Claims About the Sunnah, Hadith and Ahl al-Sunnah
The claim that "he does not regard the sunnah as revelation and does not consider it binding"
Unfounded
Claim
Fact
This claim differs from the hadith argument with which it is often confused: there what is discussed is the reliability of the reports, here whether the sunnah binds. Alparslan Kuytul's answer of 11 April 2014 is the sharpest reply given to the approach that says "we came to this state because we followed the sunnah alongside the Qur'an":
"Let them fear Allah, what kind of a word is this? What kind of a crime is it to say 'we came to this state because we followed the sunnah alongside the Qur'an'?"
His grounds are verses of the Qur'an: the verses commanding that what the Prophet gives be taken, that what he warns against be avoided, and that the Prophet be obeyed. From these he draws a single question — how is obedience to be carried out in practice? His answer, in his own words: "It will be through obedience to the hadiths, through obedience to the sunnah." That is, once the sunnah is taken out of play, no field is left in which the verse commanding obedience could be applied.
What he says about the sunnah's being revelation is on record as well. In his answer of 26 April 2015 he recalls the verse stating that the Prophet does not speak from himself and that what he speaks is revelation; he makes this the ground for the ruling the Prophet lays down being binding.
He also describes what would happen if the sunnah were removed: everyone would give the Qur'an a meaning of their own, divisions would arise, and the ummah could not be united.
Related subjects: the claim that "he is a Quranist who says 'the Qur'an is enough for us'" and the claim that "he does not accept the authority to lay down rulings".
The two legs of the claim
Under this heading there are in fact two separate claims. The first is that the sunnah is not regarded as revelation, the second that the rulings the Prophet lays down are not considered binding. The detail of the second is under the heading the claim that "he does not accept the Prophet's authority to lay down rulings". The subject of this page is the objection directed at following the sunnah itself.
11 April 2014: how is the command to obey carried out?
The question put to Alparslan Kuytul was what attitude should be taken towards those who say "it is wrong to regard the sunnah as revelation and to follow the sunnah". The answer he gave is the sharpest sally he has made against this view. He meets in particular the words "we came to this state because we followed the sunnah alongside the Qur'an" with a heavy expression; for those words present the sunnah as responsible for the present condition of the Muslims.
He then sets out his grounds. The Qur'an commands that what the Prophet gives be taken and that what he warns against be avoided; it says "Obey Allah, obey the Messenger", and verses of this kind are not few in number. The conclusion he draws is this: if it is Allah Himself who commands obedience, then there must be a field in which that obedience is to be carried out — and that field is the hadiths, it is the sunnah. Once the sunnah is out of hand, there is no longer anything corresponding to the obedience the verse commands.
"They want to leave us without hadith"
He states the real target of the argument as well:
"These people want to leave us without hadith. Because the Qur'an needs the explanation of the hadiths."
This sentence turns the direction of the claim around. The man said not to regard the sunnah as binding is the one who stands against the effort to take the sunnah out of play.
The sunnah's being revelation
The first leg of the claim is met here. When he says that the Prophet's word is not the word of an ordinary human being, he again rests on the Qur'an: the Prophet does not speak from himself, and what he speaks is revelation. In his answer of 26 April 2015 he uses this measure as the ground for the binding force of the ruling the Prophet lays down. That is, in his answers the sunnah's being revelation is not a subject under discussion but a settled acceptance that appears as the ground of another ruling.
The difference matters. If a matter is under discussion, evidence for and against it is set out; if it is used as a ground, the one speaking has already accepted it. In Kuytul's answers the sunnah's being revelation belongs to the second group.
What happens if the sunnah is taken out of play?
At the end of the answer of 11 April 2014 he describes the practical consequence: if the sunnah is denied, the Qur'an cannot be understood, and moreover the Muslims cannot come to an understanding with one another. Everyone gives the verse a meaning according to their own understanding; because no common measure is left, divisions arise and unity cannot be built.
This is not a theoretical worry. Once the measure is gone, no authority is left to say which interpretation is correct either; everyone's own translation becomes their own evidence.
How is the claim tested?
For this claim to be true, one thing alone is needed: a dated recording of Kuytul saying that the sunnah is not binding. To this day no such recording has been produced. What has been produced all runs the same way: the answers of 11 April 2014 and 26 April 2015, and lessons on the Prophet's biography and the sunnah spread over years.
The burden of proof lies with the one who makes the claim. That not a single sentence can be produced while hundreds of hours of recordings are openly accessible is an answer in itself.
Related subjects: the "hadith denier" claim and the claim that "he is a Quranist who says 'the Qur'an is enough for us'".