Was Prophet Muhammad a Sunni?

For a period, our national identity cards included a "sect" field, as if it were an inseparable part of our religion. Sects, which were added to Islam centuries later, suddenly became a part of our identity. The most dominant element of this identity was, without a doubt, "Sunnism."

So, what was this Sunnism? Where did it derive such power from? 

The term Sunnism can be expressed as "Ahl al-Sunnah wa'l-Jama'ah." The emphasis on "Sunnah" here refers to the Prophet's words, acceptances, and actions. "Ahl al-Sunnah" denotes adherence to the path of the Prophet; the "Jama'ah" is the community that adheres to it. The community is the group that obeys, conforms, and does not incite discord.

When Sunnism is defined this way, we cannot expect a Muslim to oppose it. After all, regardless of the religion, followers will follow its leaders. However, at this point, the following question immediately arises: Is adherence to the Prophet not already at the core of the religion? Is there a need to establish a sect for this? Or we can ask the question this way: Can a person not be attached to the Prophet without belonging to a sect? We can also pose the question here: "Are other sects not attached to the Prophet?"

Let those questions remain for now, and let us take a short journey into the history of sects.

The word "sect" (mezhep) literally means "the place or path taken." The formation process of sects, which emerged approximately 150-200 years after the death of the Prophet, took about five hundred years. Of course, this process was not at all peaceful; while the words of one sect scholar were not approved by another, street clashes also broke out between sects. All of this was done in the name of religion and the Prophet. But were those killed in street clashes, those against whom fatwas were issued, and furthermore, those judged to be infidels by a sect scholar, not also Muslims? According to the fatwa authorities, that is, the sect scholars of the period, they were. They were those who had gone astray, entered into disbelief, and were apostates. Moreover, ironically, among those subjected to these harsh accusations were even sect scholars or prominent figures of the sects. Imam Abu Hanifa, one of the leading figures of Sunnism, was one of these names. 

Prof. Dr. Mehmet Emin Özafşar provides us with the following information on this point: "Sufyan al-Thawri reports that Abu Hanifa was invited to repent twice. Sharik says that it would be better for every corner of Kufa to be filled with donkeys than for someone holding Abu Hanifa's views to be found there. Malik ibn Anas also says that Abu Hanifa almost destroyed the religion." (Prof. Dr. Mehmet Emin Özafşar, The Conflict of Opinion and Hadith) That is the state of affairs. Abu Hanifa, who is seen today as one of the important imams of Sunnism, was someone who was invited to repent in those years!

From this, we understand that the issue is not about following in the footsteps of the Prophet, but rather about imposing the dictatorship of a chosen path, direction, and discourse, presenting interpretations as absolute truth, and establishing a religion within a religion. At this point, it is not only Abu Hanifa who has been subjected to such imposition and tyranny; throughout the historical process, many other figures have been targeted by sectarian gladiators. I will not go into detail, but even the great hadith scholar Bukhari received his share of poison from those aggressors. I recall the latest poison spread during the Syrian occupation process, where ISIS militants stopping cars would ask about prayer times and execute those who did not know on the spot. According to the dominant sectarian jurisprudence (Hanafi, Shafi'i, Maliki), those who do not pray are to be killed; the Hanafis, of course, prescribed imprisonment as this punishment, not forgetting the whip, naturally. 

So, did the Prophet act this way? Did he punish those among the Muslims whom he did not consider 'acceptable Muslims' with whips, imprisonment, or sometimes death? Did he wander from street to street looking for who had fallen into disbelief, who had become an infidel, or who was a great sinner? If not, then which Sunnah are these sects applying, and whose life are they following?

Forget it. Sects emerged as products of political, historical, and social conditions at the time of their birth and found life in the light of these conditions. Therefore, the issue is not theological but rather political. It is the religious world that those who call themselves 'hadith supporters' are trying to build. Of course, religions and religious texts are open to interpretation and should be developed; however, the hadith supporters and, predominantly, the sects, both choose one interpretation and deny the right to exist to others. They explain this as adherence to the Sunnah. It is like serving poison in a golden cup.

During the time of the Prophet, there were no sects, no jurisprudence books, and certainly no orders or communities. Neither the Prophet nor the first caliphs had sects; therefore, neither the Prophet nor the caliphs were Sunni! Sunnism is a religion in itself; in the words of Prof. Dr. Mustafa Öztürk, this religion is the cradle of right-wing politics and conservatism. Precisely for this reason, it is very powerful; it is the official religious ideology.