Fethullah Gülen’s legacy of nonviolence: Building peace before conflict begins

As the second anniversary of Fethullah Gülen’s death approaches on October 20, his legacy invites reflection on a question that remains deeply relevant in a world troubled by war, terrorism, political polarization and social division: How can societies prevent violence before it begins?

Gülen, the Turkish Muslim scholar and thinker whose teachings inspired the international Hizmet movement, consistently emphasized nonviolence, dialogue, education and service to humanity. His opposition to terrorism, revenge and destructive confrontation was not simply a moral position expressed in sermons and writings. It formed part of a broader approach to social responsibility that inspired educational institutions, humanitarian initiatives and platforms for intercultural and interfaith dialogue.

This approach can be understood through an important distinction in contemporary peace and conflict studies: Peace is not merely the absence of violence. Lasting peace also requires addressing the conditions that allow violence to emerge.

Seen from this perspective, Gülen's teachings and the activities of Hizmet volunteers offer a case study in how religiously inspired civil society can contribute to preventing conflict, reducing social tensions and building relationships across divisions.

Rejecting violence, even under pressure

Gülen's opposition to violence was particularly visible during periods of political instability in Turkey.

In the 1970s, the country experienced severe ideological polarization, street clashes and political terrorism. At a time when rival groups frequently resorted to violence, Gülen repeatedly warned his audiences against retaliation, vigilantism and taking the law into their own hands.

His sermons emphasized that criminal acts should be reported to the authorities and that individuals should not respond to violence through private revenge. These messages, later associated with recordings known as the "terror tapes," sought to discourage participation in the cycle of violence that was consuming Turkish society.

According to accounts of his sermons, when Gülen received warnings about possible assassination attempts, he instructed his followers not to retaliate or mobilize in the streets if such an attack occurred. He reportedly suspended his public preaching for a period to avoid further provocation.

The significance of these positions lies in their consistency with a basic principle of conflict prevention: The immediate response to a crisis should reduce the danger of further violence rather than intensify it.

A similar approach appeared during the February 28 political process in 1997, when educational institutions associated with religious communities faced increasing pressure. Gülen expressed willingness for schools to be transferred to state administration rather than become the focus of confrontation, placing particular emphasis on protecting students' education.

Following the 2010 Mavi Marmara incident, he likewise emphasized the importance of international law and diplomatic procedures in addressing humanitarian concerns and international disputes.

The most controversial test came after Turkey's failed military coup of July 15, 2016. The Turkish government accused Gülen and his movement of responsibility for the attempt, allegations that Gülen denied. He condemned the coup and called for an independent international investigation.

The subsequent crackdown led to the closure of Hizmet-linked institutions and the prosecution of large numbers of people accused of association with the movement. Despite the severity of these developments, Gülen's publicly stated position continued to reject violent retaliation and emphasize legal remedies.

The broader political history remains contested and requires careful examination. Nevertheless, his repeated calls for nonviolence, restraint and lawful conduct provide an important basis for evaluating this dimension of his thought.

His position reflected a distinction that remains essential to peaceful civic engagement: Opposing injustice does not require embracing violence, and defending one's rights does not justify violating the rights of others.

Education as a long-term investment in peace

Gülen's understanding of peace extended beyond responding to immediate threats. He also emphasized the importance of addressing the social conditions that can contribute to conflict.

One recurring theme in his teachings was the struggle against three major problems: ignorance, poverty and disunity.

This emphasis closely resembles what peace researcher Johan Galtung described as positive peace: a condition in which peace is supported not only by the absence of direct violence but also by social justice, meaningful opportunities and institutions that respect human dignity.

Education became one of the most visible expressions of this approach within the Hizmet movement.

Inspired by Gülen's teachings, volunteers, educators, businesspeople and families supported schools, tutoring centers, scholarships and other educational initiatives in Turkey and internationally. These activities sought to expand opportunities, particularly for young people whose social or economic circumstances limited their access to quality education.

In southeastern Turkey, educational initiatives were developed in communities affected by poverty, regional inequality and longstanding ethnic tensions. Gülen also emphasized educational opportunities, cultural recognition and economic development in discussions of the Kurdish question.

Internationally, Hizmet-inspired schools brought together students from different ethnic, religious and cultural backgrounds, creating opportunities for interaction and cooperation.

Education cannot, by itself, eliminate terrorism or resolve political disputes. Nor should its social impact be assumed without critical evaluation.

Nevertheless, access to education can help reduce exclusion, expand economic opportunity and develop the critical thinking and communication skills necessary for peaceful coexistence.

This illustrates a central principle of long-term conflict prevention: Rather than waiting for social tensions to become violent, societies should invest in institutions that reduce the conditions under which hostility and extremism may develop.

An educational institution may not end an existing conflict, but it can help prepare a generation better equipped to prevent future ones.

Dialogue, recognition and the transformation of relationships

Another important dimension of Gülen's approach was his emphasis on dialogue among people of different religions, cultures and political perspectives.

Conflicts are not always caused by competing material interests. They can also grow from prejudice, fear, exclusion and the perception that one's identity or dignity is being denied.

Peace researchers such as John Burton and John Paul Lederach have emphasized the importance of addressing basic human needs and transforming relationships marked by distrust and hostility.

Gülen's dialogue initiatives can be examined within this broader understanding of conflict prevention.

During the 1990s, when Samuel Huntington's thesis about a possible "clash of civilizations" attracted international attention, Gülen emphasized engagement rather than confrontation among religious and cultural communities.

The Journalists and Writers Foundation, established in Turkey, provided platforms for intellectuals, journalists, religious representatives and public figures from different backgrounds to exchange views and develop mutual understanding.

His 1998 meeting with Pope John Paul II at the Vatican became an internationally visible expression of his commitment to interfaith dialogue.

These initiatives reflected a conviction that religious and cultural differences need not become sources of hostility.

Dialogue, in this understanding, does not require individuals to abandon their beliefs or identities. Nor does it mean that disagreements must disappear.

Rather, it creates opportunities for people to understand one another, recognize shared concerns and cooperate despite continuing differences.

The same principle informed initiatives concerning relations between Sunni and Alevi communities, including proposals for projects bringing mosques and cemevis into a shared setting. Such proposals also generated debate, illustrating the challenges involved in translating dialogue into practical arrangements.

Nevertheless, their underlying purpose was to encourage mutual recognition and reduce longstanding social divisions.

The importance of these efforts extends beyond interfaith relations. In divided societies, opportunities for respectful communication can reduce the fear and suspicion that often make conflict more likely.

Dialogue does not eliminate differences. It helps prevent differences from becoming reasons for hostility.

From religious ethics to practical service

The distinctive feature of Gülen's approach was its effort to connect moral teachings with practical social responsibility.

In his understanding, compassion, justice, patience and respect for human dignity should not remain abstract ideals. They should shape how individuals treat others and how communities respond to social problems.

This emphasis is closely connected to the concept of Hizmet, the Turkish word for "service."

The movement inspired by his teachings developed a range of educational, charitable, humanitarian and dialogue-oriented activities. Through these initiatives, volunteers sought to respond to human needs while building relationships across social and cultural boundaries.

Humanitarian service can contribute to peace in ways that are not immediately visible.

When people from different backgrounds work together to help families affected by poverty or natural disasters, their cooperation can create relationships based on shared responsibility rather than inherited suspicion.

Such relationships strengthen social trust, which is an important foundation of peaceful communities.

Gülen also emphasized positive action, an approach that encourages constructive engagement, patience, self-discipline and the avoidance of destructive confrontation.

This principle has particular significance during periods of political polarization, when anger and resentment can encourage people to treat opponents as enemies.

Positive action does not necessarily mean remaining silent about injustice. It means seeking remedies through constructive, ethical and lawful methods rather than revenge or destruction.

An Islamic teaching frequently emphasized in this moral framework describes a Muslim as someone from whose tongue and hand other people are safe.

The principle extends beyond physical violence. It places responsibility on individuals to avoid harmful conduct, respect others and contribute to an atmosphere of trust.

In this sense, peacebuilding begins not only with institutions and policies but also with personal character.

A society cannot easily sustain peaceful relationships if its members continually promote hatred, humiliation and retaliation.

A legacy that calls for continued examination

Gülen's legacy remains the subject of sharply different interpretations. His supporters emphasize his contributions to education, dialogue, humanitarian service and nonviolence. His critics raise questions about the movement's political influence, institutional practices and role in Turkey's recent history.

A serious assessment should neither ignore these disagreements nor reduce an entire movement to a single political controversy.

The history of Hizmet deserves careful study, including critical examination of its institutions, decisions, achievements and shortcomings.

At the same time, Gülen's teachings on violence and the activities they inspired can be meaningfully examined through established approaches to conflict prevention and peacebuilding.

Four interconnected dimensions are particularly relevant: preventing violence during immediate crises, reducing social inequalities through education and opportunity, addressing the human need for recognition and participation, and transforming relationships through dialogue and cooperation.

Together, these dimensions suggest an understanding of peace that extends beyond condemning terrorism or calling for an end to armed conflict.

They emphasize the need to address the deeper conditions that allow violence to develop and to cultivate the moral and social resources that make peaceful coexistence possible.

Two years after Gülen's death, this aspect of his legacy deserves attention not only as a matter of remembrance but also as a subject of continuing public and academic discussion.

The central lesson is that opposition to violence becomes more meaningful when it is accompanied by constructive alternatives.

Rejecting destruction is essential. But lasting peace also requires building what violence destroys: human dignity, trust, opportunity, understanding and hope.

That is the broader significance of Gülen's approach to nonviolence and the continuing challenge for those inspired by his teachings.