Claims About the Sunnah, Hadith and Ahl al-Sunnah
The claim that "he does not accept the Prophet's authority to lay down rulings"
Unfounded
Claim
Fact
The claim is that the Prophet's authority to lay down a ruling on a matter for which there is no ruling in the Qur'an — the authority of the Shari', as it is called in the language of fiqh — goes unrecognised. The question was put to Alparslan Kuytul directly, and his answer was published on 26 April 2015. From its first word the answer leaves no room for hesitation:
"Of course our Prophet has the authority to lay down rulings."
The closing is just as clear: "If he lays down a ruling on a matter, that ruling binds us."
He rests his view not on his own opinion but on verses of the Qur'an. He recalls the verse stating that the Prophet declares impure things forbidden and pure things permitted: the act of forbidding is attributed to the Prophet in the Qur'an itself. That this opens no door to arbitrariness he states with a second measure — the Prophet does not speak from himself; what he speaks is revelation.
A week earlier, on 19 April 2015, in the conference "The Prophet as a Model" that he gave in Konya, he also traces the scope of that authority: whether the Prophet lays down a ruling as head of state, as head of a family or as commander of the army in war, obedience admits of no exception. His task, he says, is not merely to recite the book but tabyin, that is, to explain it; once the task of explaining is accepted, the binding force of the explanation follows of itself.
In his own comparison: "The Qur'an is Allah's project, and the engineer who is to carry it out is the Messenger of Allah."
What is before us, then, is not an authority that has been rejected but one that has been accepted together with its grounds, and whose recording is still published.
A closely related subject in the same group: the claim that "he does not regard the sunnah as revelation and does not consider it binding".
What exactly does the claim say?
According to the claim, Alparslan Kuytul does not accept the Prophet's authority to lay down a ruling on a matter for which there is no explicit ruling in the Qur'an. In the language of fiqh this authority is called Shari'. The question looks technical, but its consequence is large: if this authority is not recognised, a great many subjects whose ruling is established by the sunnah alone are left without foundation.
The answer of 26 April 2015
The question was put to him in exactly this form: does the Prophet have the authority to lay down a ruling on a matter that is not in the Qur'an? The first sentence of his answer leaves no margin for interpretation:
"Of course our Prophet has the authority to lay down rulings."
His final sentence is equally clear: "If he lays down a ruling on a matter, that ruling binds us."
The two measures he relies on
The first is the verse stating that the Prophet declares impure things forbidden and pure things permitted. The conclusion Kuytul draws from it is plain: attributing the act of forbidding and permitting to the Prophet shows that the Qur'an itself recognises this authority.
The second is the verse stating that the Prophet does not speak from himself and that what he speaks is nothing but revelation. Without this measure the first verse would remain open to arbitrariness; with it, the source of the ruling laid down is understood to be revelation as well. In his own words: "The Prophet's speaking is not like our speaking."
To these he adds the verse "Whatever the Messenger gives you, take it; and whatever he forbids you, abstain from it." What the command addresses is not the text of the Qur'an alone but everything the Prophet gives and everything he warns against.
The Konya conference: the scope of the authority
The conference "The Prophet as a Model", which he gave in Konya on 19 April 2015, carries the subject beyond a single question and answer. There he explains that the Prophet is a model not in the field of worship alone but in every capacity he took on:
- the rulings he laid down as head of state,
- the rulings he laid down as head of a family,
- the rulings he laid down as commander of the army in war.
The emphasis comes at the end of the list: "whatever the matter may concern, we are obliged to obey him. Allah, mighty and majestic, makes no exception whatsoever." The discussion, then, is not about "in which field it binds"; what is being said is that it binds without exception.
Is the task to recite or to explain?
In the same conference he takes up a second point. The Qur'an gives the Prophet the task of explaining the book to people. Working from this, he says that the Prophet's duty does not consist of reciting the verses alone but includes tabyin, that is, the task of explaining.
This distinction falls exactly on the heart of the claim. The moment the task of explaining is accepted, the binding force of the explanation is accepted with it; for without the explanation there is no applicable form of the text at all. Kuytul sums this up with a comparison:
"The Qur'an is Allah's project, and the engineer who is to carry it out is the Messenger of Allah."
What is left?
The claim says that an authority is rejected. In the recording there is the acceptance of that authority, its grounds and its scope. What is more, the answer is not a defence produced after the claim came up: it was published on 26 April 2015, and the audio recording has been in place ever since.
Related subjects in the same group: the claim that "he does not regard the sunnah as revelation" · the claim that "he does not give the Prophet and the sunnah the importance they deserve".