The ruling on the fly, the line of the religion

Legend has it that an Iraqi man came to Abdullah, the son of Caliph Umar, and asked, "Is it permissible to kill small, harmful pests like mosquitoes while in the state of ihram?" Abdullah's response was quite striking and of a nature to go down in history: "Look at this! (The Iraqis have come now) and they ask me about the blood of a mosquito, while they are the ones who killed one of the Prophet's grandchildren!"

We will examine Abdullah's words in light of a historical perspective. However, before moving on to that, a few words must be said about Abdullah himself. Although he put his name to these words, he did not refrain from pledging allegiance to both Muawiyah and Yazid. Moreover, he warned his relatives who were considering rebelling against Yazid, saying, "Whoever opposes the head of state commits treason and becomes a Kharijite." At least, that is what the accounts say. He also opposed Hz. Hussein's journey to Kufa and described this journey as being driven by worldly desires. Therefore, the tests that Abdullah, who said these words to the Iraqis, faced in history are not very encouraging either.

However, all this aside, the statement holds historical value. That is, from the very early periods, the dominant Muslim world has turned not to the socio-economic realities flowing through life, to the fundamental issues within life—such as the problem of poverty or inequality in income distribution—but to theological debates in a narrow field; on the other hand, it has generally protected and shielded even cruel heads of state. Of course, what we are saying does not apply to all Muslims, but the dominant Muslim culture and corpus have been built upon this. The fact that Muawiyah was accepted despite everything he did, the caliphate of Yazid, and the continuation of this line to this day tell us exactly the reality of this truth.

We are talking about a mentality that protects the powerful, does not allow the rulers to be criticized, shields the head of state even if they are a tyrant, and uses right-wing rhetoric at a cultural level to prevent the questioning of material conditions, producing identity-based politics. In its most general terms, this is the Muawiyah line. Siffin is the place where this line took flesh and bone. What was stuck on the tips of the spears there was not just pages of the Quran, but the very mentality that uses every kind of sacred value for politics. This politics started from the Umayyad period, continued with the Abbasids, and has survived as a line in different geographies until today.

Now let us come to the reality of today's Turkey. Except for a few organized structures like the Anti-Capitalist Muslims, look at all other Muslim organizations; they are like they came out of the same mold, using similar rhetoric and moving in a similar direction. They have almost no systemic criticism; they never once talk about pensions, the minimum wage, or the exploitation of labor, nor do they engage in organizing along this axis. Again, they all use the rhetoric of right-wing politics and keep on doing so-called Muslim propaganda. But what does this mentality understand by being Muslim?

What is the connection of the Islam they embrace to life: What kind of stance does it take against the global war order, what kind of perspective does it adopt regarding class contradictions, how does it explain the solution, and what concrete proposals does it genuinely voice and fight for against the increasingly brutal world order?

This Muslim mentality hardly ponders any of these questions; it is as if it is unaware of their existence, let alone pondering them. In light of this reality, it keeps on doing propaganda to itself. Yet, when looked at more closely, such a mass is becoming nothingness and, even if it is not aware of it, is turning into a useful apparatus of the dominant order.

Let us go with more concrete examples if you wish. Today, the minimum wage is at a level even below the hunger threshold. We now have a terrible problem called housing. Pension payments are worse than the previous year with each passing year, and confidence in the future is disappearing day by day.

In such a condition, what would you expect from a faith organization that has claims about life and what comes after? Of course, you would expect it to oppose this oligarchic and unjust system and object to the modern slavery order, right? Because if there is no objection, there is acceptance; if there is acceptance, there is partnership. And the partnership must be named: this is complicity. Because the fact that people are condemned to deprivation and hunger is not a technical issue. This situation arises as a result of deliberate and conscious choices. And that is where the criminal part begins.

Let us come to other terrible examples. Today, political prisoners, especially Ayşe Barım, are being kept in dungeons for reasons that are impossible to accept, they are getting sick, and furthermore, they are being left to die. Let no one say I am exaggerating. We experienced concrete examples of this situation in Ergenekon. A similar situation was experienced in the KCK investigations. But lo and behold, in all these processes, not only the government but also the organizations in its periphery, the communities, the newspapers close to the government, and the unions did not and do not say a single word about this terrible process of annihilation. They do not take a stance against the legal massacre taking place. Yet, at such times, a minimum level of conscience is expected. The virtue of humanity is remembered. If it is not, if it is not visible, we cannot say that the only thing lost there is religion. Well, in a place where the most basic human values are lost, what identity can you keep alive, what faith can you defend?

We know that unanswered questions carry a darkness within them. Now, in order to acknowledge where that darkness comes from, the following must also be expressed: Those who yesterday stomped the slaughter of the Prophet's grandchildren, those who started wars for spoils, those who did not see all that cruelty and tyranny but busied themselves with the ruling on killing a fly, stand in a similar place today. Those who ask about the ruling on ablution when there is bleeding do not see the blood flowing from so many innocent people.