If Sharia comes, who will save the Muslims?

"Looking at the headline, the fact that we are answering the question through the lens of today becomes apparent. However, the event also has a history that dates back quite far. Because when Sharia, which is declared as a 'religious state' in the classical sense, arrived, the lives of Muslims were already in danger. Specifically, in ancient history, many people were judged by fatwas because they were 'not considered acceptable Muslims,' and furthermore, a kind of Muslim inquisition was even established."

On the other hand, since what people understood by Islam has always differed throughout history, conflicts among Muslims have also manifested themselves through religious discourse. For example, Caliph Ali and his group did not view Muawiyah and his soldiers as Muslims. Conversely, the opposing side's view was not much different. Moreover, the Kharijites stabbed and killed Ali on the pretext that he had 'fallen into disbelief.' On the same day, they wanted to assassinate Muawiyah and Amr ibn al-As for the same reason, but they escaped. Consider that these were the early days, yet the Ummah could not find the peace it sought even then. Because what was religion, what was interest, what was sultanate, what was rent—it was all mixed up!

I am not even going into theological debates.

Almost hundreds of years passed within these and similar debates and conflicts. Fights broke out between sects, and the streets of Baghdad were overflowing with these conflicts.

I heard it when I last went to Germany; mosques and masjids are being separated according to the congregation.

We encountered the latest example of this situation in our own beloved country in recent days. Halis Bayuncuk, known in the public eye as Ebu Hanzala, and former Diyanet official İhsan Şenocak faced off over the issue of being an infidel. In essence, both were defending 'Sharia,' but when it came to 'infidels,' the situation was not like that at all. Specifically, according to Bayuncuk, even Hamas had fallen into disbelief because it participated in elections, and therefore had become infidels. According to İhsan Şenocak, this was not an acceptable situation. Participating in elections or serving in public bureaucracy would not cause a person to fall into disbelief. On the contrary, defending this view could only be explained by 'takfirism' (accusing others of apostasy).

Therefore, Şenocak addressed his interlocutor as follows:

"The cause of one who calls Hamas 'infidel' is not Tawhid, but Takfir."

On the other hand, it was not just Şenocak who faced off with Bayuncuk. Cübbeli (Ahmet Mahmut Ünlü) was also criticizing Bayuncuk on this point, saying that he accused people who voted of being polytheists (mushrik). Ultimately, Bayuncuk's response, especially to Şenocak, was harsh; he first accused him of 'snitching.' Then he continued as follows:

"Throughout my life, I have shown respect to the brave among my enemies. When I saw your statement yesterday that 'If Israel enters Turkey, those who listen to these people will side with Israel,' I concluded that you are an immoral man beyond just being a snitch and that you deserve to be humiliated."

As you can see, the place had turned into a scene of fire. Because behind these names are hundreds of families and thousands, tens of thousands of people they address. Now the issue is this; if there were no secularism today, Bayuncuk, Şenocak, and Cübbeli Ahmet would still think differently about state administration and would disagree on which punishment Sharia prescribes for whom. The more disastrous part is that perhaps some would be tried in Sharia courts and sentenced to decades in prison in the name of religion. In other words, what saves them from the dungeon today is, at least on this point, the very secularism they criticize so much.

In a secular country, crimes are punished with different provisions rather than theological disagreements, and furthermore, the source of these punishments is based on human law. However, is the situation the same in 'Sharia' states that change according to organizations? Punishments are meted out in the name of religion and God, and convictions are given not according to human law but in the name of religion. Therefore, while you are a Muslim, you can suddenly become an infidel, or you can be declared a sinner in polytheism because you are a member of a sect. And shirk (polytheism), as the name implies, is associating partners with God. See for yourself!

Many names such as Abu Hanifa, Bukhari, Tabari, and Hallaj al-Mansur were accused of many sins in the name of 'religion' within the historical cycle and were subjected to much suffering. They tore Hallaj to pieces, for example. As a result, I will say that unfortunately, there is no mechanism to save Muslims if Sharia comes. Sharia will come with fatwas, with theological provisions and punishments that change according to organizations, and with provisions that will suddenly cast people out of religion.

Whether Sharia comes or not is one thing, but the debates taking place reveal this reality in its simplest form.

As for the President of the country, he made remarks in this process to the effect of "do not be showmen, be men of religion." The address might have been known, but the call is not exactly that. Because the primary call to be made here is for secularism. Because secularism is the insurance that accepts Muslims according to their theological differences; the call for secularism is made not just for the sake of it, but so that the lives of Muslims are also guaranteed. The events continue to confirm this truth that history tells.