Theological Communication, and the Ethics of Encounter: A Comparative Study of Interfaith Dialogue in Fethullah Gülen and Ismail Raji al-Faruqi

Theological Communication, and the Ethics of Encounter: A Comparative Study of Interfaith Dialogue in Fethullah Gülen and Ismail Raji al-Faruqi

Ahmad Sunawari Long^1* Mohd Hatib Ismail², Hasse Jubba³, Zaizul Ab Rahman⁴

^1,4Research Centre for Theology and Philosophy, National University of Malaysia.

²Centre for Promotional of Knowledge and Language Learning, University Malaysia Sabah.

³Islamic Politics Dept., Muhammadiyah University of Yogjakarta.

*Corresponding Author

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.908000593

Received: 20 August 2025; Accepted: 28 August 2025; Published: 23 September 2025

ABSTRACT

This paper presents a comparative study of interfaith dialogue in the thought of Ismail Raji al-Faruqi and Fethullah Gülen, two leading Muslim intellectuals who shaped contemporary approaches to religious encounter. The main objective is to analyze their theological and philosophical foundations, epistemological approaches, and ethical-institutional expressions, highlighting both convergences and divergences. The study employs a qualitative comparative methodology, combining textual analysis of primary works—such as al-Faruqi’s Al-Tawhid: Its Implications for Thought and Life and Gülen’s Toward a Global Civilization of Love and Tolerance—with interpretive analysis of secondary literature to situate their ideas within broader intellectual and socio-political contexts. The findings reveal that both thinkers ground dialogue in tawhid (the oneness of God) but operationalize it differently: al-Faruqi advances a rational-universalist, civilizational framework emphasizing scholarly rigor, comparative religion, and policy engagement, while Gülen promotes a relational-ethical model focused on compassion, service (hizmet), and grassroots communal initiatives. Al-Faruqi’s dialogue is conceptual and systematic, offering structural clarity, whereas Gülen’s is experiential and affective, fostering trust and coexistence through lived practice. The study concludes that these approaches, though distinct, are complementary: al-Faruqi provides intellectual and civilizational frameworks, while Gülen contributes relational warmth and practical service. Together, they exemplify how Islamic thought can construct an ethics of encounter that balances academic rigor with lived compassion, offering valuable guidance for interfaith engagement in pluralistic societies.

Keywords: Tawhid; Interfaith Dialogue; al-Faruqi; Gülen; Ethics of Encounter

INTRODUCTION

The question of how Muslims engage religious others—intellectually, ethically, and institutionally—has been formative for modern Islamic thought. Two figures have exerted outsized influence on the theory and practice of interfaith dialogue: Ismail Raji al-Faruqi, a philosopher of religion who advanced a civilizational vision of Islam grounded in tawhid, and Fethullah Gülen, a Turkish Muslim teacher whose Nursian, Sufi-inspired outlook shaped a global movement of education and social service. Both thinkers sought to move beyond apologetics and polemics toward a dialogical ethic capable of addressing contemporary fractures, yet they travelled different paths: al-Faruqi built a system, Gülen nurtured a habitus; al-Faruqi emphasized conceptual integration and comparative rigor, Gülen emphasized spiritual cultivation and civic service.

This article pursues two aims. First, it reconstructs the theological and philosophical foundations of dialogue in both thinkers, with special attention to tawhid, revelation, moral agency, and the purposes of engagement. Second, it compares their dialogical typologies, pedagogies, and institutional embodiments, including al-Faruqi’s comparative-civilizational method and Gülen’s “dialogue of the heart” and hizmet.

Ismail Raji al-Faruqi (1921–1986) was a Palestinian-American scholar, philosopher, and one of the most influential Muslim intellectuals of the twentieth century. Born in Jaffa, Palestine, he pursued studies in philosophy at the American University of Beirut before emigrating to the United States following the 1948 Nakba. There, he earned advanced degrees from Indiana University and Harvard University, later completing a doctorate in Islamic philosophy at Indiana in 1952 (Sharifi, 2014). Al-Faruqi also studied at Al-Azhar University, Cairo, where he deepened his grounding in Islamic sciences. His academic career included teaching positions at McGill University, Temple University, and the Hartford Seminary Foundation (Yusuf 2014).

Al-Faruqi’s scholarship focused on comparative religion, Islamic ethics, and civilizational studies. He is best known for formulating the project of the Islamization of Knowledge, a comprehensive framework seeking to integrate modern disciplines with Islamic epistemology (al-Faruqi, 1982). Together with his wife, Lois Lamya’ al-Faruqi, he co-authored The Cultural Atlas of Islam (1986), a seminal reference work. Beyond academia, he was active in interfaith dialogue, promoting Muslim-Christian-Jewish understanding as part of a broader covenantal ethic (Ayoub, 1992). Tragically, he and his wife were murdered in Pennsylvania in 1986, leaving behind a legacy that continues to influence Islamic thought and education globally.

While Fethullah Gülen (b. 1941) is a Turkish Muslim scholar, preacher, and social thinker whose teachings inspired a global civic initiative known as the Hizmet (“service”) movement. Born in Erzurum, Turkey, into a devout family, Gülen received a traditional Islamic education and was strongly influenced by the writings of Said Nursi, particularly the Risale-i Nur collection, which emphasized faith, reason, and engagement with modernity (Yavuz & Esposito, 2003). Ordained as a state preacher in the Turkish Directorate of Religious Affairs, Gülen gained recognition in the 1960s and 1970s for his sermons emphasizing morality, education, and social responsibility. By the late twentieth century, he had become a leading advocate for interfaith dialogue, peace, and the integration of science and religion (Gülen, 2004).

Gülen’s influence grew through a vast network of schools, dialogue centers, and humanitarian organizations that spread beyond Turkey to more than 100 countries. His followers stress non-political, service-oriented engagement, though critics in Turkey have accused the movement of covert political aims (Ebaugh, 2010). Since 1999, Gülen has resided in Pennsylvania, USA, in self-imposed exile. Despite controversies, he remains one of the most influential Muslim intellectuals of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. He passed away on October 20, 2024.

Research Method

This study employs a comparative qualitative methodology to examine how interfaith dialogue is articulated by Ismail Raji al-Faruqi and Fethullah Gülen across theological, epistemological, and ethical-institutional dimensions. The research design integrates two methodological components. First, it applies textual analysis to primary sources, including al-Faruqi’s Al-Tawhid: Its Implications for Thought and Life (1982) and Islamization of Knowledge (1982), as well as Gülen’s Toward a Global Civilization of Love and Tolerance (2004) and Essentials of the Islamic Faith (2000). These works are examined for their conceptual frameworks, theological assumptions, and normative prescriptions regarding dialogue. Second, the study engages in comparative interpretation, drawing upon secondary scholarship (e.g., Ayoub, 1992; Ebaugh, 2010; Yavuz & Esposito, 2003) to situate both thinkers in broader intellectual, social, and institutional contexts. This dual approach allows for identifying convergences, such as their grounding in tawhid, and divergences, such as al-Faruqi’s academic-civilizational model versus Gülen’s grassroots-relational approach. The methodology emphasizes hermeneutical sensitivity, recognizing that both thinkers operate in different socio-political settings—al-Faruqi as an academic in the West and Gülen as a preacher-movement leader in Turkey and beyond. By combining textual and comparative analysis, the article constructs a nuanced framework for understanding their contributions to interfaith dialogue.

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

This article examines three key dimensions of interfaith dialogue as articulated by al-Faruqi and Gülen, namely their theological and philosophical foundations, epistemological approaches, and ethical registers with institutional expressions. It highlights both the similarities and the differences in how each scholar conceptualizes the principles of interfaith engagement.

Theological and Philosophical Foundations: Tawhid as Grounding for Dialogue

At the heart of both Ismail Raji al-Faruqi and Fethullah Gülen’s approaches to interfaith dialogue lies tawhid—the oneness and unity of God—as the ultimate metaphysical truth and as a normative anchor for ethical conduct. For both thinkers, tawhid is not a mere theological proposition to be affirmed in creed; it is a comprehensive worldview that shapes the believer’s orientation toward self, society, and the world. Yet, while they converge on this foundational concept, their respective interpretations and emphases diverge, producing distinct dialogical methodologies.

For al-Faruqi, tawhid is a totalizing principle—a unifying lens through which all human knowledge, values, and experiences must be integrated. In his seminal work Al-Tawhid: Its Implications for Thought and Life (1982), he insists that tawhid implies the unity of truth across all domains—religious, moral, intellectual, and natural. It is not confined to ritual or private devotion but extends into the public sphere, dictating a coherent approach to knowledge, ethics, and social order.

From this vantage point, tawhid becomes the epistemological bedrock upon which dialogue rests. If truth is one and God is the source of all truth, then seeking and acknowledging truth in other traditions does not threaten Islamic faith but fulfills it. Consequently, interfaith dialogue is not an optional courtesy; it is an obligation born of moral solidarity with all truth-seekers. In al-Faruqi’s system, failure to engage the religious Other reflects not only intellectual negligence but a theological shortcoming—an abdication of the responsibility to bear witness (shahada) to the unity of truth.

His concept of the “Islamization of knowledge” flows directly from this tawhidic vision. Often misunderstood as an ideological imposition of religious dogma, al-Faruqi framed it instead as an integrative endeavor: to bring coherence between belief, thought, and life by situating all disciplines—whether philosophy, sociology, or natural science—within the moral-ontological unity of God’s creation. This integrative impulse translates into dialogue as a scholarly and ethical engagement, requiring Muslims to understand other traditions on their own terms, with precision, respect, and intellectual empathy (Ba-Yunus 1988).

Thus, for al-Faruqi, tawhid produces clarity and confidence. It assures the believer that engaging with difference is not a concession to relativism but a confirmation of divine unity. Dialogue is therefore both a mode of knowledge-seeking and a moral act—an extension of justice (ʿadl) and beneficence (ihsan) into the realm of religious pluralism.

While Gülen shares al-Faruqi’s conviction that tawhid is foundational, his interpretation is more relational, affective, and pastoral. Influenced by the Qur’anic language of mercy (rahma) and beauty (ihsan), as well as by the Sufi-inflected teachings of Bediüzzaman Said Nursi, Gülen presents tawhid less as an epistemic blueprint for systemic integration and more as an ethical force for personal transformation and social harmony (Negara & Hidayatullah 2024)

For Gülen, the oneness of God implies the interconnectedness of all creation. Every human being, regardless of creed, bears the imprint of the divine creative act. Recognizing this interconnectedness inspires a “language of the heart,” in which empathy, compassion, and humility become the primary tools of encounter. Dialogue, therefore, is not primarily a rational contest of ideas but an embodied moral practice—a means of manifesting the mercy of God through human relationships.

The ethical output of tawhid in Gülen’s thought moves beyond doctrinal safeguarding toward service and moral example. This is most evident in his emphasis on hizmet (“service”), in which acts of educational, humanitarian, and civic engagement are themselves dialogical gestures. In this framework, a school built in a non-Muslim community, staffed by Muslims and non-Muslims working cooperatively, becomes as much a dialogue as any formal theological exchange (Gulen 2000).

In Gülen’s view, doctrinal confrontation—while sometimes necessary—is rarely the starting point for building trust. Instead, relationships nurtured in service create the soil in which meaningful theological exchange can later grow. His tawhidic vision thus seeks to soften hearts before engaging minds, to embody Islam’s ethical beauty as a bridge across difference.

Both al-Faruqi and Gülen see tawhid as the ultimate ground for interfaith dialogue, but they operationalize it differently. For al-Faruqi, tawhid demands systematic coherence: it calls for a disciplined framework that integrates intellectual engagement with moral responsibility. This yields a dialogue model that is structured, comparative, and civilizational its scope. The strength of this model lies in its ability to equip participants with conceptual clarity and principled confidence, ensuring that engagement is neither superficial nor unmoored from theological integrity.

For Gülen, tawhid invites transformative hospitality: it calls believers to embody divine mercy in their interpersonal conduct, to cultivate the virtues that make trust possible, and to engage the Other through shared service. This yields a dialogue model that is experiential, relational, and grassroots in its scope. Its strength lies in its capacity to disarm suspicion, build durable social bonds, and humanize the religious Other before abstract theological positions are debated.

Metaphorically, one might say that al-Faruqi builds the architectural blueprint for the house of dialogue, ensuring its foundations are sound and its structure logically ordered. Gülen, by contrast, furnishes the house with warmth, hospitality, and daily acts of care so that guests feel welcome enough to stay and converse. Both functions are necessary; without the blueprint, the house collapses; without warmth, the house remains empty.

The contrasting emphases of al-Faruqi and Gülen suggest that a holistic ethics of encounter must unite both clarity and compassion. Clarity without compassion risks turning dialogue into a sterile exercise in apologetics; compassion without clarity risks reducing dialogue to pleasant but shallow exchanges. Tawhid, rightly understood, holds these in tension: as al-Haqq (The Truth), God calls us to intellectual integrity; as al-Rahman (The Merciful), God calls us to empathy and grace.

In this way, the theological foundation of tawhid not only grounds the legitimacy of interfaith dialogue for both thinkers but also shapes its moral texture. Whether expressed through al-Faruqi’s intellectual rigor or Gülen’s moral-spiritual refinement, tawhid remains the indispensable source from which the ethics of encounter flow (Kazeem 2003).

Epistemological Approaches to Dialogue

The theological foundation of tawhid provides both Ismail Raji al-Faruqi and Fethullah Gülen with a moral and metaphysical justification for interfaith engagement, but it is in their epistemological approaches that we see the practical architecture of their dialogical visions. Both operate from a position of epistemic confidence—affirming the objectivity of truth and the necessity of moral accountability—yet they differ significantly in their methods of accessing and sharing that truth. Al-Faruqi frames dialogue through an academic–comparative paradigm, while Gülen approaches it through an experiential–relational paradigm.

Al-Faruqi’s epistemology begins with the conviction that understanding the Other requires disciplined study of the Other. In his career as a scholar of comparative religion, he repeatedly argued that dialogue without rigorous knowledge is shallow and prone to misrepresentation. His approach insists on what he called “the right of the Other to speak in their own terms,” meaning that one must first comprehend a tradition from within its own categories, sources, and self-understanding before engaging in critique or comparison.

Al-Faruqi’s epistemology is also shaped by his Islamization of knowledge project, which he defined not as the replacement of secular or Western knowledge with a monolithic “Islamic” version, but as the re-grounding of all knowledge in the unity of divine truth and the ethical demands it entails (Lestari 2020). In dialogue, this translates to systematic engagement: ideas and moral principles from other faiths are examined for their truth content, placed in conversation with Islamic principles, and assessed in terms of their capacity to serve the common good. This process requires reasoned argument, textual literacy, and openness to correction.

In practical terms, al-Faruqi’s epistemology privileges formal dialogue settings—interfaith conferences, scholarly symposia, collaborative research projects—where the exchange of ideas is structured, documented, and capable of influencing policy or educational reform. The result is a dialogue that is conceptually robust, but which may be less immediately accessible to lay communities without mediation through educators or institutions.

Gülen’s epistemology, while not opposed to formal study, is rooted in the conviction that the most transformative knowledge of the Other comes from lived interaction and shared service (Ahmad Sunawari et al. 2022). In his writings, Gülen speaks of the “dialogue of life” and “dialogue of the heart” as precursors to “dialogue of words.” These concepts represent an epistemological sequence: one begins by living alongside the Other, engaging in acts of compassion and solidarity, and allowing the relationship itself to generate understanding, before moving to formal theological exchange (Pratt 2007).

This approach reflects Gülen’s Rumi-Sufi-influenced pedagogy: knowledge is not purely propositional but is deeply embodied, relational, and shaped by virtues such as humility, sincerity, and compassion (Yilmaz 2007). In his view, the credibility of one’s religious witness in dialogue depends less on the sophistication of one’s arguments than on the integrity of one’s character and the trust one has cultivated. A generous act of service, for Gülen, can be as epistemically significant as a well-reasoned lecture.

Gülen’s hizmet (service) movement operationalizes this epistemology by establishing schools, humanitarian relief agencies, and cultural centres that bring people of different faiths into sustained cooperation (Yilmaz 2010). In these spaces, knowledge of the Other emerges organically from collaborative problem-solving—building a school together, responding to a natural disaster, or organizing a cultural exchange. The underlying assumption is that proximity and cooperation erode prejudice and create a receptivity to deeper theological conversation.

While Gülen does not dismiss formal dialogue, his epistemology suggests that without the trust and goodwill generated by shared life, theological exchanges are unlikely to be fruitful. In this way, he reverses the typical academic order: relationship first, intellectual exchange later.

Then we found that, both thinkers reject relativism and maintain that truth is objective, discoverable, and worthy of pursuit. Both insist that dialogue must preserve theological integrity—neither sees engagement as an exercise in syncretism or doctrinal dilution. Both also affirm that dialogue should lead to mutual moral benefit, not just intellectual curiosity.

Al-Faruqi and Gülen represent two distinct yet complementary models of interfaith dialogue, differing in their methodological emphasis, preferred settings, and modes of knowledge acquisition. Al-Faruqi’s approach is fundamentally top-down, beginning with conceptual clarity, historical literacy, and principled frameworks that provide the intellectual foundation before moving into cooperative action (al-Faruqi, 1982; al-Faruqi & al-Faruqi, 1986), whereas Gülen’s approach is more bottom-up, starting with shared moral action and personal presence, which then allows intellectual clarity to develop within a context of trust (Gülen, 2004). In terms of setting, Al-Faruqi’s model thrives in academic forums and policy discussions, where structured dialogue and principled frameworks can guide engagement at the civilizational level (Ayoub, 1992), while Gülen’s model is rooted in grassroots initiatives and everyday communal life, where service, education, and relational bonds create natural spaces for dialogue (Ebaugh, 2010; Yilmaz, 2005). Finally, their differences extend to how knowledge of the Other is acquired: for Al-Faruqi, it is primarily a scholarly discipline, pursued through comparative religion and epistemological frameworks (al-Faruqi, 1982), while for Gülen, it is largely an experiential process shaped by moral dispositions such as empathy, compassion, and humility (Gülen, 2004; Ebaugh, 2010). Together, these contrasts illustrate how one model privileges intellectual scaffolding and civilizational discourse, while the other emphasizes lived practice and relational ethics in building interfaith understanding.

Al-Faruqi’s epistemology produces depth, accuracy, and principled argumentation, which are vital for long-term interfaith cooperation at institutional and policy levels (Mohammad & Ismail, 2022). However, it risks remaining too elitist if not connected to community-level relationships. Gülen’s epistemology produces trust, accessibility, and emotional resonance, which are crucial for breaking down suspicion at the grassroots, but it risks shallowness if not eventually connected to rigorous theological engagement.

A mature model of interfaith dialogue could integrate the disciplinary precision of al-Faruqi with the relational immediacy of Gülen. This means cultivating a generation of dialogue practitioners who are as comfortable reading the sacred texts of another tradition as they are sharing a meal or volunteering together. Such integration would embody the Qur’anic ethic of engaging with others “in the best way” (Q. 16:125)—where “best” denotes not only moral excellence but intellectual integrity. Al-Faruqi ensures the dialogue speaks truth with clarity; Gülen ensures it speaks truth in love.

Ethical Registers and Institutional Expressions

The interfaith dialogue visions of Ismail Raji al-Faruqi and Fethullah Gülen are rooted in their distinctive ethical registers (mode or framework of moral reasoning and communication or language of ethics) and manifested through divergent institutional expressions, yet both emerge from the unifying principle of tawhid. Al-Faruqi, writing from the perspective of a scholar deeply concerned with epistemology and civilizational renewal, framed dialogue as an ethical necessity grounded in a universalist understanding of truth and justice. For him, the fragmentation between secular modern knowledge and Islamic sciences was symptomatic of the broader malaise in Muslim societies, and he saw interfaith dialogue as part of a larger epistemological project to restore coherence between reason and revelation (al-Faruqi, 1982). His ethical register was therefore rational-universalist, emphasizing the covenantal responsibility of Muslims, Christians, and Jews as Abrahamic faiths to uphold God’s moral order. Dialogue, in his view, was not merely about polite exchange but about rediscovering and affirming shared ethical commitments—justice, dignity, and accountability—that unite religious traditions in service to humanity (al-Faruqi & al-Faruqi, 1986). Institutionally, al-Faruqi sought to anchor dialogue in academic and policy frameworks, establishing initiatives such as the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) and promoting comparative religion as a discipline capable of fostering intellectual and civilizational cooperation (Ayoub, 1992). His institutional expressions were largely top-down and elite-oriented, focused on universities, conferences, and policy forums where scholars and policymakers could articulate shared values and collaborate in shaping societies.

In contrast, Gülen’s interfaith dialogue vision is grounded less in epistemological universality than in relational and affective ethics, shaped by Sufi sensibilities and the legacy of Said Nursi (Yavuz 1999). For Gülen, dialogue begins with the heart—with compassion (rahma), humility, and spiritual excellence (ihsan)—which translate into empathy and peaceful coexistence with the religious Other (Gülen, 2004). His ethical register situates dialogue within a broader ethic of service (hizmet), whereby education, charity, and humanitarian action become extensions of faith and vehicles for interfaith engagement. Dialogue is thus inseparable from lived action: building schools, running relief projects, and fostering daily encounters of cooperation across religious divides (Ebaugh, 2010). Institutionally, Gülen’s approach differs sharply from al-Faruqi’s. Rather than policy frameworks or academic networks, his movement generated grassroots, transnational institutions, most notably the vast network of Gülen-inspired schools and dialogue centers. These institutions function as organic sites of dialogue, where Muslims and non-Muslims alike learn, teach, and serve together, embodying coexistence not in theory but in practice. NGOs such as the Journalists and Writers Foundation further illustrate this institutional ethos, hosting interfaith conferences and intercultural activities to build trust among communities (Yilmaz, 2005).

The contrast between al-Faruqi and Gülen underscores two complementary models of dialogue. Al-Faruqi’s ethical register is rational and universal, his institutional expressions academic and policy-oriented, envisioning dialogue as a civilizational project engaging intellectual elites and states. Gülen’s ethical register is compassionate and relational, his institutional expressions grassroots and community-based, making dialogue a lived reality through service and education. In comparative terms, al-Faruqi emphasizes the macro-level of interfaith dialogue—structural, civilizational, and policy-driven—while Gülen emphasizes the micro-level—personal, relational, and community-driven. Both, however, share the conviction that dialogue is a religious and ethical imperative grounded in tawhid, which binds humanity together in moral solidarity. Together, their models demonstrate that effective interfaith dialogue requires both intellectual-civilizational engagement and grassroots relational practice: al-Faruqi provides the framework for integrating ethics into academic and policy institutions, while Gülen offers the lived demonstration of ethics through compassion, service, and everyday cooperation.

CONCLUSION

The comparative analysis of al-Faruqi and Gülen demonstrates that interfaith dialogue within Islamic thought can be approached through both intellectual-civilizational frameworks and relational-communal practices. Al-Faruqi’s contribution lies in his systematic integration of tawhid into epistemology and comparative religion, making dialogue a scholarly obligation that affirms the unity of truth across traditions. His method equips interfaith engagement with conceptual clarity, historical literacy, and principled confidence, though it tends to privilege academic and policy settings. Gülen, in contrast, emphasizes compassion, empathy, and service, grounding dialogue in daily lived experiences that cultivate trust, solidarity, and mutual respect. His grassroots institutions, particularly schools and dialogue centers, embody dialogue not as abstract exchange but as shared moral practice. When read together, these models are not contradictory but complementary: al-Faruqi provides the blueprint for dialogue as a rational and civilizational project, while Gülen provides the hospitality and warmth that make it sustainable at the communal level. A holistic ethics of encounter, therefore, requires the integration of both clarity and compassion, academic rigor and lived service. This conclusion suggests that contemporary Muslim engagement in pluralistic societies must combine al-Faruqi’s structural frameworks with Gülen’s relational ethos to achieve enduring interfaith harmony.

To operationalize this dual model in today’s pluralistic world, educators, religious leaders, and policymakers must intentionally bridge the intellectual rigor of al-Faruqi with the relational compassion of Gülen. For educators, this could mean designing curricula that simultaneously cultivate critical literacy in world religions and foster spaces for collaborative service-learning projects, enabling students to encounter the Other both through text and through life. Religious leaders, meanwhile, can embody this dual model by combining doctrinal clarity with pastoral openness—teaching their communities how to engage with conviction while practicing mercy and hospitality. Policy makers, for their part, can institutionalize dialogical frameworks that encourage both scholarly research on comparative religion and grassroots initiatives such as intercultural schools, community centers, or dialogue councils.

Dialogical practices are not merely theoretical; they can be translated into action across diverse contexts. In conflict zones, joint humanitarian projects can build trust where words alone may fail. In secular democracies, interfaith forums and civic education can cultivate social cohesion without erasing religious identity. In religiously diverse classrooms, dialogical pedagogy—inviting students to share narratives, explore ethical commonalities, and learn through cooperation—can transform diversity from a source of tension into a resource for collective flourishing. Such applications illustrate the enduring relevance of al-Faruqi’s clarity and Gülen’s compassion when integrated into practical, lived frameworks for peace.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We would like to express our deepest appreciation and gratitude to all those who have provided support directly or indirectly in completion of this research. Our special thanks go to the Faculty of Islamic Studies, National University of Malaysia (UKM).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Ahmad Sunawari Long, Mohd Hatib Ismail & Zul`azmi Yaakob. (2022). Fethullah Gulen: Interfaith Dialogue as a Way to the Global Peace. International Journal of Islamic Thought 21 (June): 13-23.
2. Ayoub, M. (1992). Islam and Interfaith Dialogue: Theory and Practice. The Muslim World 82(3–4), 245–264.
3. Ba-Yunus, Ilyas (1988). Al Faruqi and Beyond: Future Directions in Islamization of Knowledge. American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences, 5(1), 13–28.
4. Ebaugh, H. R. (2010). The Gülen Movement: A Sociological Analysis of a Civic Movement Rooted in Moderate Islam. Springer.
5. al-Faruqi, I. R. (1982). Islamization of Knowledge: General Principles and Work Plan. International Institute of Islamic Thought.
6. al-Faruqi, I. R., & al-Faruqi, L. (1986). The Cultural Atlas of Islam. Macmillan.
7. Gülen, Fethullah.(2000). Essentials of the Islamic Faith. Fairfax, Virginia: The Fountain / The Light, Inc.
8. Gülen, F. (2004). Toward a Global Civilization of Love and Tolerance. Light Publications.
9. Kazeem, Akeem Olayinka. (2023). Tawhid as a Fundamental Element of the Islamic Worldview and Its Implications for Moral Thoughts and Values. IIUM Journal of Religion and Civilizational Studies 5(2), 158–176.
10. Lestari, Sri Hariyati. (2020). Islamization of Knowledge of Ismail Raji al-Faruqi in Typologies of Science and Religion. TA’LIM: Jurnal Studi Pendidikan Islam, 3(2), 128–140.
11. Mohammad, S. & Ismail Kadala Murutha (2022). Understanding Al-Fārūqī’s Methodology of Studying Religion. ‘Abqari Journal. 26, 1 (Apr.), 32–47. DOI:https://doi.org/10.33102/abqari.vol26no1.333.
12. Negara, Muhammad Adress Prawira & Hidayatullah, Rahmat. (2024). Rethinking Tawhid and Tolerance: A Theological Study of Fethullah Gülen in the Context of Plural Societies. Tashwirul Afkar, 43(1): 71–90. DOI: 10.51716/ta.v43i1.629
13. Pratt, Douglas. (2007). Islamic Prospects for Interreligious Dialogue: The Contribution of Fethullah Gülen. Muslim World in Transition: Contributions of the Gülen Movement House. London: SOAS.
14. Sharifi, M. (2014). Modern Islamic Thought in a Radical Age: Religious Authority and Internal Criticism. Cambridge University Press.
15. Yavuz, H. M. (1999). Towards an Islamic Liberalism?: The Nurcu Movement and Fethullah Gülen. Middle East Journal 53(3), 361–378.
16. Yavuz, M. H., & Esposito, J. L. (Eds.). (2003). Turkish Islam and the Secular State: The Gülen Movement. Syracuse University Press.
17. Yilmaz, I. (2005). State, Law, Civil Society and Islam in Contemporary Turkey. The Muslim World 95(3), 385–411.
18. Yılmaz, İhsan. (2007). Social Innovation for Peaceful Coexistence: Intercultural Activism from Rumi to Gülen. Journal for Islamic Studies 25(2), 45–65.
19. Yılmaz, İhsan. (2010). Civil Society and Islamic NGOs in Secular Turkey and Their Nationwide and Global Initiatives: The Case of the Gülen Movement. Journal of Regional Development Studies 13 115–130.
20. Yusuf, Imtiyaz. (2014). Ismail al-Faruqi’s Contribution to the Academic Study of Religion. Islamic Studies, 53(1/2), 99–115.