Claims About the Sunnah, Hadith and Ahl al-Sunnah
The "Hadith Denier" Claim
Unfounded
Claim
Fact
The claim says that Alparslan Kuytul rejects the hadiths. Yet the recording available on this subject is one that criticises hadith denial. In his answer of 10 September 2008 he describes the aim of this current as follows:
"The fundamental aim of these people is in fact to make the Qur'an impossible to understand. Because without the sunnah we cannot understand the Qur'an."
His reasoning is concrete: the Qur'an does not explain how the prayer is to be performed, from which property and in what amount zakat is to be given, or the details of fasting and the hajj; it leaves these to the sunnah. If the sunnah is taken out of play, the wording of the verse remains but its ruling becomes impossible to grasp.
Nor does he treat the existence of fabricated reports as a reason for denial. In his view the solution is not to reject them all at once but to turn to the hadith scholars who carried out that sifting centuries ago. His question in the same answer is precisely this:
"In every matter the person who does not know asks someone who does and trusts the experts. Why do they not ask the hadith scholars in this matter too?"
He openly opposes the attitude that does not trust the hadith scholars and the jurists, naming Imam al-Bukhari and Imam Muslim one by one. What is before us, then, is not someone who distrusts hadith but someone who argues that a hadith the hadith scholars regard as authentic is evidence.
There are two further subjects often confused with this claim: the "Quranist" claim and the claim that "he does not regard the sunnah as revelation".
What does the claim say?
According to the claim, Alparslan Kuytul rejects the hadiths and does not regard the sunnah as evidence in the way the Qur'an is. The one thing those who voice the claim have never been able to produce is a single sentence of his to that effect. His answers in the opposite direction, by contrast, are recorded and dated.
Why can the Qur'an not be understood without the sunnah?
This is the core of his answer of 10 September 2008. The Qur'an, and the part of it concerning legal rulings in particular, cannot be understood without knowing the Prophet's explanations. The examples he gives are acts of worship that everyone encounters every day:
- The Qur'an commands the prayer but does not explain how it is to be performed.
- From which property and in what amount zakat is to be given is not written in the Qur'an.
- What does and does not break the fast, and how the hajj is to be performed, are likewise left to the sunnah.
For this reason he does not regard making the sunnah contentious as an innocent debate about method. The result is this: the wording of the verse stays in place while its ruling disappears.
Identifying the aim
The most striking part of the answer is his reading of the intention behind hadith denial: this approach aims to create a general scepticism towards the sunnah, so that no one trusts hadith at all. The issue, in other words, is not the soundness of individual reports but trust in the science of hadith transmission itself.
What is to be done if there are fabricated hadiths?
The justification hadith denial uses most is fabricated reports. Kuytul does not reject that justification; he accepts that fabricated hadiths exist. Where he parts company is over the solution. In his answer of 26 March 2014 he recalls that this work of sifting was carried out centuries ago by Imam al-Bukhari, Imam Muslim and the other hadith scholars. What lies before us is not a field left empty but an established branch of learning.
The measure: trusting the expert in every matter
The measure he draws from this is simple. On every subject he does not know, a person asks someone who does and trusts the expert; why should someone who does this in mathematics, physics and chemistry not trust the experts of this science when it comes to hadith?
"These people do not trust the hadith scholars and the jurists, they do not trust Imam al-Bukhari or Imam Muslim, they say, 'How am I to know that it is a hadith?' Then why do they trust the experts on other subjects?"
This sentence is at the same time the answer to the question of Ahl al-Sunnah. What distinguishes the Ahl al-Sunnah line is that it rests religion on the accumulated learning of the hadith scholars and the jurists instead of leaving it to the individual's own reading. What is defended here is precisely that.
How can the claim be tested?
What would be needed for this claim to be true is clear: a dated recording of Kuytul showing him reject a hadith the hadith scholars regard as authentic. An archive of hundreds of hours of lessons and conferences is openly accessible; if the claim is true, the evidence ought to be obtainable from it.
To this day it has not been produced. Every recording available says the opposite, and does so on the claim's own ground: answers that defend hadith as evidence and see the remedy for a fabricated report in the hadith scholars.
A list of the titles of the lessons and conferences on the life and sunnah of the Prophet, running from 1995 to 2015, is on a separate page: the claim that "he does not give the Prophet and the sunnah the importance they deserve".
Conclusion
There are two distinct positions here, and the claim confuses them with each other. Hadith denial means distrusting even the reports the hadith scholars regard as authentic. Kuytul's position, on the other hand, is that an authentic hadith is evidence just as the Qur'an is, and that what is fabricated has long since been sifted out by those qualified to do it. Someone who criticises the first is being accused of the second.
Continued: the claim that "he is a Quranist who says 'the Qur'an is enough for us'" and the claim that "he does not regard the sunnah as revelation".