The "Arrogant and Unreachable Person" Claim
Unfounded
Claim
Fact
The accusation belongs to August 2014. Orhan Göktaş, head of the Adana branch of Mazlumder, accused Alparslan Kuytul in his article entitled "A Vanguard Generation or a Dead Generation?" of being "a monument of arrogance" and of seeing himself as unreachable.
The incident the accusation rests on is a single one, and it stands plainly in the article itself: Göktaş issued a telephone invitation to a joint press statement to be held for Gaza, and Kuytul stated that he could not attend because of his heavy schedule. The article was published after this answer. The person who, at the time of the invitation, had been asked to say the prayer at the event was declared arrogant once he said he could not attend.
Arrogance is a condition seen by being at a person's side. Göktaş has never once come together with Kuytul or spoken with him. Against this, not even people who spent years at his side and later left for various reasons have voiced such an accusation. Where does someone who has never met him know a fault that a person who has left has not spoken of?
The person called "unreachable" eats at the same table as the members of the religious community, sits and talks with them, and plays volleyball and table tennis at suitable events.
The apology published after the reactions did not withdraw the accusations. It was said that the words were not written with intent to insult, only that they "were perceived that way". An accusation that is not withdrawn does not disappear with a sentence of apology.
The other two claims arising from the same article are under separate headings: the claim of indifference to the Palestinian cause and the claim of not joining the joint action.
After what event did the article appear?
In July 2014, while Israel's assault on Gaza was going on, a joint press statement was planned in Adana. Orhan Göktaş, head of the Adana branch of Mazlumder, invited Alparslan Kuytul by telephone and asked him to say the prayer at the event. Kuytul stated that he could not attend because of his heavy schedule.
After this answer the article entitled "A Vanguard Generation or a Dead Generation?" was published. The epithets listed for Kuytul in the article were these: "a monument of arrogance", "the disease of factionalism", "the disease of wanting to be a leader", "thinking himself unreachable and giving himself those airs", "assuming a mystical role", "having people stand before him with hands clasped".
The chronology is itself a piece of evidence. These epithets were not voiced before the invitation. If such an opinion of the person invited already existed, calling that person to the event and having him say the prayer is not consistent; and if the opinion arose after the invitation, its only cause is a failure to attend an event.
How is arrogance known?
Arrogance is a trait of behaviour; it can only be grasped from close up, seen again and again. Those in a position to pass this judgement on a person are the ones who spend time with them.
Göktaş has never once come together with Kuytul or spoken with him face to face. The only contact he has is a telephone invitation that was not accepted.
Those who were with him and those who left
The strongest answer to this claim comes from the most unexpected quarter. There are people who spent years at Kuytul's side and then left for various reasons. They are generally the ones who would use the heaviest expressions about a person.
No such accusation has come from them. A fault that people who shared the same place, the same table and the same work for years, and then parted ways, have not voiced is being claimed by someone who has never met him.
The daily life of the person called "unreachable"
The second half of the claim is that he keeps himself away from people, makes them stand up and has them stand before him with hands clasped. The answer to be given to this is not a claim but an observation: Kuytul eats together with the members of the religious community, sits and talks with them, plays volleyball matches at suitable events and plays table tennis.
This picture, which hundreds of people have seen for years, is one the person making the accusation has never seen.
"He has people call him hocaefendi"
This was one of the accusations in the article too. There has never been any such request, encouragement or imposition. The source of the usage is known: seventeen or eighteen years ago some of the people around him began speaking of him this way in his absence, and the expression spread from there.
What is more, in Turkey calling male religious teachers "hocaefendi" and female ones "hocahanım" has continued for centuries. The widespread use of an expression does not show that there is a person who wants it used. Whoever does not want to say it does not say it; it is not a word that can be extracted by force.
What did the apology take back?
When many people reacted to the article, Göktaş published a text of apology. The text states that the article did not carry the aim of smearing or discrediting, that no word was used with intent to insult, but that it "was perceived that way", and it apologises for this.
This is not a withdrawal of the accusations. The fault is sought not in the words but in those who understood them. It would be hard to say that the very same expressions would not have counted as insults had they been used about the author of the article.
For an apology to hold, the accusation has to be withdrawn. The sentence "you misunderstood" is a sentence formed while the accusation still stands in place.
What should the measure be?
The claim of arrogance is a claim that can be tested. Where it is to be tested is clear: a person's relations with those around them, the testimony of those who have left, their daily conduct, the time they give to people.
The evidence put forward, however, is none of these but a single invitation that was not accepted. Not being able to attend an event cannot carry a judgement about character.
The matter of not attending has been taken up under a separate heading: the claim of not joining the joint action.