The "On the Same Line as the Gülen Community" Claim

Unfounded

Claim

Alparslan Kuytul and the Furkan Foundation are on the same line as the Gülen community; they defend the same ideas and walk the same path.

Claimed by: A claim widely circulated on social media (no single specific name is given)4 February 2016

Fact

The claim collapses on the central question of the two lines. In his assessment dated 4 February 2016, Alparslan Kuytul read out from the newspaper the interview Fethullah Gülen gave to the Asharq al-Awsat newspaper published in England, and objected to its arguments one by one.

The headings he objected to are these:

the community defining itself not as a structure founded according to religion, but as one that merely draws inspiration from religion;
democracy and secularism being counted as an order compatible with Islam;
the view that if people can live their religion freely there is no need to work for an Islamic state;
the distance kept from the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and from Iran;
98 per cent of religion being held to consist of spirituality, morality and worship.

According to Kuytul these items have the same common denominator: the setting aside of the social and legal dimension of Islam. He puts the distinction in his own words as follows: "And this is precisely the difference between the religious communities. Is an Islamic state required or not?"

Nor did this criticism begin in 2016: the video statement dated 20 February 2014 also discussed where that same line leads.

What lies between them is not a difference of style but an opposition on the main question. If one side finds unnecessary the goal that the other counts as its reason for existing, the two structures cannot be called on the same line.

There is another, separate claim often mentioned together with this one: the "He criticised Gülen only after 15 July" claim. What is discussed there is not the content of the views but the date of the criticism.

Which document, which date?

Asharq al-Awsat is a newspaper published in England in Arabic and English; its name means the Middle East, which in Turkish is Ortadoğu. The paper conducted an interview with Fethullah Gülen, and Alparslan Kuytul, who was asked for his view of that interview, answered point by point in his assessment dated 4 February 2016, reading the interview out from the newspaper. The headings below are a summary of that answer.

The crux: is an Islamic state necessary?

The most decisive argument in the interview is this:

If people in a country can live their religion freely, can found their institutions, can teach their religion to their children, can voice their religious demands in a manner compatible with the law and with democracy, then there is no need for these people to try to found a religious or an Islamic state.

From the Asharq al-Awsat interview; in the form in which it was conveyed in the assessment dated 4 February 2016, abridged.

Kuytul's objection begins here. In his view a part of Islam's rulings is individual — prayer, fasting, morality — but another part, extending from trade to interest and from marriage and divorce to criminal penalties, can be applied only at the level of the state. The removal of what is forbidden also belongs to this second group. The sentence that religion is lived freely therefore appears true only when religion is understood as worship and morality alone.

Democracy and secularism

The interview says that it is wrong to see Islam and democracy as opposed to each other. Kuytul does not deny that there is a resemblance; he gives freedom of opinion as an example. But he recalls that freedom of opinion in Islam is limited and does not operate in the field where the Qur'an and the Sunnah have laid down a ruling. In his view, looking at a few shared parts and counting the two orders as the same is like treating a bicycle and an aeroplane as one because both have steering and wheels. He accepts that democracy may leave a Muslim more room than other orders do; his objection is to its being held identical with Islam.

Drawing inspiration from religion and being founded according to religion

In the interview the community is defined as a structure that draws inspiration from religion but whose projects are entirely in harmony with universal human values. Kuytul reads this definition as a displacement of the criterion: the criterion is no longer religion but human values. His own finding is plain — the prophets put forward not a humanistic but an Islamic movement.

The Muslim Brotherhood and Iran

In the interview the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is accused by implication of not having regard, while seeking power, for the sentiments of every section of society; the coup, on the other hand, is not condemned. Kuytul analyses this as follows: the Brotherhood is Sunni, is not an armed movement and has killed no one; Iran, on the other hand, is Shia. The reason for the distance kept from both cannot be denomination, because their denominations differ. They have a single point in common: both defend the idea of an Islamic state.

The "98 per cent of religion" description

In the interview 98 per cent of religion is summarised as spirituality, morality, servanthood, worship, tolerance and the giving of glad tidings. According to Kuytul this description makes the remaining part look negligible. He gives two answers. The first is a question of measure: according to Ramadan al-Buti's finding, once acts of worship are set aside, two thirds of religion concerns the state. The second is a question of function — the hand and the foot make up half of the body, and if they are cut off a person lives; the heart does not weigh half a kilo, but if it is removed they do not live. The weight of a ruling is measured not by the space it occupies but by the work it does.

How long has the criticism existed?

2016 is not the only date. The video statement dated 20 February 2014 also discussed where that same line leads; that the criticism did not begin after 15 July 2016 is taken up with its dates under a separate heading. In the 2016 text Kuytul also lists the mistakes that ought really to be discussed: making Islam moderate, interfaith dialogue, the Turkish Olympiads, and the closeness established with the United States and Israel.

Why is the claim unfounded?

Being on the same line requires standing in the same place on the main question. Here the two stand in opposite places: one side counts it sufficient for religion to be lived individually within a democratic order, the other holds the application of Islam's social and legal rulings to be the real goal. Nor is this distinction one that was kept hidden and remembered afterwards; it has published dates. The claim is a sentence built for a reader who is unaware that this record exists.