Does Alparslan Kuytul Support ISIS?
Unfounded
Claim
Fact
The accusation began circulating in the media after the dawn operation of 30 January 2018: Kuytul and the Furkan Foundation were linked at one and the same time with four separate terrorist organisations hostile to one another, ISIS among them.
The calendar says the opposite of the claim. Years before the accusations, on 15 February 2014, when he was asked about ISIS, Kuytul assessed it as follows:
"Another version of al-Qaeda, that is, its appearance under a different name. As far as we can see, rather than fighting Bashar al-Assad they are fighting the Muslim groups there."
On 23 August 2014 he assessed the organisation's coming into being out of nothing within a year by saying "there are deep forces behind it", and described this as a trap: zones of conflict are set up, sincere young people are drawn there and destroyed there.
His only connection with ISIS is this: his name appears on the death list in the magazine the organisation published on the internet. Following the threats he received for criticising the organisation, members of the police came to him and asked whether he wanted protection.
The official letter in the 2018 file points in the same direction: it was recorded that Kuytul "did not consider it right to go to zones of conflict", and it was reported that "no connection of the foundation with any terrorist organisation could be found".
His position on armed jihad is older than the claim
The answer he gave on 30 May 2010, when he was asked about the kinds of jihad, lays the ground for the whole later debate: jihad is waged with wealth, with knowledge and with preaching as well, not by the sword alone. The position of Muslims today is the work of the religious community, education and preaching — "nothing is going to be achieved with a gun or a knife."
He repeated the same position on 15 February 2014, when it was said that the religious community supported armed organisations: "From the beginning we have been saying that this cannot be done with weapons. Leave Turkey aside; for two and a half years I have been explaining that it should not have been like this even in Syria."
What he said about ISIS in 2014
His assessment of the organisation comes down to two points. The first is whom it fights: in his own words, ISIS is fighting the Muslim groups in the region rather than Bashar al-Assad. The second is where it came from:
"Until a year ago nobody knew of such a thing. It appeared all of a sudden and is sweeping away the whole of Iraq and Syria. Is such a thing possible?"
The conclusion he draws from this is that the United States sets up zones of conflict in order to be rid of Islamists, and draws sincere young people there and destroys them there. That is, he sees a young person taking up arms not as a victory but as a trap that has been laid. This view was stated in 2014, four years before the date on which the accusations reached the media.
How was the connection attempted?
Two routes were tried. The first was that the names of people who had come to the lessons years earlier and had left the religious community because they did not approve of his stance against armed jihad — some of them even spoke against him afterwards — were presented as evidence. These people had left not because they remained in the community, but on the contrary because they did not share this view.
The second was a link built through a person who had attended the talks. When Kuytul was asked about this, the answer he gave was short:
"If they attended our talks, what is that to me! Both our stance and our view are clear. How many times have we made statements about ISIS up to now; our view is clear, and it is clear too that it has threatened us with death, everyone knows this."
There is no need to hide this point, because it is written in the official document as well: in the TEM–MİT correspondence there is a record that "some individuals holding a salafi/takfirist understanding and connected with zones of conflict also showed interest" in the foundation's talks. But the continuation of the same sentence is the part that whoever wishes to keep the claim standing does not use: it was reported that "no connection of the foundation with any terrorist organisation could be found". A speaker does not choose who comes to a talk that is open to everyone; what they choose is what they say there.
The only connection with ISIS: the death list
Because he criticised the organisation he received threats from ISIS many times, and his name appears on the death list in the magazine the organisation published on the internet. Following these threats, members of the police asked him whether he wanted protection. Even a member of ISIS who said in their police statement that they had come to Adana to assassinate Kuytul was reported in some outlets in July 2018 as "Kuytul's student"; this claim is taken up on a separate page.
What was left in the 2018 file?
In the file opened with the operation of 30 January 2018, Kuytul was linked at one and the same time with four separate terrorist organisations hostile to one another. In the records of TEM, MİT, KOM and the Directorate General of Foundations no connection with any organisation was found. While the indictment was being prepared, the prosecutor's office withdrew the charge of "membership of a terrorist organisation"; only "propaganda for a terrorist organisation" remained in the file. Kuytul's objection to this is a single sentence: why would a person who is not a member make propaganda for an organisation?
The general accusation that is the root of this claim is on the page the claim that he is a takfirist. His position on armed jihad is taken up separately on the page the claim that he advocated armed jihad, and the question of who came to the talks on the page the claim that salafi and takfirist individuals attended his talks.