Why Was the Call for a Mutual Imprecation Made to Faruk Beşer?
Distorted
Claim
Fact
The period of the dispute is known: 12 April – 28 July 2016. Throughout these three and a half months the theologian Faruk Beşer voiced a series of heavy accusations about Alparslan Kuytul and members of the Furkan Movement. Kuytul answered with not one word in all that time.
What broke the silence was the heaviest of the accusations: after the coup attempt of 15 July 2016, his being presented as "one end of the coup plotters". The statement he then wrote ends with a call for a mutual imprecation (mubahala).
The form of the call differs from what the claim describes. Kuytul frames the sentence for himself first:
"If I am one of these two things that Faruk Beşer says I am, may Allah wither me, my wife and my children."
He then asks for the mirror of the same sentence from the other side: that if his claims are wrong, he should accept the same price. That is, what is here is not a curse looking in one direction but a conditional and mutual invitation. Which side the curse goes to is determined not by the parties but by who is telling the truth.
Why this label, "Distorted"?
The part that is true is this: such a call really was made, its text is from Kuytul's own pen, and it is not denied.
But what is relayed is not what was done. The distortion lies in two places: it presents what is mutual and conditional as a one-sided and unconditional curse, and it makes no mention at all of the three and a half months of accusations that gave rise to the call.
The imputation that led to the call is dealt with on a separate page: the claim that he was "part of the coup project".
What happened over three and a half months?
Between 12 April 2016 and 28 July 2016 the theologian Faruk Beşer set out a series of accusations against Alparslan Kuytul and members of the community in his social media posts. According to the list Kuytul kept in his own answer, the main ones are these:
- acting according to dreams instead of the Qur'an and the sunnah,
- provoking his associates and bringing them out onto the streets,
- his being an idol and his members idolaters,
- saying tawhid while dividing the Muslims,
- deceiving people by means of religion,
- and finally being "one end of the coup plotters".
No answer came from the other side throughout that time. Kuytul later wrote the reason for his silence himself: he did not want the dispute to gladden the enemies of Islam.
What broke the silence?
The imputation of being "one end of the coup plotters", made after the coup attempt of 15 July 2016, in the days when tens of thousands of people were being taken into custody. This is not a difference of opinion but an accusation that could directly become a matter for the prosecutor's office; and what such an imputation meant in those days was plain to see. The only thing produced as evidence was an opinion.
In his answer Kuytul recalls the measure with a hadith: producing evidence falls to the side making the claim. A heavy imputation calls for evidence as heavy as itself.
What is mubahala, and how does it differ from a curse?
What is called "lanetleşme" in Turkish is named mubahala in the literature of fiqh and the Prophet's biography; its origin lies in verse 61 of Surat Al Imran. It is the praying together of two sides who have fallen into disagreement, asking for Allah's curse upon whichever of them is lying. Three features separate it from a curse:
- It is mutual. Not one side but both frame the same sentence.
- It is conditional. The curse hangs not on a person but on the condition "whoever is lying".
- It covers the one who makes the call as well. The side that is wrong in its claim has accepted in advance that it will pay the price itself.
The text of the call
Kuytul framed the sentence for himself first:
"If I am one of these two things that Faruk Beşer says I am, may Allah wither me, my wife and my children."
Then he asked for the same to come from the other side:
"If these claims of mine about Alparslan Kuytul are wrong, may Allah wither me, my wife and my children."
The two sentences carry word for word the same risk. This is exactly the difference between this and a curse one side utters against the other: here the one making the call takes the possibility of being wrong upon himself.
At the end of the piece Kuytul also states that he does not forgive what is owed to him for the insults directed at him and his associates, and writes that he leaves the matter to Allah.
Why this label, "Distorted"?
The true side of the claim is this: the call really was made. Its text was published, it was not hidden, and it is relayed here as it is.
What is wrong is the nature of the call and its place in the sequence. The sentence "he cursed him" shows a mutual invitation as a one-sided verdict; once the conditional clause is dropped, what is left is a curse one human being utters against another — whereas in the text the first sentence framed has Kuytul himself as its subject.
The sequence is turned around as well. The call is not the move that started the dispute but the answer that came at the end of three and a half months of accusations. When the starting point is shifted, the side that answers looks like the side that attacks.
The other two accusations of the same period are dealt with on separate pages: the "Aggressive Person Who Incites the Young" claim and the "He Says Tawhid but Divides the Muslims" claim. For the imputation that gave rise to the call itself: the claim that he was "part of the coup project".