The "Enemy of Sufism" Claim

Unfounded

Claim

Alparslan Kuytul is against Sufism, he denies Sufism, he is an enemy of Sufism.

Claimed by: Some people and social media accounts that describe themselves as Sufi circles30 May 2015

Fact

The claim of enmity towards Sufism collapses with a single sentence: years ago Alparslan Kuytul gave close to thirty hours of lessons on Sufism, and in those lessons he set out that Sufism is a necessary branch of knowledge. The lessons are on record and are published.

What he rejects is not Sufism but words of the following kind, said in the name of Sufism:

"My sheikh sees everywhere, he knows everything, he knows what you are doing at this moment."

"God clothed Himself in flesh and bone and appeared as my sheikh."

The one who sees everywhere and knows everything is Allah; these attributes cannot be given to a human being. When Kuytul rejected these words, it was relayed as "he rejected Sufism". In his own words: "I did not reject Sufism, I rejected that deviant view."

The practice in the opposite direction is plain to see as well: the same name is the one who spread the sunnah of i'tikaf anew in Turkey and who put the morning and evening litanies, the supererogatory fasts and the tahajjud prayer into the community's programme.

In short, Sufism is defended not as something left in the past or set aside, but as a branch of knowledge that is necessary today as well.

There is another, separate claim that is often confused with this one: the claim that he is "against the Sufi orders". A Sufi order is one school within Sufism, and what is discussed under that heading is not the necessity of Sufism but where the structure of the Sufi order stands today.

What does he say about Sufism?

Kuytul's definition is short: Sufism is a branch of knowledge, just like tafsir, hadith and fiqh. Just as we learn the lawful and the forbidden from fiqh and the principles of belief from aqaid, so we learn the disciplining of the self, good character, the knowledge of Allah and the love of Allah from Sufism.

In the past this branch of knowledge was called zuhd or taqwa. The name "Sufism" comes from the root suf, which means wool in Arabic; those who entered this path were called "Sufis" because they wore garments of wool.

The comparison he uses often is this: Sufism is the petrol. A Muslim learns the morality of Islam, comes to possess taqwa, remembers Allah — and this is how they gather the energy needed to walk this road. One does not set out without taking on petrol.

So why is he called an "enemy"?

The point of distinction is here: sound Sufism and the superstitions that have mixed into it over time are separate things. Kuytul defends the first and rejects the second. To make this distinction is to give up treating everything wholesale — accepting everything is wrong, and so is rejecting everything.

In his own sentence: "You do not burn the quilt because you are angry at the louse." It would not be right to deny Sufism out of anger at an ignorant man who raises his sheikh to the station of Allah.

His answer to those who voice the claim is clear as well:

"If they told the man who says I am against Sufism to 'define Sufism', he could not define it. If they told him to speak about Sufism for 5 minutes, he could not speak for 3. Even though I have given 30 hours of lessons on Sufism, he calls me an enemy of Sufism."

Do the words and the practice match?

The easiest way to test a view is to look at that person's practice. Among the work carried on for years within the Furkan Foundation are these:

I'tikaf in Ramadan — for more than ten years it has been performed collectively in the mosques (the women in their homes); it played a leading part in this sunnah spreading anew in Turkey.
The morning and evening litanies.
The Monday-Thursday supererogatory fasts.
The duha, awwabin and tahajjud prayers.
A spiritual self-accounting table given so that everyone can keep track of their own spiritual state.

This is the programme of a movement said to be an enemy of Sufism.

Where does the distinction begin?

The only criticism Kuytul directs at Sufism is that it has closed in on itself. He says that over time Sufism has become "Sufism for the sake of Sufism", that people gather only for the remembrance of Allah and take an interest in no other matter. His objection is not to the remembrance but to the remembrance being counted as sufficient on its own:

"If you invite this young generation to nothing but the remembrance of Allah, will it be saved? Will the problems of this country be solved with that alone? There is no need to get angry at these things and deny Sufism."

The second half of the sentence is the place the claim leaves out. He himself drew the difference between criticism and denial, and even so his criticism was relayed as denial.

A proposal that can be tested

The answer he gives to this claim contains a measure of the kind that could close the argument: the person who says he is an enemy of Sufism is asked to define Sufism. The record of thirty hours of lessons stands on one side and the claim on the other — and to this day not a single record has been produced behind the claim.