Narrowed Ummahs: Where does religion end and belonging begin?

Human beings are social creatures. Their behaviors, actions, and outlook on life cannot exist independently of the environment in which they live. In this sense, an individual is not just themselves; they are also a manifestation, a product of the environment in which they grew up.

This environment consists of defining elements such as culture, ideology, and religion. So, how does a person look at religion, how do they see it, and how are they influenced by it?

From the moment they enter life, an individual first falls into a micro-community: the family. The first contact with religion is established here. The religion introduced by the family is the religion the child knows and naturally adopts. Then this circle expands; rings such as congregations, sects, and denominations surround the individual. Ultimately, whichever environment a person has been under the influence of more, the "religion" they believe in and defend becomes, to a large extent, the religion offered by that environment.

What emerges is this: narrowed ummahs.

The individual now sees religion from this perspective. They construct their perception of halal–haram, sin–reward, and even God and truth within this narrow circle. At this point, not only other religions but also other groups within their own religion are coded as "the other," as "unacceptable" people. The person takes care not to step outside the narrow ummah to which they belong.

Moreover, at this point, community leaders, sheikhs, and authorities do not consent to this departure. Because the outside is dangerous. Other groups are structures that misunderstand religion, live it incompletely, or have deviated. The metaphor of "the wolf catches the lamb that strays from the flock" comes into play here. Disciples who separate from them must remain loyal to the leader so they do not "become prey to the wolves."

Belonging has now taken precedence over religion. And breaking these chains is much harder than it is thought to be.

So, is there no "true religion" independent of sects, congregations, and groups?

History does not give a clear "yes" to this question. From the moment religion began to be discussed, it has been divided for theological, cultural, and political reasons, and each division has produced a new ummah. Although intellectual efforts try to open space for discussions on "true religion," life has long since closed the door on this debate.

Because in practice, "true religion" is the religion accepted by the majority and the authorities. Individuals often pursue security rather than truth. The fear of being excluded, excommunicated, or pushed out of the group forces the person to stay inside. A safe harbor is more attractive than questioning.

Let us come from here to the phenomenon of religion and the reality imposed by life.

Religion will continue to exist as a sociological phenomenon. Both the individual's commitment to religion and the influence of religion on the individual are undeniable facts. Therefore, what needs to be done is not to target religion with the debate of "which is the true religion?" but to discuss the groups and schools that threaten social life, demonize the other, and legitimize violence and war.

Because the debate on "true religion" has no final destination.

A human being is a whole with their stories, memories, history, leaders, and sacred values. Debates conducted by fragmenting this integrity create destruction in the social structure. On such a ground, it is also impossible to reach people.

If the goal is to live together, bridges must be built.

Not to destroy, but to understand.