This paper argues that since 9/11 the orientalist discourse has been further adapted where both politicians and academics introduce provisos into their discourse, creating a dichotomy between “good” and “bad” Muslims. While this new discursive adjustment has created obstacles for many Muslims, they created opportunities for others. Drawing on empirical data, this paper demonstrates how the Gülen movement (GM), a Turkish-originated Islamic activist movement takes advantage of what it perceives as a discursive opportunity to expand its operations in the Western context. Since 9/11 Islamic activist movements have often been portrayed as irrational, homogenous and naturally prone to adopt violent action repertoires. Taking the GM as a case study, this paper demonstrates how an Islamic movement engages with the West strategically and rationally, adopting a non-violent action repertoire, embracing modernity and operating predominantly within the cultural arena. Rather than adopting violence as a means to an end, the GM has turned its rejection of violence in all forms into a core feature of Gülen's “Turkish Islam”, which is depicted as modern, peaceful, undogmatic and moderate.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jonathan Lacey (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: