Islamic Political Identity in Turkey

306 notes to pages 195–19845. Ru7en Çakìr, “Devlet Babanìn Nurcu O:lu: Kìrkìncì Hoca,” Artìhaber 1(December 20, 1997): 19.46. For Gülen’s views on the Directorate of Religious AVairs, see Can, UfukTuru, 137.47. Ahmet 8nsel, “Yeni Muhafazakarlìk ve Fethullah Gülen,” Yeni Yüzyìl, April27, 1997, and “Altìn Nesil E7ittir Beyaz Türkler mi?” Yeni Yüzyìl, May 4, 1997.48. Kür7ad O:uz, “Turkiye’nin birli;ini Nurcular sa;layacak,” Aktüel 190(1995): 40–44.49. Fethullah Gülen, “Hizipcilik a:ìndan kurtulmamìz gerekiyor,” Zaman,February 6, 1996.50. See interview with Gülen by Yalçìn Do;an, Umran 37 (May–June 1997):1–15.51. Erdo;an, Küçük, 50–62.52. For more on Gülen’s views of Iran and Arabs, see interview with Gülen byNevaal Sevindi, Yeni Yüzyìl, July 19–28, 1997.53. Gülen, “Öze Dönmek,” Sìzìntì 80, 7 (1985): 283.54. Gülen, “Milli Ruh Dü7üncesi,” Sìzìntì 83, 7 (1985): 402–404.55. Göle, “‘Muhafazakarlì;ìn,” Zaman, August 27, 1995.56. For Gülen’s statement and its implementation in his schools, see YeniYüzyìl, September 16, 1998. Gülen defended his “education Wrst” over headscarvespolicy during my interview with him on September 20, 1998, in Istanbul; see alsoAli Ünal, “Ba7örtüsü Meselesi,” Zaman, September 30, 1998.57. For more on the debate over the Abant Declaration, see Kerem Çalì7kan,“Fethullah Hoca ve Laiklik,” Yeni Yüzyìl, July 21, 1998. Some scholars criticized theDeclaration as a sign of the politicization of Islam, see Yakup Kepenek, “AbantBildirgesi,” Cumhuriyet, July 27, 1998. Some Islamists sharply criticized the AbantDeclaration; see Ahmet Ta7getiren, “Abant’in Çözemedi:i Sorun,” Yeni Safak, July27, 1998.58. Mehmet Gündem, Abant Toplantìlarì I: Islam ve Laiklik (Istanbul: Yazarlarve Gazeteciler Vakfì, 1998), 269–72.59. See interview of Fethullah Gülen by Nuriye Akman, Sabah, January 24,1995.60. The pro-RP newspaper Milli Gazete argued that Gülen was made popularby the state because of his critical attitude toward the RP. See Zeki Ceyhan, MilliGazete, February 19, 1995; the Islamist intellectual Ali Bulaç argued that Gülen wasused by the state to divide the Islamic movement and present the RP as radical; seeAli Bulaç, “Fethullah Hoca,” Yeni Safak, February 8, 1995, and “Fethullah Hoca veRefah Partisi,” Yeni Safak, February 11, 1995. Bulaç believed that the United Stateswas encouraging “moderate” Islamic groups to divide Muslims; Ali Bulaç, “8slamku7atma altìnda,” Yeni Safak, February 22, 1995.61. On Gülen’s meeting with Bülent Ecevit, see Ahmet Ta7getiren, “FethullahHoca-Ecevit,” Yeni Safak, March 27, 1995. Tasgetiren asks whether the politiciansare seeking to co-opt Islam into the system, which Ta7getiren thinks is corrupt.62. Derya Sazak, “Tarikat krizi,” Milliyet, December 23, 1994, and Ru7en Çakìr,“Çiller and Fethullah Hoca,” Milliyet, December 23, 1994.63. Many moderate and radical intellectuals criticized this statement; seeMehmet 6evket Eygi’s response in Milliyet, February 18, 1995.64. Ali Bulaç, “Fethullah Hoca”ya Üç Soru: Bir: Mustafa Kemal,” Yeni Safak,July 11, 1995; “8ki: Refah”ìn Önünü Kesecek misiniz?” Yeni Safak, July 12, 1995; and“Üç: Niçin Ortado:u de:il de Orta Asya,” Yeni 6afak, July 13, 1995. In addition, some