give impetus to Islamabad-Ankara bilateral ties in trade, defence, education, and other sectors. Next year will mark the 70th year of Pakistan-Turkey diplomatic ties, which Pakistan’s Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has pledged to celebrate with “zeal and enthusiasm.”

The current trade volume between Islamabad and Ankara is recorded at around $500 million in 2014-15, with exports to Turkey recorded at $309.19 million and imports at $191.05 million, according to Pakistan’s Ministry of Commerce. In August, Pakistan and Turkey agreed to eliminate 85% of tariffs in an attempt to enhance trade, part of a larger Free Trade Agreement (FTA) under negotiation.

Ahead of Erdogan’s visit, Pakistan declined to extend the visas of 108 Turkish nationals and their families, all teachers at a network of private schools with ties to Fethullah Gulen. Turkish officials, including President Erdogan, have been calling for Islamabad to close the Gulen-linked schools for months, saying they were part of a terror organization behind the coup attempt and years of attempts at destabilization in the country, and were a threat to Pakistan as well.

“We have to be very careful with such organizations and their causing risk and threat for the security and stability of every country where they have presence,” Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said in Islamabad this August.

In his address to a joint session of Pakistan’s parliament, the third such occasion, Erdogan expressed his gratitude by saying that “I am thankful for the solidarity demonstrated by the Pakistan on this matter… And for their decisive stance against this organization.”

“It is imperative to dismantle this evil network,” Erdogan said. “The terrorist organization is a threat to the security and public order of Pakistan.”

Islamabad had already set a November 20 deadline for Pak-Turk staff to leave the country. However, Erdogan assured the students who were studying in the Pak-Turk schools would be taken care of with the highest standards, and Islamabad has said arrangements will be made to ensure the schools continue to function, but under a new administration.

http://thenewturkey.org/sino-turkish-relations-in-the-age-of-global-transformation/

Many Pakistanis have witnessed three military administrations themselves; and have praised Erdogan and the public’s success at foiling the July 15 coup. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif himself was jailed and exiled after a military coup in 1999, after a coup by the head of the military, Gen. Pervez Musharraf. Musharraf, who spent his childhood in Turkey, has repeatedly praised the Turkish military for its role in leading Turkey. Sharif returned from exile in 2007, and months of street protests by his followers and other civilian leaders forced Musharraf’s resignation within a year.

During Erdogan’s visit, Sharif told Parliament the way Turkey “defeated this illegal assault on democracy was remarkable.” In May, Sharif acted as a witness at the marriage of President Erdogan’s daughter in Istanbul, a reflection of the closeness of the two leaders, who head countries trying to emerge from a long history of military interventions.

While political leaders in Pakistan have agreed with Islamabad’s decision to deport the Pak-Turk teachers, some, like Hamid Mir, a political commentator and a senior journalist based in Islamabad, have speculated the actions may have been a product of the Sharif-Erdogan relationship, and that Islamabad and Ankara failed to make a public case for why the steps should be taken.

Support for Pakistan’s Kashmir Policy

Erdogan offered support for Islamabad at a time of heightened cross border tensions in the disputed region of Kashmir, where scores of civilians have been killed since September in firing between Pakistani and Indian soldiers.

Referring to the Kashmir issue, Erdogan said the dispute of Kashmir should be resolved by Islamabad and New Delhi in line with UN resolutions and the wishes of Kashmiri people.

He stressed the need for stepped up cooperation against terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda and its affiliate Daesh who he said are the agents of the war carried out against Islam.

He pledged Pakistan-Turkey ties would be deepened further through the Strategic Cooperation Council, which was established in 2009 between Ankara and Islamabad.

Since then, both the countries have signed 51 agreements and documents within the council.

Under the new arrangements between Pakistan and Turkey, 500 Pakistani students would be able to go to Turkey for PhD scholarships every year in light of a document signed between Pakistan’s Higher Education Commission and the Turkish higher education body.

Sharif lauded Turkey’s bid for Pakistan to join the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). “Our close relationship serves as a stability factor in the region,” Sharif said of Pakistan-Turkey cooperation.

Pakistan has already applied for the membership of the 48-member organization. Turkey has been supporting Pakistan’s membership in the NSG—the 48-member group, which regulates international nuclear commerce.

Turkey is supporting a call for a criteria-based approach for admitting non-NPT countries.

Earlier, Pakistan Army Chief General Raheel Sharif while welcoming Erdogan, said Islamabad and Ankara have brotherly relations and both countries are time-tested friends.

A statement from the Presidency stated that Erdogan agreed to the idea floated by President Mamnoon Hussain regarding a long-term bilateral defence cooperation agreement.

Islamabad and Turkey are already pursuing a number of defence collaboration projects with Anakara is helping Islamabad with the midlife upgrade of Khalid-Class Submarines and the two sides also collaborated in building a Naval Fleet Tanker.

In addition, Turkey is interested in purchasing MFI-17 Super Mushshak aircraft from Pakistan.

Expanding Economic Cooperation

Pakistan and Turkey have agreed on the elimination of 85% of tariffs, a deal that will include regulatory duties and additional duties in case of Pakistan and additional duties and mass housing fund duties in case of Turkey.

Pakistan’s exports to Turkey are likely to increase by $500million to $600 million in a short span of time. Major trade items between Pakistan and Turkey include fabrics, beverages, spirits and vinegar, plastics, chemicals and machinery.

Pakistan’s exports are concentrated in construction, transportation, other business services and government services while imports are concentrated in transportation, other business services, travel, construction, and government services.

“In the next few years, with the passage of time trade and commerce relations between the two countries will reach new heights,” said Hassan Askari Rizvi, a noted political analyst. Both the leaderships have pledged to expand trade at a time when a number of Turkish companies have been working in Pakistan, he added. ”The relationship is mutually beneficial for both Islamabad and Ankara,” Rizvi concluded.

At first glance, this may appear to hold some truth, given the Gülenists’ overt allegiance to liberal-democratic politics and in general to Western ways of doing things. Yet, below the iceberg, Gülenism has a real face, a dark obscurantist zeal for world domination, in terms of its goals, and the path chosen to achieve them contradicts almost everything that is Western. Gülenism is rather a radical nihilist subject, which is antagonistic to liberal modernity.Indeed, in the process of transition from a traditional to modern society, there emerge three generic types of subject. All of these types of subject are alternative responses to the question of how to handle the relationship between man and the outside world. In traditional society, the subject was conceptualized as an organic part of society and in which society was understood to be a transcendental and unchanging moral totality. The shift to the modern era has resulted in the loosening of society’s grip on the subject. The subject has become morally autonomous and free of society, but only at the cost of alienation. In other words, collective societal values have become optional, not a necessity for the subject. The subject has become “homeless” and is required to find meaning in order to continue its moral integrity on its own.Thus, in the modern era we have three generic types of subjectivity. The first is the Nietzschean “Last Man.” The Last Man is the subject that approaches alienation with open arms. Its motto is “world without values.” It rejects the values or collective responsibilities that overcome the individual for the sake of the bodily pleasures of the material world. The politics of the Last Man, the subject of negative nihilism, consists of apathy towards politics, therefore succumbing to individualism and limitless hedonism.The subject of radical nihilism, on the other hand, goes in the opposite direction. Its motto is “values without world.” It lives for higher values and is always ready to sacrifice its life for transcendental values that cannot find space in the world. It has a tense relationship with the outside world. Hence, its politics is shaped by either becoming introverted, like post-Ancient Greek stoics or the Dostoyevskian “Man of the Underworld,” in order to ease the pressure of worldly existence, or by becoming extroverted to destroy the world, like the fundamental terrorist groups such as Daesh in the modern era, for the sake of values.

The last form of subjectivity rests on positive nihilism. The motto of a positive nihilist is “world with values.” It embraces both values and the world by redefining the relationship between them. It follows not transcendental values, which are rather given and ahistoric, but immanent values, which are socially constructed and historical. So, it embarks on creating new values from scratch. It approaches the world as neither a valueless place nor a place antagonistic to its values. It strives to create itself and a world by constantly creating novel values. Its politics, therefore, hovers over the search for human emancipation, seeking more humane life here and now.

Who is a Gülenist?

Today, one can come across both negative nihilists and positive nihilists in the West. The ideal is to make positive nihilism the norm while the default comes to be negative nihilism. Despite their sheer differences, both positive and negative nihilistic types act open-heartedly in society. They strive for power and participate in political life, but only through legal and democratic political channels.

What about Gülenism? With what type of nihilism is the Gülenist affiliated? What are the basic tenets of Gülenist politics? In fact, a typical Gülenist is a radical nihilist, blending its offensive and defensive forms. It attaches itself to a set of transcendental values, which it thinks of as alien to this materialistic and ungodly world. With its fellow Gülenist members, it withdraws from the world and builds up a parallel universe, at the center of which the Messiah figure of Fethullah Gülen resides. Like a typical stoic, it rejects the world for the sake of its own values and for an unfettered moral life within its community. It rejects the outside world to enjoy inner freedom in its cosmic world. Up to this point, Gülenism is similar to any other collectivity of hermits, or a typical religious group that is disenchanted with modern life. Indeed, this is the image the Gülenists strive to present to the general public.

Unfortunately, there is more to Gülenism. It might sound odd, but the Gülenists act with a motivation to conquer the whole world. Hizmet (to be in the service of the whole of humanity) is a key word that defines the movement. It should be noted that the Gülenists operate in more than 100 countries across the globe. Gülen establishes his sermons on the theme of entering the hearts of the local people by offering various kinds of service, such as education and health, and talks highly of those “soldiers of Hizmet.” The mission of the soldiers of Hizmet is not only made up of helping people where they operate but also to marry the daughters or relatives of local notables to garner political influence for the cause. In each country, by enlarging its clout in civil society and infiltrating state apparatus, the Gülenists strive to control the strategic posts of power. This amounts to amplifying the Gülenists’ parallel world step by step and society by society towards the outside and, in the end, uniting the whole world under its own parallel world.

To achieve this, Gülenists pose a Janus-faced personality. This hypocritical personality speaks two separate and somewhat contradictory “languages.” With the “outside people” (a generic label given to non-members by the movement), the Gülenist talks like a typical individualist liberal-democrat; within the boundaries of its closed community, it communicates through an esoteric language that incessantly reminds the members of their collective responsibilities and the importance of self-sacrifice for the cause. It praises the society of free and equal individuals in its media outlets as it interacts with the general public, yet within the boundaries of its community it is allowed nothing but a very strict hierarchical structure that has formed around an infallible and omniscient Messiah figure.

Moreover, it talks around the importance of dialogue and tolerance among individuals and societies in the public sphere but does not hold back from resorting to build up exclusive and closed areas of control for itself in society behind closed doors and to use all kinds of violence against those whom it thinks of as an obstacle to its sacred mission when the opportunity presents itself. Hence, it abides by two completely different registers of morality. It does not hesitate to act completely in contrast to its value-system or pretend in order to hide its real self in the outside world. In Gülenism’s lexicon, this act of dissimulation and infiltration is of central importance, and is known as takiyye or tedbir.

Thus, eventually, Gülenism has grown from being a collective of introverted stoic-type radical nihilists to a collective of extroverted Daesh-type radical nihilists. It has slowly evolved from a figure that turns its back to the world to enjoy inner freedom and repose, to a figure that embarks on destroying the world of others for the sake of its own parallel world. This evolution from defensive to offensive radical nihilism has gradually progressed and reached its prime on the bloody night of July 15. Indeed, Gülenism is a clandestine terrorist organization acting outside the legitimate boundaries of democratic politics, attacking the very values of freedom and equality upon which the West was built. In short, it is remote and detrimental to the ideals of the West.

Why should not the West support the Gülenists?

As this Janus-faced structure of the Gülenists unfolds, the interests and ideals of the West will fall apart. The growing discrepancy between the faces, therefore, will put pressure on the West to make a hard choice between its interests and ideals. Until now, the West has seemed to side with interests, putting ideals on the back burner. Indeed, to recover the emergent contradiction between interests and ideals after July 15, the media outlets have been inundated by coverage that struggles to carve out a convenient narrative of the event. This has encapsulated various forms of coverage, such as denying the reality of the coup attempt, turning a blind eye to the Gülenists’ involvement in the coup and putting the spotlight on the purges of the Gülenists by state apparatus after July 15.

Nevertheless, in the long run, protecting the Gülenists will inextricably harm Western interests. Political actors are supposed to perform their identities through their actions as long as they want to maintain the existing definition of who they are. Therefore, sacrificing ideals to interests to such an extent may unleash an identity crisis and disrupt the actors’ ethical integrity. This may deepen the thriving problem of democratic deficit, which has been instigated by the ever-growing distance between the elite and the common people in the West. The rise of right-wing populism that is underway across the West may find more room to flourish and finally lead to a wave of political instability.

Moreover, not living up to its own ethical-political standards will also significantly erode the West’s moral standing in the international arena. True, hard power calls the final shot; however, soft power is a necessary ingredient for an efficient foreign policy and determines success in international politics. The loss of moral superiority and prestige will enervate the West’s leadership in world politics. In a nutshell, Gülenism is the fatal dagger to the very heart of the Western worlds’ ethical-political ideals and to its strategic interests as well.

According to news reports, the aide of Chief of Staff Hulusi Akar confessed his affiliation to FETO and also admitted to wiretapping Hulusi Akar under the directive of FETO’s high-ranking members. Moreover, in his statement to the prosecutor, Akar said that coup plotters had offered him a phone from which to call Gülen. In addition to this, the leader of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party), Prime Minister Binali Yıldırım, and the leader of the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), Devlet Bahçeli, have all openly stated similar views regarding the coup attempt. Their statements show that there is a consensus of opinion that FETO is the main actor of the coup attempt.Although US president Barack Obama identified Turkey-US relations in 2008 as representative of a “model partnership”, the tension between the two countries is significant, at present, mostly due to the Syrian crises but particularly because of the US discourse on and policies towards the PYD, the PKK’s Syria branch. Now the extradition of Fetullah Gülen has become a serious challenge for Turkey-US relations. Gülen holds a Green Card and lives in the US, but Turkey considers Gülen to be the leader of FETO and demands his extradition.

In fact, Turkey has been requesting Gülen’s extradition or deportation since long before the coup attempt. However, the US has not yet answered this request. The question is, why is Gülen’s extradition so crucial for Turkey? FETO acts more like a messianic organization rather than a simple Islamic faction and it purposefully strives to secure strategic state institutions and governmental posts. Its first clear attempt to consolidate its power was signaled in its endeavor to arrest Hakan Fidan, head of the Turkish National Intelligence Organization (MIT).

From that time on, members of FETO have activated themselves to occupy more and more of the judiciary and police bureaucratic systems, becoming a significant source of bureaucratic tutelage. In December 2013, FETO initiated a coup to topple the government by using its power in the judiciary. This attempt represented a turning point and, thereafter, many of the organization’s plots were revealed. FETO began to lose its legitimacy in the eyes of Turkish society and politicians. Since December 2013, President Erdogan has persistently demanded that the Obama administration deport Gülen. The issue has become more fundamental than ever.

The public in Turkey strongly believe that there has to be a foreign country behind such a sophisticated coup attempt. Some recent field studies illustrate that people believe that it is the US government supporting the coup attempt. Gülen lives in the US, and with the approval or protection of the government. Political authorities in the US have expressed their displeasure of this perception by the Turkish public, but their expression changes nothing in that regard as long as the US government continues to protect Gülen.

For the Turkish authorities and the public, neutralizing the leading cadre of a terrorist group is fundamental to fight against FETO. The failed coup attempt will certainly accelerate the government’s efforts to fight against the members of this terrorist organization, who have established their ascendency in bureaucracy and in the security units. What motivates them is the messianic personality and aura of the leadership and, because of that, the extradition of Gülen is vital to dissolve the organization. In his speech on July 16, Erdoğan repeated the extradition request. Bekir Bozdağ, the Minister of Justice, stated that Turkey has fulfilled all of the requirements for the extradition. It is expected that senior executives from the ministries of Justice and Internal Affairs will conduct a visit to the US to discuss Gülen’s extradition.

John Kerry stated that the US is ready to cooperate with the Turkish government but reaffirmed the legal aspect of the extradition issue underlining the necessity of Turkey’s responsibility to present tangible evidence demonstrating Gülen’s involvement in the coup attempt. Additionally, the US ambassador to Turkey repeated that the US authorities are ready to cooperate over the extradition of anyone who is legally resident in the United States as long as the requirements of the bilateral agreement on the extradition are met. There is a mutual agreement for the extradition of criminals between Turkey and the US valid since 1980, so there is already a legal ground for Gülen’s extradition. However, there is a political aspect too and the initiatives of the US decision makers will play a very important role in this regard. It would be meaningless for the US to both condemn the coup attempt and offer cooperation but without taking action against the leading putschist. If the US government hopes to change the negative perception held by the Turkish public and state authorities, a decisive step to this end would be the extradition of Gülen to Turkey.