The claim that "a religious teacher should not get involved in politics"
Partly true
Claim
Fact
Kuytul does not deny that he speaks on political matters; on the contrary, he explains his reason openly. In his view religion is not a field that regulates acts of worship alone; it also has rulings concerning governance. "Since religion came in order to govern, how could I not enter politics?"
The real distinction comes after this: what he speaks on is not party politics.
"But this is not day-to-day politics; that is, what party A said about party B is not a matter that concerns me. In any case I support none of them."
The subjects he speaks on are concrete: decisions he believes have harmed the country, such as the invasion of Iraq, Syria policy and the downing of the Russian plane. He says he weighs these not with the mouth of a party but, in his own words, "through the window of the Qur'an".
He also has a counter-question: on television a footballer speaks about the country's agenda, and so does a singer. "You are a folk singer and you speak; my life has been spent in learning, and am I not to speak?"
Why this label, "Partly true"?
The part that is true is this: Kuytul speaks openly on political matters and has never hidden it. We do not deny this.
But this is not a fault. What the objection means by "politics" is party politics: asking for votes, defending a party, campaigning in an election. This is not the field Kuytul speaks in. Because the same name is given to two different things, it looks as though there is a contradiction; in fact there is none.
What does the objection actually say?
The sentence "a religious teacher should not get involved in politics" is less a criticism than a job description: a man of religion's business is acts of worship, while the course of the country and of the world concerns other people. Kuytul does not accept this description, and for years he has explained his reason for not accepting it without changing it.
"I am not a mosque imam"
The answer he gave to a question put to him on 27 January 2018 begins by rejecting this description. He says that he should not be expected to speak about forest week in the Friday sermon, and ties the reason to the scope of religion:
"Religion came in order to rule the world. To rule is to govern. Is that not what politics means as well?"
This is not a claim to a personal right but the claim that religion has rulings concerning governance. Whether those rulings really exist is taken up under a separate heading: the claim that "politics is not the business of a scholar of fiqh".
Which politics, and which not
This is the point the objection most often skips. Kuytul says in a single sentence that he stands outside day-to-day party disputes:
"But this is not day-to-day politics; that is, what party A said about party B is not a matter that concerns me. In any case I support none of them."
The matters he speaks on are concrete: the support given to America's invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Syria policy followed after 2011, the downing of the Russian plane. In all of them the measure is the same — objecting to decisions he believes have harmed the country and the Muslims. In the case of the Russian plane he says that the decision was a political mistake and that the state's having to apologise afterwards shows this.
The difference shows itself in practice too. A person who does party politics wants one side to win and adjusts their words accordingly; Kuytul's line, however, has not changed from one period to the next. The reaction he showed to the support given to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 belongs to eleven years before 2014, when conference halls began to be cancelled. That is, his objections are not the result of the obstruction directed at him but came before it.
The claim that this amounts to standing beside a party is under a separate heading as well: the claim that he is on the side of a party.
Which is the measure: the teacher or fiqh?
When he is told that he was right in his past assessments, he does not take the credit for it:
"The merit is not mine. The merit is in Islamic fiqh. When you keep to Islamic fiqh, you come to have a correct view."
The sentence matters for the claim, because it moves the argument from the person to the measure. Whether a view is correct is argued by looking at the evidence it rests on, not at the title of the one who says it.
"A folk singer has the right to speak, but a religious teacher does not?"
This is the practical answer to the same objection. On television a footballer speaks about the country's agenda, and so does a singer; no one calls them to account for going outside their field.
"You are a folk singer and you speak; my life has been spent in learning, and am I not to speak?"
The part that is true, the part that is not
The part that is true is simple: Kuytul speaks on political matters and has never concealed it. The part that is wrong is the counting of this speaking as party politics. The difference between the two is the difference between stating a conviction and doing a party's work. A useful measure comes out of this for the reader as well: whether a statement is party politics is understood not from its subject but from whether it serves one side's winning.
Nor does he see this as a duty belonging to himself alone:
"Religious teachers should set out their views concerning the state and the course of the country; because this is not my duty alone."