One concert, one ban, one mentality

The Çankaya District Governorate recently announced that the concert event planned by Iranian-born singer Mohsen Namjoo in Ankara would not be permitted. Moreover, the Governorate emphasized "sensitivities" and claimed that this decision was justified.

This was not the only concert of Namjoo's to be canceled. In previous years, the artist's concerts had also been canceled following allegations from certain circles. At the center of the accusations leveled against Namjoo was his performance of certain verses of the Quran in a musical format. For this reason, it was claimed that he insulted sacred values, to which the artist responded with the following statement:

"I am neither irreligious nor godless. I have never mocked or belittled the Holy Quran, which has always been a source of inspiration for me. I have not changed a single verse of the Quran. This is a serious and baseless accusation."

The place of the sacred in the human world is, of course, important and meaningful. Certainly, attitudes such as insulting people's values, especially in the theological realm, are unacceptable. However, here one must look at the nature of the criticism, thought, and attitude, the intention behind it, and the statement expressed. As can be clearly seen in this incident, the artist has neither such an intention nor such a will. Given this, on what justified grounds is the Governorate canceling the concert?

People cannot be condemned to a single path and method when connecting with the sacred. Faith is not a phenomenon experienced and expressed only within certain molds; it can gain visibility in various forms within different cultures, traditions, and interpretations. Sometimes through words, sometimes through poetry, and sometimes through music, people can express their faith and spiritual worlds.

Indeed, in Alevism, one of the important faith traditions of Anatolia, the 'deyiş' and 'nefes' (hymns) expressed in 'cem' rituals are among the most well-known examples of this. Prayers directed at God and words spoken in the language of bards are expressed accompanied by music. Similarly, throughout history, it has been seen in different religions and sects that sacred texts, prayers, or religious narratives are interpreted through music, poetry, and various forms of art. This is not a devaluation of faith, but rather one of the ways individuals live it within their own cultural and spiritual worlds.

Therefore, what should be discussed in the Namjoo example is not whether some people adopt a particular religious interpretation or not; but rather who gets to decide the method by which a person can express their faith and their relationship with the sacred. To put it very clearly, the Governorate has essentially interfered with freedom of belief here, limiting an individual's freedom to live and express their faith. Indeed, Namjoo's statement is clear enough to leave no room for debate.

Another reality revealed in this incident is this: Decisions are made, trials are conducted, and ultimately judgments are passed and pens are broken through messages expressed on social media that often turn into lynchings. According to the authors of these messages, what Namjoo did is coded as a scandal, an insult, and even immorality, while the artist is made a target. One step beyond this is physical assault on the artist; who can say that this will not happen? After a person is subjected to such harsh words under the mask of "sensitivities," who can speak of their safety? Indeed, throughout history, people have been targeted with such words, calls, and fatwas, and some have been murdered following these calls. It seems the crushing calls of the modern world are now being expressed via social media; edicts are being written about people according to someone's interpretation of religion, and the digital world is being turned into the spaces where those edicts are announced.

So, in such an environment, what and whom are the canceled concerts, dismissed academics, and writers under investigation being sacrificed to? Whom do these decisions serve the most and how? Why do the officials in charge not remember "sensitivities" here, and why do the powerful discourses of the "sensitivity" sanctuary not find an echo here? These questions also need to be asked and discussed before history.

Since the occasion has arisen, I must express this truth: Acting under the pressure of authoritarian and dictatorial interpretations of religion, and furthermore, supporting these interpretations, means keeping religion under the sovereignty of this interpretation. Moreover, this is not just a problem of today. Because while the authoritarian discourse we are talking about draws its power from tradition, leaving this discourse as a legacy to the future in a similar way will mean building tomorrow's authoritarian interpretation from today. Yet, the moment religion falls under the sovereignty of a single interpretation, it becomes fixed, loses its pluralistic character, and at that very point, it becomes reactionary and falls under the captivity of the past. The debates between 'akil' (reason) and 'nakil' (tradition/transmission) that have continued throughout Islamic history are the simplest example of this situation. Within the aforementioned debates, especially the proponents of 'nakil' have engaged in accusations reaching the point of heresy against Islamic scholars and even the imams of sects. Therefore, the authoritarian approach adopted today shows that lessons have not been learned from the past; on the contrary, it shows that what was done in the past is being embraced. This is a truth that history sheds light on for us.

Look, the issue standing before us today is not just a concert ban.

When a concert is canceled, it is not just an artist who is silenced; the society's capacity for thinking, debating, and tolerating the different is also narrowed a little more. For what protects people is not "sensitivities," but freedoms. Because as the powers granted in the name of sensitivity grow, the ground is prepared for new bans that will one day surely knock on everyone's door. The silencing mechanisms set up for others yesterday will one day stand before those who applauded them in a completely unexpected way. Perhaps this is the unchanging irony of history.