Why is he against coups? The 15 July interview
Fact
This text is compiled from the sections of an interview given to the magazine Furkan Nesli in August 2016, about 25 days after the coup attempt of 15 July 2016, in which he sets out the grounds for his opposition to coups. It is not a response to a claim; it is the base text on which the other pages under this heading rest.
Alparslan Kuytul opposes coups on three separate grounds.
The first concerns rights and authority. Authority was given by society to those it elected. To point the weapons the people entrusted to the army at the elected is to take by force an authority that was never granted. In his own words: "Coups are injustice. And Islam is against injustice."
The second concerns how change comes about. The condition of a society does not change unless that society changes itself (Ra'd 11). For this reason the way to change the state is to persuade and raise people; change made with weapons is neither lasting nor in accordance with the law of social change that God has laid down.
The third concerns method. The prophets did not choose the path of seizing power and position and then staging a coup; they conveyed the message, they raised people, and at the end of that they established the state.
The interview also describes how the Furkan Movement showed its reaction to the coup: on the night of the coup a message was published stating that the coup was rejected; then a rally was sought, and when permission was not granted, a press statement in the manner of a rally was held on 21 July 2016.
When and where was this text spoken?
The interview was made in August 2016, about 25 days after the coup attempt of 15 July 2016, for issue 64 of the magazine Furkan Nesli. The sections below are compiled from the answer given to the first question, which asked how Islam views civilian and military coups.
1. A coup is a usurpation of authority
The first ground is built on rights and authority. It is society that gives authority; society appointed the elected, not the coup-makers. Pointing the weapon entrusted to the army at the elected means taking by force an authority that was never granted:
"To point the weapons the people have handed over to you at the elected is to take their rights and their authority out of their hands; it is usurpation."
From here Kuytul moves on to the definition of justice: in Arabic, justice means putting everything in its proper place, and giving everyone their due is a requirement of that (Nahl 90). The measure is not who the person whose right has been usurped is, or whether one shares his opinion.
At this point he recalls the alliance of Hilf al-Fudul, which the Prophet took part in during his youth, before prophethood. In Mecca, at the call of a foreign merchant who had sold his goods and could not collect his money, a group of Meccans gathered and swore that they would take the right of whoever suffered injustice from the oppressor, whoever that person might be. When the Prophet recalled this alliance in later years, he said that if such a call were made again in his own time he would take part once more. The conclusion Kuytul draws from this is: standing against injustice is a duty to be carried out without looking at the identity of the wronged.
2. The way to change the state is to change society
The second ground looks at the aim of the coup. Those who stage coups do so because they are not content with the existing order and want to bring it into the shape they want. In Kuytul's view this is contrary to the law of social change that God has laid down:
"According to the way of God, God changes what He has given to a society only when that society changes itself."
His basis is verse 11 of Surah Ra'd: the condition of a society does not change unless that society changes what is in itself. A practical conclusion follows from this. If you are disturbed by the administration, what is to be done is clear — you explain night and day, people become convinced that you are right, the support is withdrawn from the structure you do not approve of, and that structure goes of its own accord.
The other half of his criticism is here as well: choosing to hold a position within the state instead of explaining to people and raising them, and then attempting to obtain a result by force of arms. Kuytul sums this up in a single sentence:
"The way to change the state is to change society, not a coup."
3. It does not accord with the prophetic method
The third ground concerns method. Not one of the prophets seized power and positions and then chose the path of a coup:
"For this they made no concession from their religion; they conveyed the message, they educated people, and with them they established a state."
To this he adds the matter of compulsion: when God has not accepted even compulsion in religion, removing the elected from office by force of arms can have no religious ground.
How was the reaction shown?
The question "why did you not come out into the squares" is also asked in the interview. The answer has three stages: on the night of the coup a message was published stating that the coup was rejected; then a rally was sought, and when permission was not granted, a press statement in the manner of a rally was held on 21 July 2016. The distinction Kuytul underlines is this: the reaction was shown not in the name of democracy, but in the name of Islam and justice. This question is also dealt with on the page The claim that "he did not come out into the squares against the coup".
This page is not a response to a claim; it is the base text on which the other pages under the coup heading rest. For the full text of the statement made on the night of the coup: The claim that "he hoped for deliverance from the coup".