Striking commentary from İhsan Eliaçık on the Leman attack: A major mistake was made

Interview: Sercan MERİÇ

On the 32nd anniversary of the Madımak Massacre, history repeated itself: this time in front of a magazine building, with a planned lynching attempt... We spoke with theologian and author İhsan Eliaçık about the dark mechanisms behind the campaign launched against Leman Magazine on social media, how religious sentiments are turned into a political weapon, and the transformation that conservatism has undergone alongside the government. Eliaçık harshly criticizes the suppression of freedom of expression and the instrumentalization of religion in Turkey.

On the 32nd anniversary of the Madımak Massacre, we witnessed another lynching attempt. How do you evaluate the lynching attempt against Leman magazine in Taksim?

From the way this event was prepared and developed, we understand that it was a planned effort... The data also shows this. 345 thousand tweets were posted, and this was directed by 10 accounts. These accounts are also a caricature magazine close to the government... It sees Leman as a rival. It cannot achieve cultural superiority over it. They provoked people by using a caricature that they could propagate as "an insult to the prophet" that they saw there. However, it is a caricature advocating for peace in Palestine. We already know Leman magazine. It has previously made 5 covers related to Palestine. It has covers that liken Israel to wild birds crushing Palestine with their feet, to blood-sucking birds. It has hundreds of caricatures defending Palestine before. But this was a provocation operation, with the button pressed in a planned manner four days after the caricature was drawn, and by providing political support to the operation, and unfortunately, most of the opposition parties, except for Özgür Özel, fell for this provocation, became partners in the lynching campaign, and entered into a race to condemn Leman magazine. However, there was nothing in what Leman magazine did that warranted condemnation. They should have defended Leman magazine's freedom of criticism and expression. They should have said that this is a caricature advocating for peace, and that peace in Palestine is being defended using the art of caricature.

As a theologian, how do you evaluate this caricature from a religious perspective?

When we look at it from a religious perspective, we see that a major mistake was made. According to the Quran, if someone denies God and mocks God's verses, there are a few other verses similar to the 140th verse of Surah An-Nisa, and according to those verses, the place where denial and mockery occur is abandoned. If the denial and mockery are abandoned, one returns to the same place. An extraordinary freedom of expression and thought, a very civilized attitude is requested. That is, it says, "If you see that the God you believe in is being denied and His verses are being mocked, quietly leave the person or place being mocked." There is no constant shunning either. This, in my opinion, is an extraordinary attitude of freedom of thought, an extraordinarily libertarian stance. Muslims need to do this.

What kind of test did Muslims face in this matter?

These conservatives, the conservatives who use Islam, go and kill ten people by raiding the Charlie Hebdo magazine, which publishes caricatures in France, for example. Now, it was a narrow escape here too, thank God. The same thing could have happened. With that anger, they could have entered Leman magazine and killed the tea server, the poor person coming and going, in the chaos of that anger. I think it was a narrow escape. Those who fell for this provocation, those who make provocations in this way, and those who become tools for this provocation are all responsible in my opinion. In such cases, the public needs to act with common sense. Those who belong to the Islamic faith must also do what is written in the book. There is no such thing as lynching, killing, or beheading someone because they insulted the prophet. You respond with gratitude, you say it is wrong, you make a statement, you publish a declaration, but you cannot provoke anyone. You have no such right, neither legally nor is it religiously correct.

In your book "Social Islam," there are many chapters about the relationship between Muslims and the government. How did those who govern the state, political Islamists, and conservatives transform after coming to power?

I am someone who also lived through February 28. During the February 28 period, I was tried in nearly 30 courts. I defended those with headscarves, those from imam-hatip schools, Quran courses, and religious people. I was already among them. I still have not given up on the Islamic faith, Islamic culture, and my deep belief in the Quran, but I have changed my method and my perspective. Now they have become the government. When they became the government, actually, as seen in this Leman incident, this is actually a show of sovereignty. They mean to say that in the past, during February 28, you were tormenting people by saying "oh, a prayer room was opened in the high school, oh, someone with a headscarf entered the officers' club," and so on. You were arresting them and sending them to prison, you were organizing operations, all of which are true, we lived through them. But that period is long gone. Now the people you tormented have come to power and are tormenting you. That is, they are saying "it's our turn." They are not thinking about applying justice. Follow this, follow that, throw this one in jail for criticizing, this one insulted religion, this one did something else... Look, it's always the same. In February 28, the exact opposite was happening. This shows that there is a defect in the state's fundamental behavior on these issues. Whoever comes does the same thing. One comes in the name of Atatürkism, the other comes in the name of God and the book, and they do the same thing.

What should be done in your opinion?

In my opinion, Article 216 of the Turkish Penal Code, "insulting religious values," should be removed from the constitution. Article 219 of the Turkish Penal Code, "insulting the President," should be removed. Law No. 5816, "Law on Protecting Atatürk and Punishing Those Who Insult Him," should be removed. Atatürk is the hero of this geography, the people protect him. The state should not cast a shadow, no other favor is needed. The people protect Prophet Muhammad. He already lives in their faith and inner world. Ill-intentioned people, ambitious people, and even ignorant religious people, ambitious Atatürkists use this law to apply pressure on those they consider rivals. Therefore, laws lead to oppression and tyranny. All of these must be removed. The state should not engage in such things. It should only intervene if there is a public order problem among the people. When viewed from this perspective, since the existing laws have not changed, religious people come and continue to operate the same laws in a position where religious people are dominant and others are made into victims. When these change, then it is more comfortable to criticize individuals. It is not enough to just change these; people's mentality, mindset, and understanding of religion and state are also wrong.

What is the share of conservatives and religious exploiters in these events?

Conservatives, religious exploiters - I don't say political Islamists - those who exploit religion, the religious, or conservatives, know very well how to use religion. They use this as a tool for rent. Since they don't know their religion, and they don't know what is written in the book, their minds work on the caliphate and the sultanate. Their minds are on Abdulhamid and Fatih Sultan Mehmet. They cannot even imagine that what is suitable for Islam is not the sultanate and caliphate, but democracy and the republic. And they think that the republican revolutions were revolutions made against Islam. However, in my opinion, the republican revolutions are the revolutions that paved the way for true Islam. And you can learn what Islam is, more or less, thanks to this. Because before, the muftiate, the Sheikh al-Islam, the caliphate, the sultanate, God's shadow on earth, all of them were mixed up. Who represents Islam? Where is the real Islam? That is, how will we learn Islam by overcoming this sultanate, caliphate, and dynasty? There is a huge history in front of us. Now, because their minds work like this, they don't know anything else when they come to power. Nothing else can come out of this fabric.

What comes out?

He establishes a one-man regime according to himself. He governs the country with a decree he publishes, which in practice means a decree, a presidential decree that means a sultan's decree. That is, there is a dispute over whether a man's funeral will be buried in a tomb or go to a cemetery, and even for that, a presidential decree is issued. A dog washed up on the shore, a dead fish washed up, where will we pull this; even for that, a presidential decree is issued. That is, this means governing the country with sultan's decrees.

Why do they do this?

Because that's the mindset. There is no other capacity, that's it. This is what he understands. He doesn't know anything else. He understands religion this way, and he understands the state this way. Therefore, starting with the Social Islam book you mentioned, seven of my books have been published by Tekin Publishing. One is Social Islam, and one is Libertarian Democratic Islam. Articles where I focus on the libertarian, democratic, and social dimensions of Islam, and five biographical books... In the book you mentioned, I included these articles within this framework.

How can the references of this social and democratic Islam you mentioned be summarized fundamentally?

In the summer months of 2011, 2012, and 2013, three major events occurred in Turkey that caused people to recognize us. All three of these happened in the summer months. In 2011, the Earth Tables (Yeryüzü Sofraları) began. In front of luxury hotels. I made many calls to those places, and I was present at almost all of them. In 2012, we gathered at Fatih Mosque and marched to the May 1st square in Taksim. This is also a first in Turkish history. At that time, it was still free to celebrate May 1st in Taksim Square. It has been banned ever since. It has been banned ever since that day, since 2012. In 2013, the Gezi events took place. I also supported the Gezi events together with my friends and led the Friday prayer in Taksim Square. People got to know that such people existed through these three events. Most of all, they followed even more during the Gezi events, even abroad, and were surprised. How is it that in an event that is perceived and reflected by the government as an uprising of the irreligious against the religious government, religious people are performing Friday prayers and they are also opposing the government together with them? "So this is something else," they said, and the color of the business changed there. That is, it was an objection of the people against an authoritarian administration that came with a tendency towards authoritarianism. Therefore, people have seen in these three events. In the Quran, it is written that the name of those who believe in the Quran is Muslim. It is stated that what God said to Abraham, and Abraham announced this to the world as "Muslim." But now, since 14 centuries have passed, when I say "I am a Muslim," this may be sufficient as a creed in the sight of God, but it is not sufficient in the world arena.

Why?

Because ISIS also says "I am a Muslim." They are beheading people with the flag of "God, Messenger, Muhammad." The Taliban also says "I am a Muslim." The Sheikh of Saudi Arabia, and the princes, also say "I am a Muslim." Every morning they are having fun with models in Paris, London, then they return to their countries and perform Hajj. That is, every murderer, thief, corrupt, useless man on earth says "I am a Muslim," my brother. Now, how will we distinguish ourselves against this? How will we emphasize the meaning of "Muslim" in the Quran, that is, "peacemaker," "reliable person"? For this reason, a need arises to make an additional explanation for this. For this reason, I define myself as follows: I am an anti-capitalist Muslim and a radical democrat. Now, this understanding, that is, the anti-capitalist Muslim understanding, has roots in the Quran, even if it is not directly mentioned by name.

Could you elaborate on these roots a bit?

It is enough for me to read only two verses. One is the 219th verse of Surah Al-Baqarah: "They ask you what they should spend. Say: 'Give what is beyond your needs.'" Do not hoard... This is the antidote to capitalism. Capitalism means hoarding. This is the disease of our age. Do not hoard what is beyond your needs, do not establish hegemony over others with what you have hoarded. Then we can also say the 9th verse of Surah Al-Hashr. The state should not be a club of the rich. The Quran does not want a state where the rich rotate among themselves, where even if elections are held and ballot boxes are placed, the rich, that is, the bourgeoisie, the capital owners, are in the background.

What does it want then?

Goods, wealth, sustenance, should be distributed to all the people, to all of God's servants. And equally. According to the 10th verse of Surah Fussilat, sustenance should be distributed equally. Now, this understanding is the roots of the anti-capitalist Muslim understanding in the Quran. Ali Shariati also defended this, Muhammad Iqbal also defended it. There are many people on earth who defend this. Even most recently, for example, the friend who was a candidate for Mayor of New York defined himself as a "Muslim socialist." He is a candidate for New York, maybe he will be elected. This is an understanding all over the world. The idea that Islam and sharing, communalism, socialism, or the left-wing approach can coexist, and that the essence of true Islam consists of this. That is, we defend this. I explained this in the most detailed way in the Social Islam book.

There are troll preachers close to the government. That has also emerged as a phenomenon in recent years. How do you evaluate these people?

In their minds, they do not count us as part of Islam, they do not count us as Muslims. For example, there is a video where Cübbeli Ahmet says, "İhsan Eliaçık has become an infidel." That is, in their minds, they do not count us as Muslims. This is a very wrong mindset. To say to a man who calls himself "I am a Muslim" that "you are not a Muslim" is forbidden according to the verse. I have been saying "God is one, the prophet is true" since I was seven years old. How can you say to me "you are not a Muslim"? On the contrary, if someone is to be excluded from Islam, you need to look at what you yourself are saying. That is, he says, "prophets in the grave have sexual intercourse with their wives." This man says this in the name of Islam. What does this have to do with Islam? Therefore, they are pouring superstitions, fabrications, innovations, and a lot of lies and wrong things onto people as religion. As you mentioned, preachers are making statements that support the government.

The President of Religious Affairs Ali Erbaş is also being discussed a lot...

The President of Religious Affairs is issuing religious fatwas that support the government. However, Ali Shariati says: "The intellectual is the heir of the prophet." Intellectuals are the heirs of the prophets, and in a country, an intellectual is called someone who criticizes the king of the time, the sovereign of the time. Whoever collects my taxes, whoever appoints judges to the courts, whoever gives orders to the soldier, the police, the army, whoever has the official authority to possess weapons and judge, that person is criticized. That is, I am not in a position to stand up and criticize people who do not hold these, to whom I do not pay taxes. I only warn them. That is, we follow such a principle from here: The holder of power is criticized; the opposition is warned. The opposition is not criticized. We are already warning the opposition, saying "be careful" and so on, but we must criticize the government. What did you do with this money? Why didn't you solve this murder? Why did you turn a blind eye to this massacre? Why did you start this lynching attempt? Where is the money people gave? All of these must be criticized. Now these preachers are not criticizing the government, on the contrary, they are acting as the mouthpiece of the government. Therefore, in my opinion, anyone who does not criticize the king and sovereign of the time is already a charlatan. We cannot call him an intellectual, a preacher, an Islamic scholar, a religious scholar.

We are living through a process in Turkey that stifles criticism...

I also say this from here: That is, even if Abu Bakr were at our head, I would have to criticize his actions. Even if it were the prophet himself... You can be attached to the prophet himself as a prophet. You accept him as a prophet because of your faith. You don't need to criticize him there by saying "did God send these verses to you or not," you have already believed. But the worldly actions of the prophet are open to criticism. The prophet says: "I am a human being like you. However, revelation comes to me." That's all. He says "I am a human," "I am a human like you." That is, like you, everyone who is human is criticized. He leads to the pollination of date palms with a wrong instruction, and that year the dates are ruined. They say, "We did what the prophet said, the dates were ruined." He also says, "Well, there is no rule that I will know everything. You came and asked me, and I said what I knew. It turns out it was wrong. I don't understand. These are not things I understand. Everyone should ask the expert where they are competent. I am bringing you revelation from God, I am conveying the revelations I brought to you, you should follow them," he is saying. Therefore, look, even if it is a prophet, even if it is a caliph, whoever it is, the actions of those in power, the actions of those who use the power of the sovereign, especially intellectuals must criticize. And this criticism is not an insult, it is for their own good. What they need is criticism, not support, not flattery.