THE PROBLEM OF SECULARISM IN TÜRKİYE

For many years, debates over secularism in Türkiye have revolved around religious freedoms, state neutrality and the founding principles of the Republic. Yet much of this debate has focused on past injustices or current political preferences rather than explaining the heart of the matter. The problem of secularism is not simply about how freely Muslims can worship. The real issue is which principles should govern the state, what the source of law should be and within what limits the authority to shape human life should be exercised. At its most fundamental level, the difference between Islam and the secular conception of the state concerns not so much religious freedoms as the source of the authority to rule and govern. Without understanding this difference, it is impossible to assess properly the problems secularism faces with Muslims in Türkiye, or those Muslims face with the secular system.

Secularism rests on the principle that the state does not base its legal system and governance on religious rulings. In Türkiye, however, secularism has developed into a structure that goes further, retaining the state’s administrative authority over religious institutions. With the founding of the Republic, religion’s historical position in law and government was changed, but religious services remained within the state’s administrative structure through the Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı. Thus, while the state does not accept religious rulings as a source of its law, it has continued to determine how religious institutions operate. There is an important contradiction here that must be questioned: While the state does not accept that religion should determine its legal order, why does it play a determining role in the institutional workings of religious life? One of the fundamental problems of secularism in Türkiye is that a claim to neutrality towards religion coexists with administrative authority over religion within the same system.

In Islam’s conception of the state, by contrast, governing authority cannot be considered independently of the rulings and principles of justice revealed by Allah. The Qur’an subjects not only worship but also law, commerce, family relations, social responsibilities and the approach to government to certain standards. While verse 40 of Surah Yusuf states that judgment belongs to Allah, verse 58 of Surah Nisâ commands that trusts be given to those qualified to hold them and that people be judged with justice. These principles establish that human beings possess governing authority but cannot exercise it without limits. While the secular state bases the validity of law on the constitution and the decisions of authorized institutions, Islam rests on the principle that human-made rules must answer to Allah’s rulings. The difference here is not whether people can make laws, but which higher standard their lawmaking authority must follow.

This difference is clearly visible in everyday life. While the Qur’an prohibits interest, secular law can regulate interest-based banking as a lawful activity. While the Qur’an sets out specific rulings on the distribution of inheritance, secular civil law adopts different principles of distribution. While the Qur’an lays down rulings on family, marriage and divorce, the secular state regulates these areas according to its own legal system. For a Muslim, the fact that a practice is legally valid does not mean that it is also religiously right. At the same time, taking Allah’s rulings as the basis does not mean that any ruler can regard their own interpretation as beyond question. People need to make decisions about government, establish institutions and find solutions to changing needs. But from a perspective that accepts Islamic rulings as binding, this authority cannot be understood as the power to invalidate Allah’s explicit rulings through political will alone.

Muslims’ relationship with secularism in Türkiye contains another important contradiction. Conservative circles that once criticized secularism over headscarf bans, religious education and the public visibility of religious identity have, over time, assumed responsibility for governing within the same constitutional system. The expansion of religious freedoms is an important gain, but it has not changed the secular state’s fundamental approach to law and government. A Muslim’s ability to perform prayers, fast, receive religious education or hold public office while wearing a headscarf is a matter of religious freedom. The principles underpinning the state’s legal and economic order are a different matter. The existence of freedom of worship does not mean that Islam’s conception of the state has been put into practice. This is one of the fundamental distinctions that conservative politics in Türkiye has not sufficiently clarified.

But Muslims’ responsibility is not merely to criticize the secular system. When advocating Islam’s approach to government, they must uphold the same principles in their own lives and political choices. Arguing that interest is wrong while disregarding unjust gains, speaking of justice while overlooking wrongdoing by those close to them, or being unable to criticize the failings of a government with a strong religious identity creates a serious inconsistency between belief and conduct. Verse 135 of Surah Nisâ commands people to uphold justice even against themselves and those close to them. A Muslim’s standard, therefore, is not political parties, leaders or personal interests, but the principles revealed by Allah. However strong a government’s religious rhetoric may be, lack of competence, unlawful conduct, the waste of public resources and injustice cannot be legitimized on religious grounds. Islam’s conception of the state asks which principles a government follows before it asks about the ruler’s identity.

To assess the difference between Islam and the secular conception of the state properly, we must also distinguish between principles that appear to be shared. Justice, legal certainty, the public interest and the protection of human rights may also be values embraced by secular states. It is therefore wrong to claim that secularism rejects justice or that every state claiming to govern in the name of Islam will be just. The fundamental difference lies in the source from which these principles derive their legitimacy and how they are applied in state law. In Islam’s approach to government, justice, trust, competence and consultation are not values left to the discretion of rulers. Verse 38 of Surah Şûrâ emphasizes consultation, while verse 8 of Surah Mâide emphasizes the principle of not departing from justice even in the face of hostility. These rulings show that government cannot be surrendered to personal interests and unlimited political power.

At the same time, those who advocate Islam’s conception of the state also have questions to answer. How will the powers of the head of state be limited? Who will oversee those who govern? How will public resources be protected? How will judicial independence be secured? What guarantees will underpin the rights of people with different beliefs? Defending the Qur’an’s principles of justice and government does not entitle anyone to leave these questions unanswered. While verse 256 of Surah Bakara states that there is no compulsion in religion, verse 8 of Surah Mümtehine commands just treatment of people with different beliefs. Islam’s conception of the state must therefore be presented not merely as an objection to the existing system, but as a conception of political order that sets out what justice, rights and responsibility in government entail.

One reason the problem of secularism in Türkiye has remained at the same impasse for years is that the issue is debated in terms of political identities rather than fundamental principles. Those who defend secularism should question the state’s administrative authority over religious institutions while defending its neutrality towards religion. Those who advocate Islam’s conception of the state, meanwhile, should not be content simply to say that religion is not confined to worship; they must explain which principles will be applied in law, the economy, education and public administration, and how. The value of a conception of the state can be understood not only through the ideas it espouses, but also through how those ideas translate into justice and people’s lives.

At the heart of the problem of secularism in Türkiye is not how much religious freedom the state grants Muslims, but which standard the authority to rule and govern is understood to be bound by. While the secular state bases the validity of its legal order on constitutional and human authority, a Muslim who accepts Islamic rulings as binding maintains that human will cannot be unlimited and independent of the principles revealed by Allah. Expanding religious freedoms does not eliminate this fundamental difference. Yet criticizing secularism alone does not amount to articulating Islam’s conception of the state.

The real question is this: Do Muslims criticize secularism with a genuine understanding of where it diverges from Islam, or do they content themselves with the religious freedoms granted to them and overlook more fundamental problems?

For Islam’s approach to government is not simply about changing the name of the state or the identity of its rulers. It is about making human responsibility towards Allah the basis of law, the economy, justice and public administration. For a Muslim, what matters is not how closely aligned the political leadership is with them, but the extent to which the government adheres to the principles of justice and responsibility revealed by Allah.

Political authorities should not define the boundaries of faith; their powers should be scrutinized in light of the standards of justice and responsibility set by faith.

İslam Başaran

More articles by this author

Mirat Haber – YouTube