The Claim That the Members of the Religious Community Are an "Unquestioning Herd"
Unfounded
Claim
Fact
The imputation looks to the same place in both disputes. In the period 12 April – 28 July 2016 the theologian Faruk Beşer spoke of the members of the Furkan Foundation as ignorant and witless, as a herd to be treated like animals. In August 2014 Orhan Göktaş, head of the Adana branch of Mazlumder, had written that sincere people were following him blindly.
In both texts there is not a single name. Thousands of people are spoken about, yet not one person, not one incident, not one record is produced. Ignorance is something that can be measured: it is said who does not know what. Following blindly can be measured too: it is shown who accepted what without asking. Neither was done.
What can be shown runs in the opposite direction to the imputation. There is madrasa work spread over years, educational activities reaching from secondary school to university, books, periodicals, conferences city by city, and a question-and-answer archive kept on record. To pass the verdict unquestioning where asking questions is the programme itself requires never opening that archive.
Kuytul did not answer in the same language. The only thing he recalled in his answer is that speaking about thousands of people without evidence is a trespass upon their rights.
What a person believes and why can be measured: the lesson they attended, the book they read, the question they asked is produced. A blanket epithet measures nothing; it only labels.
Another imputation coming out of the same article is on a separate page: the claim that those who questioned were driven away. A third subject coming out of the same two texts: the "he deceives people with religion" claim.
When the imputation was made, and by whom
August 2014 — the article entitled A Vanguard Generation or a Dead Generation? by Orhan Göktaş, head of the Adana branch of Mazlumder. There it was written that sincere people filled with love of Allah and of the Prophet were following such men, and that this was a blind attachment.
12 April – 28 July 2016 — the social media posts of the theologian Faruk Beşer. Here the language grows harsher still: ignorant, witless, a herd treated like animals.
Both texts take as their subject not one person but thousands at once. In neither is the name of any of those people mentioned.
The problem of proving a blanket epithet
The difference between speaking without evidence about one person and speaking without evidence about thousands is that the second cannot be taken back: it is not even clear in whose name an apology would be made.
And proving it would not be hard. For the claim of ignorance one example is enough: which matter, who, when. The same holds for the claim of blind attachment — a ruling accepted without being asked about is produced. In both texts, in place of this, there is only the epithet.
There is a problem of measure as well. Seen from outside, the same imputation could be framed for any group whatever: the voters of a party, the members of an association, the graduates of a school. An epithet that distinguishes nothing when applied to everyone says nothing when applied to a single group either; it does not describe that group but points at it.
The work that stands there
What can be set against the imputation is not a sentence but a list of activities:
- madrasa work spread over years,
- educational activities reaching from secondary school to university,
- books and periodicals,
- conferences held city by city,
- a question-and-answer archive kept on record and published.
The last item matters especially. Question-and-answer is a procedure in which a member of the community comes forward and asks why do you say this in that way, and the answer is recorded publicly. In a place where asking is forbidden, no such archive accumulates.
The same holds for the madrasa. Bringing a person up by teaching them for years and making them part of an unquestioning crowd are not the same operation; the second needs no lessons.
The answer Kuytul gave
The tone of the answer is not like the tone of the imputation. Instead of listing a defence on behalf of the members, Kuytul ties the matter to the notion of rights: the real difficulty facing a person who declares thousands of people ignorant and witless without seeing or knowing them is those people's rights.
The second point he adds concerns the measure. If not questioning is a fault, it is a fault for everyone. Accusing the members of a group of not questioning becomes consistent only by defending questioning everywhere. When the measure is applied to one side alone, what comes out is not a criticism but an imputation.
Why it is said so easily
The attraction of a blanket epithet is that it calls for no proof. Nor does it have anyone to answer it: no one can come forward and say I am not inside that herd, because it is not clear to whom it was said.
For this reason a sentence like this does not end the argument; it closes it before it begins. A criticism that has been named can be answered; an epithet that has not been named cannot.
The other subjects coming out of the same texts: the claim that those who questioned were driven away, the "he deceives people with religion" claim, the "he has people call him hocaefendi" claim.