21
Hizmet Studies Review
Vol. 2, No. 2, Spring 2015, 21-31
Fethullah Gülen’s Perspectives on Forgiveness
Radhi H. Al-Mabuk, [email protected]
University of Northern Iowa
ABSTRACT The topic of forgiveness used to be almost the exclusive domain of philosophers and theologians. In the last three decades, however, considerable attention has been
paid to forgiveness by a host of professionals including educators, psychologists, therapists and
health practitioners. Given the increasing interest in forgiveness, students of forgiveness have
studied its religious roots. Most of the Islamic theological writings that exist about forgiveness
seem to center on imploring adherents to forgive but often do not provide an integrated and
comprehensive process of how to put this into practice. In his numerous writings, speeches and
sermons, however, Fethullah Gülen has advanced a coherent perspective on forgiveness situated in the larger context of mercy. The focus of this paper is on forgiveness, which is one of the
major aspects of spirituality in Gülen’s teachings. There will be two parts to the presentation:
(1) Gülen’s understanding of holy scriptural injunctions about forgiveness; and (2) examples of
forgiveness-in-action from Gülen’s personal experience will be provided. Within the two parts,
the following questions will be examined: Does Gülen advocate conditional or unconditional
forgiveness? Does Gülen equate forgiveness with reconciliation? Does Gülen acknowledge that
forgiveness and justice can exist side by side? Does Gülen conceive of forgiveness as an act of
courage and strength of faith? Does Gülen believe that there are certain people that a human
being cannot forgive? Does Gülen provide specific attributes or characteristics for those who are
forgiving and those who are un-forgiving? The paper concludes by discussing the implications
of Gülen’s ideas about forgiveness for our daily practice of forgiveness which can ultimately
produce a more peaceful world.
Introduction
The word ‘forgiveness’ appears 61 times in one of Fethullah Gülen’s books,
and a whole section is devoted to the topic of forgiveness (Gülen 2006). As I read
the different parts of the book that relate to forgiveness, I quickly got the sense
that Gülen is offering a new renaissance – that of the heart. His efforts toward this
renaissance placed him at the top of the list of ‘the World’s Top 20 Public Intellectuals’ by the magazine Foreign Policy & Prospect in 2008 (Yenilmez 2010).
The concepts of love, peace and tolerance, which are prerequisites to forgiveness,
stand out as prominent qualities that define both Gülen and his movement. In
22
Hizmet Studies Review v.2 n.2
the Foreword written by Michel to Gülen’s book Toward a Global Civilization of
Love and Tolerance (2006 : 10), Dr Michel used the phrase “agent and witness to
God’s universal mercy”. Gülen’s pronouncements and teachings about forgiveness are matched by actions which place him at the top of a list of the ‘World’s
Top’ agents and witnesses to God’s universal mercy.
So, what is Gülen’s perspective on forgiveness? This paper attempts to answer
this question, and is divided into two major sections. The first section provides
a background or context within which Gülen’s view of forgiveness will be discussed, and will include a definition of forgiveness, what it is and is not, some
philosophical objections to forgiveness, and the benefits of forgiveness. In the
second section, Gülen’s view of forgiveness will be presented with an analysis of
how his view fits into the existing forgiveness literature.
The concept of forgiveness is not new; it is an ancient, complex phenomenon
that has been given significant attention by the world’s three major religions:
Islam, Christianity and Judaism, and other spiritual traditions such as Hinduism
and Buddhism. It has also been a fascinating topic of study for philosophers owing to its humanizing, healthful and restorative functions. Because of its inherent
theological character, the concept of forgiveness was largely ignored by social scientists, especially psychologists, until the mid-1980s. The empirical investigation
of forgiveness began at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and was led by Professor Robert Enright. The forgiveness process model and developmental theory
that Enright and his Human Development Study Group (1991) developed and
tested laid the foundation for the modern scientific exploration of forgiveness.
The forgiveness literature base went from a few articles and books to hundreds
of articles and books and many doctoral dissertations. Also, several conferences
focusing solely on forgiveness research and applications have been convened in
and outside the United States.
Definition of Forgiveness
Forgiveness is a complex process which usually occurs following an injury. It is
primarily concerned with psychological healing through which the injured party
releases the injurer from any felt resentment and possible behavioral retaliation
(Augusburger 1970; Droll 1984; Fitzgibbons 1985; Smedes 1984). The injurer
is also released from inner anger and resentment, and thus has no psychological
hold over the injured person (Enright 2001). Smedes (1984) described the hurt
that constitutes a crisis of forgiveness as having three aspects: it is always personal,
unfair and deep. Forgiveness is personal in that it can only be directed to persons,
not to nature (such as a tornado) or a system (such as an institution). It is also
unfair in the sense that the injured person does not deserve the pain or that the
Fethullah Gülen’s Perspectives on Forgiveness
pain was not necessary. The third aspect, depth, means that forgiveness follows
a deep, long-lasting injury from the other person. The unfair, personal and deep
injury may be psychological, emotional, physical or moral (Smedes 1984). Since
a precise definition of forgiveness is key to understanding Gülen’s perspective on
it, it is useful to consider what forgiveness is not.
What Forgiveness Is Not
According to Enright et al. (1987), there are a number of aspects that are
often conflated with forgiveness but are in fact not characteristics of it. To begin
with, forgiveness is not forgetting. A deep injury leaves an indelible mark on the
fabric of one’s being which is hard to dislodge. Forgiveness is not reconciliation
or coming together again. Forgiveness is an inner release while reconciliation is a
behavioral coming together. Someone can forgive and yet not reconcile as it may
sometimes be either unsafe or impossible to reconcile. It may be unsafe because
the injurer remains unchanged, or impossible to reconcile with him/her because
the person is either nowhere to be found or is deceased. Forgiveness, however, includes a willingness or a waiting in the hope that the other changes. Forgiveness,
of course, paves the path toward the possibility of reconciliation.
Forgiveness is not condoning the other’s action by saying, “Oh, well, he/she
didn’t mean it, so I’ll excuse it.” The true forgiver recognizes the injury or injustice
as serious. Forgiveness is not pardoning or letting the other person off the hook.
Forgiveness is an inner release whereas pardon is usually thought of as public
behavioral release, such as when a prisoner is let out of jail. Moreover, forgiveness is not indifference by thinking that the injurer’s action after all just is not
important. It is important to realize deep injury as such. Forgiveness is not simply
a diminishing of anger over time; it is an active process to release the other while
one is still feeling angry. Furthermore, forgiveness is not manipulative, and it does
not lead to one person always being ‘inferior’ to another. Instead, it allows both
parties to stand on equal ground. In true forgiveness, the forgiver acknowledges
the enormous pain and does not dodge or repress the problem.
Gülen’s view on this issue is relevant. In talking about evil doers, he said, “I
don’t believe there is any possibility that anyone could see an act that is disrespectful to forgiveness as being acceptable (of the evil done with impunity)”. So in
his view, forgiveness is neither indifference, nor condoning, nor pardon (Gülen
2006: 73).
Despite all the defining features of forgiveness, the literature contains writings
of people who have raised philosophical objections to it. Nietszche (1887), for
example, dismissed forgiveness as a practice only for the weak. His position can
be challenged in two ways. First, when someone truly forgives, he or she does
23
24
Hizmet Studies Review v.2 n.2
not condone the act by saying, “Let it go, it’s OK”. Second, a true forgiver does
acknowledge the hurt. The weak person, on the other hand, does not acknowledge the hurt; the weak person does not struggle to see the other in a new light.
Moreover, true forgiveness is not despair; it is release which is courageous.
Others have claimed that forgiveness can put the forgiver in a one-up position.
Real forgiveness is not a power play; it allows both the forgiver and the forgiven to
stand on equal ground. It is a wiping-clean of the slate, as North (1987) described
it. Still others (for example, Lewis, 1980) believe that a forgiving attitude leads
to letting criminals off lightly. In other words, forgiveness thwarts justice. Here,
forgiveness is confused with legal pardon. A person can forgive a criminal who is
still behind bars.
Another philosophical objection is that forgiveness may be dangerous. For
example, a spouse forgives her abusive husband and then he abuses her again.
Forgiveness is again confused with reconciliation here. Murphy (1982) stated
that a too-ready tendency to forgive may show a lack of self respect. This assertion would be correct if one ignores the anger of the injured party, which is not
the case in true forgiveness where a person acknowledges his/her own anger. A
somewhat similar assertion to Murphy’s was given by Hunter (1978), who viewed
forgiveness as a reaction formation whereby a forgiver hides his or her deep anger
and resentment. This view is not consistent with true forgiveness in which a forgiver tries to cast off the anger, not hide it.
Two additional objections include Droll’s (1984) assertion that the forgiver
will make the injurer feel inferior even when he/she did not intend this message
of inferiority. This view conflates forgiveness with reconciliation where a forgiver
simply tries to wipe the slate clean and has the right to forgive even if the other
misinterprets his or her motive. The final objection is that forgiveness is considered alienating from one’s true nature (survival of the fittest). Findings (Brandsma
1982; Hunter 1978; Fitzgibbons 1986; Al-Mabuk 1990; 1996; 1998) about the
impact of forgiveness on the forgiven show that deep anger, not forgiveness, can
alienate from the self.
Gülen’s perspective is deeply rooted in his Islamic faith and views forgiveness
as a supererogatory or merciful act. He always refers to the two primary sources
of the Qur’an and the traditions of the Prophet to teach about or support his
forgiving and peaceful stances. In one of his sermons, he cited this hadith, “Without doubt, My mercy precedes My wrath”, and the Qur’anic verses, “My mercy
extends to all things (Al-Araf 7:156), and “They swallow their anger and forgive
people. God loves those who do good” (Al-Imran 3:134).
Fethullah Gülen’s Perspectives on Forgiveness
Gülen points out that the divine attribute of mercy is foundational to the concept of forgiveness. God, without showing any exception, “nurtures and protects
all human beings, and He continues to give sustenance even to those who deny
Him” (Gülen 2004: 39).
A key to understanding Gülen’s perspective on forgiveness is the concept of
‘patient endurance’ which he derived from the following Qur’anic verse: “And if
you have to respond to any wrong, respond to the extent of the wrong done to
you; but if you endure patiently, this is indeed better for he who endures” (AnNahl 16:126). The notion of ‘patient endurance’ by which a person buries the
pain in his/her chest is synonymous with the Christian notion of absorption of
pain which paradoxically frees one from pain. This pious act of the burying of
pain is not to be confused with the psychological concept of repression, which is
a natural response to pain. But if left unaddressed, it can grow and fester.
Another key term which Gülen uses, and sometimes interchangeably with
forgiveness, is tolerance. In one of his speeches, Gülen (2006) referred to the
Prophet Mohammed’s example of tolerance and forgiveness especially with the
people of Mecca who were violently hostile to him. They fought him, conspired
to kill him, expelled him from his homeland and did everything they could to annihilate him and his followers. When the conquest of Mecca occurred, the hostile
Meccans were anxious to see what the Prophet would do to them. “As a sign of his
vast compassion and mercy, the Prophet said to them, I speak as Joseph spoke to
his brothers: There is no reproach for you today (because of your previous acts).
God will forgive you also. He is the Most Merciful of the merciful. Go; you are
free.”
A second example of kindness, forebearance and tolerance that Gülen uses
as an example to promote tolerance is that when someone called Abdullah ibn
Ubayy, who had been a lifelong enemy, died, the Prophet demonstrated his tolerance and compassion by giving his shirt as a burial shroud, and said, “As long
as there is no revelation forbidding me, I will attend his funeral” (Gülen, 2006,
p.88). For Gülen, since tolerance is rooted in the holy Qur’an and manifested
in the actions of the Prophet, a Muslim’s thoughts, feelings and actions must be
congruent with these sources.
In the same speech given in 2004, Gülen proposed that “platforms for tolerance should be developed in our society. Tolerance should be rewarded; it should
be given precedence at every opportunity” and “tolerance must permeate all of
society so much so that universities should breathe tolerance, politicians should
talk about tolerance, people in the music world should write lyrics about tolerance, and the media should give support to positive developments concerning
tolerance” (p.3).
25
26
Hizmet Studies Review v.2 n.2
In addition to the concepts of patient endurance and tolerance, Gülen also
included the dynamic of compassion which provides both the willingness and
the will to forgive others. As an example for compassion, Gülen turned to the
Prophet Mohammed’s life for inspiration. More specifically, Gülen referred to
an incident in which the Prophet was severely wounded in the Battle of Uhud,
and manifested his love and compassion by raising his hands and offering the
prayer “O God, forgive my people, for they do not know” (p.121). In this example, Gülen saw the compassion, love, courage and optimism that the Prophet
displayed in the face of hatred, hostility and ignorance. In this way, he embraces
and practices unconditional love. Gülerce (2010) quoted Gülen’s comment when
speaking about unconditional love that “When you show love to people, you
should not expect a favor in return. There would be no end to it. You must love
people unconditionally” (p.2).
Forgiveness Heals Wounds
As to why forgiveness is so central to Gülen’s thinking, feeling and acting, he
addressed this issue himself by saying, “we believe that forgiveness and tolerance
will heal most of our wounds, if only this celestial instrument will be in the hands
of those who understand its language” (Gülen, 2006, p.73). Gülen understands
the healing power of forgiveness and discerns its potent transformative effect on
the individual and on society. The precondition to reaping positive results of
forgiveness depends on the accurate understanding of the language of forgiveness and the proper implementation of its process. Although not included in the
quotation given above, Gülen alluded to the language of forgiveness in a recent
article that appeared in Today’s Zaman (14 October 2010): Hüseyin Gülerce
quoted Gülen’s remarks regarding accusations leveled at him and his movement
by saying that “He would still never ask God to punish those who make such
groundless claims against his movement and its members … and that the claims
will not stand forever”.
In the same article, Gülerce noted that following the harsh criticism by reform
opponents after the majority voted in favor of the constitutional amendment
package, Gülen “called on everyone to adopt a more peaceful and tolerant language when speaking about others” He went on. “Everyone should revise their
discourse. They should quit shouting at others and giving into to frantic behavior.
Instead, they should adopt a softer and more loving discourse. We should never
forget that screaming and a frantic attitude only trigger hatred, not love”.
Gülen displays a solid grasp of the idea that forgiveness is a process that a
person goes through following a personal, unfair and deep offense. According to
an interview with Gülen by Nevval Sevindi which appeared in the Yeni Yüzyıl
Daily in 1997, he was asked the question “You have suffered a lot in your life.
Fethullah Gülen’s Perspectives on Forgiveness
How did you overcome events that could have smothered your enthusiasm and
smashed you?”
Gülen’s response was, “Once I was followed for six years as if I were a traitor.
It bothered me, but I forgot it. I don’t feel hostility toward anyone. Even then I
approached the matter logically, not emotionally. I’ve forgiven the people who
did this. If one day I see the faith of the people secured and a peaceful atmosphere
surrounding the world, then everything will have been worthwhile”.
Key words and phrases from Gülen’s answer such as “it bothered me”, “I forgot it”, “I don’t feel hostility” and “I have forgiven the people who did this” all
relate to the forgiveness steps which Enright et al. (1987) elaborated and which
other researchers have modeled subsequently. The first phrase ‘it bothered me’
relates to the first phase in the forgiveness journey and is called ‘Dealing with the
Pain, or the Uncovering’. This phase immediately follows the injury, and depending on the intensity of pain, most people employ psychological defenses to shield
themselves from the pain. The longer they deny or repress their emotions, the
more likely is the pain to take its toll on the individual physically and mentally
and to spill over into his or her relationships.
The second phrase, ‘I forgot it’, refers to the mitigation of pain through the
passage of time, and that the enormous initial negative emotional response has
diminished. If forgetting is not characterized by the cessation of hostility, resentment and anger, then it simply shows that forgetting is being used as a psychological defense mechanism. In Gülen’s case, he stated that he ‘did not feel hostility
toward anyone’, which shows that he dealt with the pain which led to replacing
hostile impulses with positive ones. The other critical phase of forgiveness that
Gülen went through is captured by the phrase ‘then I approached the matter
logically, not emotionally’. It can be concluded that Gülen conducted a cost/
benefit analysis of forgiving or not forgiving and that his reason prevailed over his
emotions. He managed his negative emotion very wisely as he knows about the
destructive power of anger. Gülen has described anger as “a temporary madness
and it results in regret”, and has advised people to not allow grudges to infect
their reason. In a speech, Gülen said, “Let’s not allow our grudges to affect our
style. Let’s be fair. Let’s be impartial and objective.”
The other important phase demonstrated by Gülen is his choosing to forgive
those who treated him as a traitor for six years. This phase is known in the forgiveness literature as the Decision phase. One can decide to pursue a justice or
a mercy route. If the person elects the justice route, he/she can either take the
injurer to court and have the legal system resolve the issue, or choose to mete out
the punishment him/herself. Meting out the punishment by the individual often
leads to a vicious cycle of revenge. The legal route may resolve reparation issues
27
28
Hizmet Studies Review v.2 n.2
but the injured person must still live with the emotional wounds caused by the
injurer.
Gülen’s selection among strategies to deal with the people who hurt him must
have considered the others’ motives, needs and reasons for acting the way they
did. This cognitive appraisal must have then engendered positive attitudes and
feelings of goodwill toward those who had committed the injury.
Given that Gülen’s perspective on forgiveness is rooted in and motivated by
his deep and genuine faith, he chose the route of mercy in the belief of being
forgiven by God, which made him and continues to make him forgive others.
This kind of forgiveness, which Trainer (1981) labeled as ‘intrinsic forgiveness’, is
characterized by benevolent behavior and an inner change in attitudes and feelings about the offender, and, over time, it becomes an internalized and automatic
response that predisposes the individual to choose it over other options in a crisis
situation.
Belief in the Individual
Gülen has a profound belief in the power of the individual to transform society for the better. Sevindi (2008) stated that Gülen believes in the individual’s
central role in society, and quoted Gülen’s words that “every thing of beauty, and
every value present in individuals is multiplied and reflected in society. In contrast, everything that is inappropriate, every insufficiency, is a scandal, and as a
scandal blocks society’s path and inflicts deep wounds upon it” (p.4). The use of
forgiveness language brings about harmony of heart and mind to the individual
and to society.
The final thought on Gülen’s perspective on forgiveness is that it becomes a
consistent factor in one’s life. Forgiveness has been a common thread in Gülen’s
life. Gülerce has shared notes that he took on his week-long visit to Gülen related
to the significance of consistency and matching one’s words with actions. The
following is a relevant quotation: “No one can stop us humans when it comes to
theories and words. We all become a Ferdawsi, Persian poet, when we speak. We
must do our best to represent our values. Everything should be supported by representation. You should live a consistent life. If you behave this way, then people
who are in quest (for truth) will find you. Then for the sake of God we will go to
them” (Gülerce 2010).
In summary, this paper has attempted to describe Fethullah Gülen’s perspective on forgiveness. First, a context about what forgiveness is and what it is not
was provided and philosophical objections to it were discussed and refuted. The
remainder of the paper focused on different aspects of Gülen’s view of forgiveness,
Fethullah Gülen’s Perspectives on Forgiveness
including the prerequisites of faith, understanding, love and compassion, and
tolerance. It is evident from both the advice and the real-life examples of Gülen
that forgiveness holds the promise to transform hostility, resentment and hatred
into peace, love and harmony among individuals and societies.
For this paper, the author has relied on stories, interviews, speeches and books
written or made by or about Gülen to develop his perspective on forgiveness. It
would be very useful to conduct an extensive interview with Gülen focusing exclusively on the subject of forgiveness. The interviewer could ask him about more
personal accounts of forgiveness acts, the process which he goes through to forgive, and the benefits he has experienced by forgiving. The data acquired would
inform forgiveness researchers and practitioners and would undoubtedly inspire
more people to be agents and witnesses of God’s universal mercy.
REFERENCES
Al-Mabuk, R.H. (1990). The commitment to forgive in parentally love-deprived college students. Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Al-Mabuk, R.H. & Downs, W.R. (1996). Forgiveness therapy with parents of
adolescent suicide victims. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 7(2), 21-39.
Al-Mabuk, R.H., Dedrick, C.V.L, & Vanderah, K.M. (1998). Attribution retraining in forgiveness therapy. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 9(1), 11-30.
Augsburger, D. (1970). The freedom to forgive. Chicago: Moody Press.
Brandsma, J.M. (1982). ‘Forgiveness: A dynamic, theological and theoretical
analysis’. Pastoral Psychology, 3(1), 40-50.
Çetin, M. (2010, October 14). Infiltrating or contributing? Today’s Zaman. Retrieved from http://www.todayszaman.com
Droll. D.M. (1984). Forgiveness: Theory and research. Doctoral dissertation, University of Nevada-Reno. Dissertation Abstracts International – B, 45(08), 1985,
p.2732.
Ebaugh, H.R.(2010). The Gülen movement: A sociological analysis of a civic movement rooted in moderate Islam. NY: Springer.
Enright, R.D. (2001). Forgiveness is a choice: A step-by-step process for resolving
anger and restoring hope. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Enright, R.D. et al. (1987). To err is human…to forgive is not my thing: I dissent. Paper presented at the Dissenter’s Forum, University of Wisconsin-Madison,
29
Hizmet Studies Review v.2 n.2
30
October 29.
Enright, R.D. & Human Development Study Group. (1991). The moral development of forgiveness. In W. Kurtines & Gewirtz (Eds.), Moral behavior and
development: Advances in Theory, Research, and Application. (Vol.1). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Fitzgibbons, R.P. (1986). The cognitive and emotive use of forgiveness in the
treatment of anger. Psychotherapy, 23, 629-633.
Görçüm, A. (2010, October 11). ‘Prophet Muhammad example of coexistence’.
Today’s Zaman. Retrieved from http://www.todayszaman.com
Gülen, F. (2006). Toward a Global Civilization of Love and Tolerance. NJ: The
Light, Inc.
Gülen, M.F. (14 June 2006). ‘Tolerance in the life of the individual and society’.
Retrieved from http://en.fgulen.com/love-and-tolerance/269-forgiveness-tolerance-and-dialog/1800
Gülen, M.F. (14 June 2006). ‘Islam as a religion of universal mercy’. Retrieved
from http http://en.fgulen.com/love-and-tolerance/269-forgiveness-toleranceand-dialogue/1809-islam-as-a-religion-of-universal-mercy.html
Gülen, M.F. (14 June 2006). ‘Forgiveness’. Retrieved from http http://en.fgulen.
com/love-and-tolerance/269-forgiveness-tolerance-and-dialogue/1797-forgiveness.html
Gülerce, H. (2010, October 14). ‘I am just Fethullah the son of Ramiz’. Today’s
Zaman. Retrieved from http://www.todayszaman.com
Hunter, R.C.A. (1978). ‘Forgiveness, retaliation, and paranoid reactions’. Canadian Psychiatric Association Journal, 23(3), 167-173.
Keneş, B. (2010, October 13). ‘On polarization and conciliation’. Today’s Zaman.
Retrieved from http://www.todayszaman.com
Lewis, M. (1980). ‘On forgiveness’. Philosophical Quarterly, 30, 236-245.
Murphy, J.G. (1982). ‘Forgiveness and resentment’. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 7, 503-516.
Nietzsche, F.W. (1887). The Genealogy of Morals. Trans. P. Watson. London:
S.P.C.K.
North, J. (1987). ‘Wrongdoing and Forgiveness’. Philosophy, 62, 499-508.
Sevindi, N. (1997, August). ‘The New York Conversation’. Yeni Yüzyıl Daily.
Sevindi, N. (14 June 2006). ‘Biography: Sufferings in His Life’. Retrieved from
http://en.fgulen.com/about-fethullah-gulen/biography.html
Fethullah Gülen’s Perspectives on Forgiveness
Sevindi, N. (14 June 2006). ‘Biography: Why does he cry?’ Retrieved from http://
en.fgulen.com/about-fethullah-gulen/biography.html
Sevindi, N. (2008). Contemporary Islamic Conversations: M. Fethullah Gülen on
Turkey, Islam, and the West, I.M. Abu-Rabi’, (Ed.). NY: State University of New
York Press.
Smedes, L.B. (1984). Forgive and Forget: Healing the Hurts We Don’t Deserve. NY:
Harper and Row.
The Meaning of the Holy Quran. (2010).Abdullah Yusuf Ali, Trans., NY: Madison
Park.
Trainer, M.F. (1981). Forgiveness: Intrinsic, role-expected, expedient, in the context of divorce. Doctoral dissertation, Boston University. Dissertation Abstracts
International-B, 45(04), 1984, p. 1325.
Yenilmez, C. (2010, October 14). Al-Zuhayli says Gülen’s ideas hope for humanity. Today’s Zaman. Retrieved from http://www.todayszaman.com
31