The truth revealed by the feud between Cübbeli and Bayuncuk

The oath taken by children at an Imam Hatip Secondary School in the Arnavutköy district of Istanbul has reignited the feud between Ahmet Mahmut Ünlü, known to the public as Cübbeli Ahmet, and Halis Bayuncuk. According to Cübbeli Ahmet, this oath was written by Halis Bayuncuk, the leader of the Tawhid and Sunnah Community. The rhetoric, he claimed, was rooted in ISIS and contained an open provocation against the state.

You can read the details of the related news in our reports. Furthermore, the words Halis Bayuncuk used regarding Cübbeli were, to put it mildly, beyond the pale. According to Bayuncuk, Cübbeli was a deviant, a sinner, and a 'belam' (a corrupt scholar) according to the Quran, the Sunnah, and the Hanafi school of thought. Moreover, according to Bayuncuk, he was a highwayman and a fraudulent person according to Sunni Sufi texts. As we have stated, these were words that should not be spoken in a dispute.

What does this feud tell us, and what truth does it scream? As is known, both figures advocate for "Sharia" and view democracy as a regime of disbelief (kufr). Now, if a Sharia state were to be established tomorrow under Bayuncuk's leadership, it is clear what status would befall Cübbeli Ahmet. After all, Bayuncuk is talking about someone he considers a deviant, a sinner, and a highwayman. For example, according to "Sharia laws," the punishment for highway robbery is very severe. Different penalties can be applied for this crime, one of which is execution or the cross-cutting of hands and feet. In other words, in a state with Bayuncuk's mentality, there is no version of Islam in which Cübbeli could live comfortably. On the contrary, the life he might face is obvious.

On the other hand, we also remember the words Cübbeli used against Bayuncuk in the past. Cübbeli said the following about Halis Bayuncuk, who uses the moniker Ebu Hanzala: "These men are raising the nation as terrorists." The punishment for a terrorist in the dominant jurisprudence is also clear. In other words, in Cübbeli's Sharia, Bayuncuk and his group would have little chance of survival either.

This means that if either of these two names were to establish a Sharia state tomorrow, one of the first things they would do is eliminate their opponent. Moreover, they would do this in the name of religion, that is, Islam. They would say that in the world of Muslims, your place is exile, prison, or even death. So, who ensures they can live together today, and who provides them with the right to live and security simultaneously? Secularism and democracy, which they view as a regime of disbelief, grant them this right and act as an insurance policy for them as well. Today, both figures are able to operate within the secular and democratic order they harshly criticize. They can host television programs, speak on social media, and establish associations and community organizations. The system they label as a "regime of disbelief" provides them with a platform for expression and legal protection.

Conversely, when criticizing Cübbeli, Bayuncuk uses the term "Kemalist Preacher" with the intention of belittling him. In response, Cübbeli replies with something to the effect of, "What do my words have to do with Kemalists and secularists?" Yet, both of them are able to exist today thanks to the Republic founded by Atatürk and his friends. That is the truth. Sometimes it hits you like a slap in the face and reminds you that you might owe your life to the very order you call "disbelief." It is not us saying this, but the events and the conversations themselves.

Perhaps the question that needs to be asked is this: Do interpretations that cast each other out of the faith promise a safer future, or does an order where differences can live under the same law? The truth that the debate is really screaming lies exactly here.