The "He Has People Call Him Hocaefendi" Claim
Unfounded
Claim
Fact
The accusation appeared in August 2014, in the article titled A Vanguard Generation or a Dead Generation? by Orhan Göktaş, head of the Adana branch of Mazlumder. The article was published after Alparslan Kuytul had stated that he could not attend a press statement to be held for Gaza because of his schedule; the Furkan Foundation's reply is dated 7 August 2014. The article said that he has people call him hocaefendi, and this was counted as proof of arrogance.
There is no such request, encouragement or imposition. The title took hold 17-18 years before the article was written in 2014 — that is, in the second half of the 1990s — when some of the people around him began speaking this way of him in his absence, and it spread from there. In short, the side that uses the title and the side said to want it are not the same.
The form of address itself belongs to no one in particular either. In Turkey male religious teachers are called hocaefendi and female ones hocahanım; this is a tradition that has continued for centuries and is used today for countless teachers. Whoever does not want to say it does not say it, because it is not a word that can be extracted by force.
What would keep the accusation standing is clear: a sentence asking to be addressed this way, an instruction given, a form of address corrected. None of these are in the article. The existence of the form of address has been counted, on its own, as proof of an intention.
Yet a form of address is the choice of the one doing the addressing. Looking at how someone is addressed, one can say something not about that person but, at most, about the person addressing them.
The main accusation in the same article is on a separate page: the "an arrogant and unreachable person" claim. For the starting point of the dispute: the matter of not joining the joint Gaza action.
Why the article was written
The sequence matters. First comes a telephone invitation to a press statement to be held for Gaza. Alparslan Kuytul states that he cannot attend because of his heavy schedule. After this, Orhan Göktaş, head of the Adana branch of Mazlumder, publishes his article titled A Vanguard Generation or a Dead Generation?. The Furkan Foundation's reply bears the date 7 August 2014.
The first of the accusations listed in the article was that he has people call him hocaefendi. The subject of this page is only that sentence; the accusation of arrogance and the claim that those who questioned him were driven away are dealt with on separate pages.
Where the title came from
For this form of address there is no instruction given, no encouragement made and no rule laid down. The course of events set out in the foundation's reply is this: 17-18 years before the article was written in 2014, that is, in the second half of the 1990s, some of the people around him began to speak this way among themselves while he was not present; the usage spread from there.
This detail turns the direction of the accusation around. If a title came into being while people were speaking of the person it belongs to in their absence, what brought it into being is not that person's request but the choice of the people around them.
How forms of address work in Turkey
Hocaefendi is not an attribute peculiar to anyone, but a widespread form of address. In Turkey male religious teachers are called hocaefendi and female ones hocahanım; this has been so for centuries and is used today for teachers in circles very different from one another.
Therefore, to keep one person outside this form of address, a separate reason would have to be shown. No such reason is shown in the article; the form of address itself is counted as a fault. Besides, the form of address is not compulsory either: whoever does not want to say it does not say it, and no one can make anyone else say a word.
How does a form of address become evidence?
The hidden assumption of the accusation is this: how a person is addressed says something about that person themselves. If this assumption were correct, the source of the form of address would have to be shown as well.
The evidence that would make the accusation defensible is clear:
- a sentence or a piece of writing asking to be called this,
- a warning correcting someone who addresses him otherwise,
- an instruction making the form of address a rule.
None of these are in the article. The only thing put forward as evidence is that the form of address exists — that is, the thing that needs to be proved is presented as the proof.
The same measure works in reverse as well. If a person is to be held responsible for a form of address becoming widespread, then the responsibility for every word said about them, good or bad, must be loaded onto them too. This is a measure no one would accept; a word that comes out of other people's mouths is written on no one's record.
What followed the article, and the apology text
When the article drew reactions, Göktaş published an apology text. In it he says that he did not use the words he used with the intention of insult but that they were perceived that way; he apologises to the person the article was addressed to and to the readers who were disturbed by it.
The Furkan Foundation's reply stated that this text does not take back what was said and turns the matter into a question of perception. What we record here is that the apology exists and that this is its content; whether it is sufficient the reader decides for themselves.
Other headings arising from the same article: the "an arrogant and unreachable person" claim, the claim that the members of the religious community are a "herd", the "he deceives people with religion" claim.