From the Quran on a spear to a verse on a banner: 'Stand firm as you have been commanded'

During the Yeditepe University Faculty of Law graduation ceremony, student Mustafa Malo took the stage with a banner reading, "Stand firm as you have been commanded." These words are from the 112th verse of Surah Hud. The intervention regarding the students' banner, the discourse surrounding this issue by government circles—led by AKP spokesperson Ömer Çelik—and the debates in media outlets close to both the government and the opposition occupied the public agenda for days.

Because of this, I will not delve much into the current debate aspect of the topic, but I should mention it since the occasion has arisen. 12punto Editor-in-Chief Mustafa Büyüksipahi wrote an excellent piece answering the questions, "Who is on the right path as commanded, who is not, what does the verse say, and what do the events respond with?" Those who wish may also take a look at that article.

As I said, I will not delve much into the current dimension of the topic. However, I must say this: Speaking with religious discourse should also bring sincerity, justice, and impartiality with it. In this respect, without being used as a tool for the interests of a party, group, or person, and without casting a shadow on its "sacred" side, the word should meet its addressee, and sacred texts should be guests in homes in this manner. Otherwise, unfortunately, it amounts to religious exploitation and abuse. When we look at Mustafa Malo's social media account after the incident in question, we do not encounter the injustices in the country, nor the situation of retirees, minimum wage earners, or low-income individuals, nor any similar issue. In other words, Malo tells us that just as he does not see what is crooked, he is also not very aware of the command given to be upright. He brings up the verse he never remembers in those places in a completely different place, without context or foundation. And those who claim him are, as expected, the government front. Thus, the partnership between words and politics is completed.

To stand firm as commanded, to observe justice and rights, and to stand against oppression and the oppressor are, of course, values that make a human being human. How could one oppose this? But it is actions, not words, that reveal a person. One becomes righteous through the answers given to these and similar questions: "Whose side are they on, who are they against, who are they claiming, and what are their objections?" Not by reminding others of a verse or by making a banner and taking it to the podium.

Speaking of banners, it reminds me of something. During the Battle of Siffin, when Muawiyah realized he was going to lose the war, he had pages of the Quran attached to the tips of spears. He supposedly said, "Let the Quran be the arbiter between us." A significant group, led by Ali ibn Abi Talib, did not say, "There are Quran pages in front of us, we cannot fight." However, a group that had been problematic from the beginning fell into this trap or intentionally did not object to the arbitration proposal. Then, after the chaos that ensued, the arbitration proposal was accepted. This became the breaking point. Indeed, the war that was halted that day continued for years. As a result, this process evolved into Muawiyah's kingdom. Therefore, rather than the religious text written on a spear or a banner, one must look at who is carrying that text, for what reason it is being made visible, and what is intended by it.

History is clear, and the lessons we should learn have long been written. Moreover, there is not just one Islam; ISIS calls itself Muslim, as do Al-Qaeda and Boko Haram. On the other hand, the country is full of Muslims who do not like each other and even declare each other infidels (takfir). Tomorrow, one of them might open a banner to declare the other an infidel. At that point, the axis of the debate will surely change. Even though some are trying to turn the debate in their favor today, they will show no tolerance when they themselves are targeted. The Furkan Foundation (Kuytul community) is a good example of this situation. Let me just say this much for now.

The question that should really be focused on here is this:

What is intended by religious speech?

History provides the answer to this question as well.

As is known, the friendship that persisted between Ali ibn Abi Talib and the Kharijites gave way to hostility after a while. The Kharijites were actually known for their "pious" characteristics. However, their paths diverged after political justifications. We can say that Siffin is the breaking point here. In those days, the Kharijites, referring to a Quranic verse, said, "Judgment belongs only to Allah," and built their righteousness upon this phrase.

Ali ibn Abi Talib, however, stated that while this sentence was theoretically correct, the Kharijites were pursuing a false purpose (legitimizing their own political and violent actions) with it, and said:

"A word of truth, but a falsehood is intended by it."

Perhaps this is the summary of the entire debate today.

Tongues that do not speak of poverty, hunger, and misery may intend falsehood even if they speak the truth.

Those who turn their backs on justice, law, and freedoms may not have a righteous purpose even if they recite verses.

Those who do not oppose corruption, irregularities, the looting of public property, and nepotism, no matter who commits them, cannot prove their sincerity even if they speak the most sacred words.

Religion requires a consistent conscience, not a selective morality.

Indeed, the Quran also says:

"Stand firm in justice, even if it is against yourselves, your parents, or your relatives." (An-Nisa, 135)

Therefore, the issue is not what is said in the name of religion; it is what is intended by that word.

Because history has shown us time and again: Those who intend falsehood have often spoken with truthful words and hidden behind sacred concepts.

The real skill is to be able to see not the word, but the intention behind that word.