Religion does not speak; sermons make it speak

Most of the time, our words show what we want to display, while our actions reveal the truth. Even our reason for participating in a social movement may stem from a spirit of "ostentation" rather than the sensitivity we claim to carry. Anyone who focuses not on the problem presented in the protest area, but on cameras, photographers, and "celebrity" figures, and who tries to get into the same frame with familiar faces as soon as the action ends—and who knows what kind of rent-seeking desire they feel from this—has effectively killed their own words. Only the action itself will speak; if there is to be an explanation, we can only hear it from that.

I do not know if you read the statement made by the Diyanet (Presidency of Religious Affairs) in recent weeks regarding sermons on the topics of hijab and marriage. To summarize: CHP spokesperson Deniz Yücel reacted to the Diyanet's sermon on the aforementioned issues, and subsequently, the Diyanet issued a statement regarding it. The summary of the statement said the following about the sermon in question: "It is only to introduce, explain, and recommend the principles of our faith, our civilization, our culture, and our tradition."

Well, is the situation that innocent? As we stated at the beginning, the truth shows its face in action, not in a verbal statement. So, let us turn our faces to the action.

First, let us state that the Presidency of Religious Affairs is now attached to the Presidency, which is much more political. As is well known, the President is also the head of a political party. Furthermore, the President of Religious Affairs is appointed by the head of that party, who is also the President. What I mean is that the voice echoing in the Diyanet's sermons is, to some extent, the voice of that party and that politics. The topics chosen for the sermon, and the limits and scope of those topics, are the voice of the party's paradigm. Since you cannot contradict the structure to which you are bound by laws and provisions, you read a bit of whatever politics says. Or, you do not have the religious truths read that politics does not want to be read. God forbid, one might lose their official vehicles, giant budgets, and comfortable opportunities. Better safe than sorry, right?

In this respect, what is read in sermons is not the naive principles of our faith and tradition. In sermons, one mostly hears the voice of the powers that be, the rulers. That hidden hand is always present in the paradigm presented as religion. Whatever the Party/Sultan wants, religion is read a bit like that. Look at how the Diyanet's Islamic Encyclopedia has expressed this reality: "In Islamic states, a ruler's attainment of legitimacy was possible only through the confirmation of his reign by the Caliph. The first condition for this was for the ruler to have the sermon read in his own country in the name of the Caliph." And these lines are also from those pages: "Politically, the importance of the sermon also emerges in its being a sign of the balance of power between the Caliph and the sultan or provincial governors and local dynasties. Tahir b. Husayn, the governor of Khorasan and founder of the Tahirid dynasty, was the first among provincial governors to initiate this practice by having his own name read in the sermon instead of Caliph al-Ma'mun as a sign of independence."

Therefore, we understand that the Diyanet had already said long before us: "Sermons are political; they do not represent religion, but rather the power to which one is bound—the caliph, the sultan, the party leader." This is what happens in reality and in history. We recognize the voice by where it comes from; that is how we understand the source of the message. The reign, the palace, and the ideology of spoils we see in the place where a sermon is read in the name of Muawiyah is the protection of this order with religious voices. Whatever the Diyanet of the era says, this is the truth. The truth is Muawiyah cursing Ali in the name of religion in sermons, and religious figures serving this for the sake of position, power, and money. The fact that a sermon is written on paper does not eliminate the Muawiyah ideology in the lines. On the contrary, for those with eyes to see, it makes it even more visible.

Eyes that see question many things at this point. They question those who cannot take bread home while there are fleets of planes, party-like companies, company-like party structures, opportunities that have turned into spoils, giant balance sheets raised from certain places, and religious figures and religious institutions that act as if they have swallowed their tongues while all this is happening, as well as their responsibilities and even their crimes. In this sense, everyone's sermon is their own; whoever reads what, represents that, and stands by it with their crime and sin. Explaining faith does not happen on its own, after all; you cannot explain a faith you do not live.

It is narrated that Hz. Ali once said in the context of religious debates: "The Quran does not speak; people make it speak." Inspired by this, let us say: religion does not speak; sermons make it speak. And powers make the sermons speak. Not only the reality of the day but history also says this. As our ancestors said, "Whoever holds the seal is Solomon." And indeed, it is true.