The claim that he declared those who vote unbelievers
Unfounded
Claim
Fact
Two separate things are being confused here: Kuytul's not voting himself and his declaring those who vote to be unbelievers. The first is true and has not been hidden; the second never happened.
When he was asked about it, the answer he gave was this:
"I have never called those who vote unbelievers. On the contrary, I said 'do not call them unbelievers, do not talk like this'. Yes! We do not vote."
So not only did he not pass the judgement alleged, he also openly warned those who did pass it.
His criterion is intention. If a person thinks that voting for a particular party will be more useful for Islam, Kuytul says that this intention has to be taken into account:
"Whatever a person does with the aim of serving Islam, they do not become an unbeliever."
The boundary he draws right after this sentence is just as clear: such a person can be told "you are doing this wrong", can be told "that is no way to serve", can even be told "this is a sin" — but they cannot be called an unbeliever. The difference between finding an act wrong and counting the one who does it as having left the religion is the subject of this entire page.
Nor is the difference a matter of fine detail. To call a person an unbeliever is to put them outside the circle of the religion and to do away with the brotherhood between Muslims. That is exactly why Kuytul has opposed takfirism for years.
For the general form of the same topic: the claim that he is a takfirist.
How is the claim constructed?
The starting point of the claim is a piece of correct information: Kuytul does not vote in elections and has never hidden this. The inference drawn from it, however, is wrong — "if he does not vote, he must be counting those who do vote as unbelievers."
There is a difference of judgement between not choosing something for oneself and counting the one who does it as having left the religion. The claim breaks down at exactly the point where it joins these two steps together.
He states his own choice in a single sentence inside that very answer: "Yes! We do not vote." No view is being hidden. What has been added is the second step, the one that comes after that sentence and does not belong to him.
His own answer
He has been asked the same question many times. His answer is both clear and the opposite of the claim:
"I have never called those who vote unbelievers. On the contrary, I said 'do not call them unbelievers, do not talk like this'."
So what is there is not merely a defence of "I passed no such judgement"; there is a stance that openly warns those who declare others unbelievers. The record of that stance is not new either; it goes back years.
Why is intention the criterion?
Kuytul says that what the person who votes is thinking has to be taken into account. If someone thinks "if I vote for a particular party, perhaps it will be more useful for Islam" and sincerely believes this, that intention cannot be disregarded when the judgement is passed:
"Whatever a person does with the aim of serving Islam, they do not become an unbeliever."
This sentence stands directly opposite the takfirist understanding. The takfirist current looks at the act and passes judgement; Kuytul says that judgement cannot be passed without taking intention into account.
Three separate judgements: wrong, sin, unbelief
Here lies the real issue of the page. The things that can be said about a piece of behaviour are not all of one layer:
- Wrong — the method is mistaken, it does not give the benefit expected of it.
- Sin — it is objectionable in religion, and the person answers for it.
- Unbelief — the person is no longer counted as a Muslim.
Kuytul accepts that the first two can be said about voting, and openly rejects the third. The claim, on the other hand, relays the first two layers by turning them into the third. The difference between them is not a small nuance; in the one a choice is criticised, in the other a person is put outside the circle of the religion.
Who was it that wanted this sentence from him?
The interesting side of this claim is that a circle exists which expected precisely this sentence from Kuytul. What he says when he describes the takfirist individuals who came to the talks and tried to influence young people is this:
"The one who goes into the army is supposedly an unbeliever, the one who becomes a police officer is supposedly an unbeliever, the one who votes for parties is supposedly an unbeliever! Everyone is an unbeliever, they alone are Muslims. We have not been among these people, and we will not be."
That is, the sentence "whoever votes is an unbeliever" is not a sentence of his own but one that others wanted to make him say and that he rejected. He also said that those who wanted it had no need to go on attending his talks.
How many times has it been explained?
The answer has been standing in the same place for years; the claim, too, goes on being repeated. Kuytul's last sentence on the subject is precisely this: "Even though I have explained this so many times, such slanders are still being made."
Why the ruling of takfir is a question of competence, and why he opposes takfirism, is on a separate page: the claim that he is a takfirist. For the other half of the same sentence: the claim that he declared those who go into the army, police officers and civil servants to be unbelievers.