The claim that "he did not come out into the squares against the coup"
Partly true
Claim
Fact
After the coup attempt of 15 July 2016, "democracy vigils" were held in the squares throughout July and August 2016. The Furkan Movement did not take part in these vigils; the claim is born from this.
It is true that they did not take part. But it is not true that they did not come out into a square.
On Thursday 21 July 2016, six days after the coup attempt, an anti-coup gathering attended by hundreds of people was held in Adana. Permission had been sought for a rally, and when it was refused the same programme was turned into a press statement held in the manner of a rally. Alparslan Kuytul spoke there for about half an hour.
In Kuytul's own words:
"Is being against coups expressed only by coming out into the squares? We were going to hold a rally and they did not allow it, so we held a press statement in the manner of a rally."
Why is this labelled "Partly true"?
The part that is true is this: they did not join the democracy vigils, and they never concealed it. Their objection was not to opposing the coup but to the protest being called a "democracy vigil" — they say their own criterion is not democracy but Islam.
But this is not a failing. Choosing under what name a protest will be made does not abolish the existence of that protest. Within the same week they held their own gathering in a public square and stated their reason openly. That is exactly where the claim goes wrong: it presents a choice of idiom as though it were a failure to oppose the coup.
21 July 2016: the rally that was refused, the gathering that was held
Six days after the coup attempt, on Thursday 21 July 2016, the Furkan Education and Service Foundation organised an anti-coup gathering in Adana. An application was first made for a rally, and permission was not granted. The same programme was thereupon turned into a press statement held in the manner of a rally, and it took place with hundreds of people attending. Alparslan Kuytul addressed the crowd for about half an hour.
What did the signs in the square say?
Photographs of the gathering are on record, and the placards carried there largely settle the argument: "We are against coups", "Coups cannot stop Islamic work", "A coup is oppression, we are against oppression". The banner reads: "The men of the Furkan Movement are in the squares against coups."
The protest did not begin on 21 July
This gathering was not a belated or one-off gesture. The order is as follows: when the coup attempt was reported on the night of 15 July 2016, Kuytul said in a live broadcast that he did not consent to the coup; about three hours later the first written message rejecting the coup was shared; and on 21 July 2016 the gathering in the square was held.
That is, the claim that "he did not come out into the squares" takes as its subject a single link in a chain of protest at most a week long — and, what is more, a link that did take place.
Objection to what?
The protest in the squares had been named "the democracy vigil", and those who lost their lives there "martyrs of democracy". This is the point at which Kuytul parts company: not with opposition to the coup itself, but with the grounds on which it was voiced.
"If we are against coups, it is not because democracy is against coups but because Islam does not permit this. Our criterion is Islam."
That is, the coup is objected to, but the ground given for the objection is not democracy but Islam and justice. This is a difference of grounds; it has nothing to do with whether the protest existed.
The second reason
The second reason Kuytul gives is practical: that in those days the squares had taken on the appearance of the election ground of a political party, and that there was a possibility of tension arising there. He says he thought that going there together with his own congregation might lead to an incident. You do not have to agree with this assessment; but it does not support the sentence "he was not against the coup".
Opposition to coups does not belong to that week alone
In an interview given in August 2016, about twenty-five days after the coup attempt, the reasons for rejecting coups were set out in detail: a coup is the seizure by force of arms of the authority of those who were elected; it is contrary to the law of social change; and the order established after every coup has first restricted Islamic work and then banned it. For the subject as a whole: the claim that "he hoped for deliverance from the coup".
Why do we not say "Unfounded"?
We could have. The sentence "he did come out into a square, here are the photographs of 21 July 2016" can be written, and it would be true.
But what the person making the claim usually means is not that gathering but the democracy vigils — and it is true that they did not attend those vigils. To pass over this and say "wholly unfounded" would be to keep information from the reader.
That is why the label is "Partly true". The part that is true is an openly defended choice about the name and the grounds under which a protest would be made. The part that is false is the presenting of that choice as a failure to oppose the coup.