Claims About the Coronavirus and the Prayer Bans
The "He Used the Friday Prayer Objection as a Political Tool" Claim
Distorted
Claim
Fact
The period under discussion is March-May 2020: congregational prayer in mosques and Friday prayer were stopped on 16 March 2020, and Friday prayer began to be performed again on 29 May 2020. Kuytul's objection belongs between these two dates, and its frame is jurisprudential from beginning to end.
The rule he relied on is this: if an obligatory act of worship can be carried out by taking a number of precautions, then taking those precautions and carrying out that obligation is itself obligatory; giving it up can be spoken of only when no other remedy at all remains. In his own words: "The matter may perhaps have political dimensions, but I looked at it first of all not from the political side but from the scholarly and jurisprudential side."
The first proof that the objection was not political is its limit. He showed no similar reaction to the five daily prayers not being performed in the mosque, and he stated his reason openly: the five daily prayers can be performed at home, and the home too is a place of congregation. Friday prayer, on the other hand, is not performed at home. Anyone looking for a political opening would not draw such a distinction; they would choose the widest ground.
The second proof is the suggestions themselves: masks, one metre of distance, temperature checks at the entrance, everyone bringing their own prayer rug, a very short sermon with the sunnah prayers not performed, and a Friday prayer that ends in ten minutes. These are the same as the measures actually applied when the mosques opened on 29 May 2020.
If the measure proposed weeks earlier and the measure applied in the end are the same, what stands here is not an act of worship used as a political tool but a jurisprudential objection voiced early.
Why this label, "Distorted"?
The side of the claim that is true: Kuytul did not speak of jurisprudence alone; he tied the opening of the mosques on 29 May 2020 to the opening of tourism, and he also criticised the fatwa of the Directorate of Religious Affairs.
Why this is not a fault: To discuss the grounds of a decision is not to turn an act of worship into a tool of opposition. The order is plain to see: first the ruling, then the comment.
Which period is being discussed?
Every sentence on this page belongs to the period between 16 March and 29 May 2020. On 16 March 2020 congregational prayer in mosques and Friday prayer were stopped; on 29 May 2020 Friday prayer began to be performed again, in open areas and with precautions in place. Both Kuytul's objection and the answer given to that objection are matters of this two and a half month interval.
The rule: giving up an obligation is the last resort
The whole of the objection rests on a single rule of jurisprudence. If an obligatory act of worship can be carried out by taking a number of precautions, then taking those precautions is obligatory as well. Giving it up comes onto the agenda only when no remedy remains. Kuytul's claim is that this point had not been reached in the case of Friday prayer: precautions that could have been taken were available, and they were not applied.
He explains the difference between prayer and the other acts of worship within this same frame: fasting can be postponed while travelling and in illness, the pilgrimage is bound to conditions, but prayer does not fall away while travelling, or in illness, or in war.
The limit of the objection: why Friday prayer alone?
This is the point the claim skips most often. Kuytul did not run a similar campaign against the five daily prayers not being performed in the mosque:
"If you have noticed, I have not said very much about the five daily prayers, because the five daily prayers can be performed at home as well; at home too you can form a congregation with your own family."
This distinction is no coincidence; it is the frame itself. The home is a place of congregation for the five daily prayers; Friday prayer, on the other hand, is not performed at home, and being together in a group is required for it to be carried out. Someone who wanted to use the matter as political ground would build their objection on the widest area, not the narrowest — saying "the mosques have been closed" would have found an echo far more easily than saying "Friday prayer has not fallen away in jurisprudence".
The measures he proposed, the measures that were applied
What Kuytul set out as to how Friday prayer might be performed is this:
- the wearing of masks,
- the leaving of one metre of distance in the rows,
- disinfectant and temperature checks at the entrance,
- everyone bringing their own prayer rug,
- the sunnah prayers being performed at home, the sermon being kept very short,
- the prayer being finished within ten minutes.
The measures applied when the mosques opened on 29 May 2020 are in practice this list. Kuytul performed that Friday prayer in the courtyard of the mosque, and he himself recounted the disinfectant queue and the temperature check at the entrance. If a suggestion has, months later, become the official practice itself, it becomes hard to call that suggestion "using an act of worship as a political tool".
Did he say nothing at all about politics?
He did — and there is no need to hide it. He tied the mosques being opened on 29 May 2020 rather than 12 June not to a scientific ground but to the general loosening that came with the opening of the tourism sector on 1 June 2020. He also openly criticised the fatwa of the Directorate of Religious Affairs on the giving up of Friday prayer.
But this is not what the claim sets up. To discuss the grounds of a decision and to make an act of worship into a tool of opposition are not the same thing. Kuytul's order is clear: first the ruling, then the comment.
"I am first of all a Muslim and after that a religious teacher. My way of looking at the matter is first of all in the scholarly sense."
Where exactly is the distortion?
The claim puts three things in place of one another: it presents a jurisprudential objection as if it were a political move, a proposal of precautions as if it were hostility to precautions, and criticism directed at the grounds of a decision as if it were the exploitation of an act of worship. When you separate the three, the sentence that remains is this: an obligatory prayer that could have been performed with precautions in place was given up without precautions being taken.
There are two further related headings: The Claim That He Said "Taking Precautions Is a Betrayal of Islam" and the claim that he did not take the epidemic seriously.