The "He Says Tawhid but Divides the Muslims" Claim
Distorted
Claim
Fact
The accusation belongs to 2016: in the period 12 April – 28 July 2016, one of the items the theologian Faruk Beşer directed at Alparslan Kuytul was "saying tawhid while causing division".
Two concepts are being confused in that sentence. Tawhid is to affirm the oneness of Allah; it means recognising no authority besides Him and wanting His ruling to hold in His world. The name for the unity of Muslims among themselves, on the other hand, is not tawhid but wahdah. One looks to creed, the other to the relation of Muslims with one another. Kuytul's own definition runs the same way:
"When we say tawhid, we mean that there can be no authority besides Allah, and that in His world what He says must be what happens."
The second confusion is between criticism and tafriqa. Kuytul says that he approves of the things a political party does which he finds right, and that he criticises some of its domestic and foreign policies which he considers harmful to Islam and to Muslims. The accusation treats this criticism as breaking up the ummah.
Why this label, "Distorted"?
The part that is true is this: Kuytul really did criticise some of a political party's policies openly and loudly. We are not hiding this.
But criticism is not divisiveness. Tafriqa is to split Muslims into separate ranks in the name of religion and to cut the bond of brotherhood. Criticism, on the other hand, is asking that something found wrong be put right; its intention is not to separate but to mend. The distortion stands exactly here: a criticism is being reported as though it were tafriqa.
What was the accusation?
Between 12 April 2016 and 28 July 2016, one item on the list of accusations the theologian Faruk Beşer directed at Alparslan Kuytul was this: "saying tawhid while causing division." The sentence is short but it carries two claims nested inside each other. The first is that the words spoken and the work done do not match; the second is that the work done is dividing the Muslims.
The answer, too, must be looked for in two separate places: in the concepts, and in what political criticism is taken to be.
Tawhid and wahdah are not the same thing
Tawhid is a concept of creed: to affirm the oneness of Allah, to recognise no god besides Him. This is not confined to worship alone; it includes accepting that the authority to lay down rulings also belongs to Allah alone. This is the sense in which Kuytul uses it:
"When we say tawhid, we mean that there can be no authority besides Allah, and that in His world what He says must be what happens."
Wahdah, by contrast, is a social concept: the unity of the Muslims, the ranks not breaking up, the bond of brotherhood being kept. The two are connected — the ground of wahdah is tawhid — but they are not the same thing.
The sentence "you say tawhid but you divide" can only be constructed if these two words are taken to be synonyms. Tawhid is not a slogan calling for unity but an article of belief concerning the oneness of Allah. It is from here that the side using the name of a concept in the wrong place and the side defending that concept change places.
Where is the division actually being looked for?
The real subject behind the accusation is political criticism; the link is made openly in Kuytul's answer. He writes that he approves of the things the AK Party does which he finds right, but that he criticises some of its domestic and foreign policies which he considers harmful to Islam and to Muslims. According to the accusation, this criticism is "breaking up".
Here two very different things are put in the same scale:
- Tafriqa is to split Muslims into separate ranks in the name of religion and to cut the bond of brotherhood among them. This is what the Qur'an forbids when it commands, "hold fast, all together, to the rope of Allah, and do not become divided".
- Criticism is the saying aloud of the side of a matter that is found wrong. In Islam its name is nasihah; it is open to everyone, including the ruler, and when it is not done it counts as neglect.
The measure is not whom the word is said to but what it asks for: to separate, or to put right? Kuytul describes the aim of his own criticism as showing the way.
When we turn the measure around
If we accept the sentence "criticising a party is divisiveness", two consequences follow.
The first is that a party, not religion, moves to the centre of unity. What determines who is inside the ummah and who is outside becomes not the brotherhood of faith but a voting preference. Far from preventing tafriqa, this reproduces it along a political line.
The second is that the measure becomes applicable to everyone. Where the one who criticises is counted a divider, no political mistake can be voiced at all; everyone who asks for a wrong to be put right has first to defend themselves. The warning in Kuytul's answer follows from this: defending a party when it is in the right and keeping silent when it is in the wrong is fanaticism, and it puts an end to thinking.
Why this label, "Distorted"?
The side of the claim that is true is this: Kuytul openly criticised some of a political party's policies. Those criticisms are on record, they were not concealed, and they are not denied here either.
What is wrong is the place to which this criticism has been carried. A political criticism has been turned into a religious accusation of divisiveness. The distance between them is not small: the first is an opinion and can be discussed, the second is an accusation and one of the heaviest charges among Muslims.
The other subjects from the same period: the "Aggressive Person Who Incites the Young" claim and why was the call for a mutual imprecation made to Faruk Beşer?