For a long time, the debate about secularism in Turkey has been far from media attention, and the reason was not the AKP's Islamist policies or the party's victory in its war on secularism. On the contrary, the AKP's policy has been very surprising and unexpected with regard to secularism .
This discussion has been closed by changing the meaning of secularism - it was seen in Turkey as anti-religious - by highlighting the meaning of religious freedom. These steps affected the most fanatic of secularism without launching an open war against them. Emphasis was placed on British, American and even German secularism, instead of French secularism, and it was proven that it does not contradict the beliefs of the Muslim person, and it seemed like an implicit agreement to address them from this point of view.
Recently, a very big controversy arose in Turkey after the opening of the Supreme Court building in Istanbul. In that opening, the Head of Religious Affairs, Dr. Ali Arbash, called a simple supplication for the opening of the building, in which he said: “O God, Opener of doors, open the best door for us. Oh God, Turner of hearts, make our hearts firm on your religion. Oh God, Transformer of situation and conditions, transform our situation for the best.” Then he called for the opening of this building to be good and a blessing for the Turkish nation, then he praised the deputies and judges who ruled in the Supreme Court for a decade and a half, and that they made a lot and a lot of effort to perform the justice that God commanded, then he read some verses of the Qur'an and the hadiths of the Prophet that It talks about justice and its establishment among people. The opposition rose up because of this supplication, and some opponents described it as a medieval ritual. The opposition described it as a fatal mistake, and that this does not belong to the natural world nor to Turkey.The opposition also attacked President Recep Tayyip Erdogan as being responsible for the existence of such manifestations in Turkey.
The controversy that erupted and the attack caused by this supplication brings us back to the concept of secularism that we left behind long ago - a concept full of violence and fanaticism that has become part of the past - but we can note that the primitive secular position has not changed and still controls the minds of some;
Those who do not respect others and reject any different vision, wait for any opportunity to revive and return to the forefront again.
This makes us ask some questions: Does the problem lie in the supplication of the head of religious affairs?
Or in his supplication while he is wearing the abaya?
Or that he did so at the opening of the Supreme Court?
Do any of these things contradict the concept of secularism?
In fact, secularism has nothing to do with objecting to Dr. Arbash's prayer, it is a matter of Islamophobia.
Secularism has become like a sacred phrase invoked to show someone's hostility to Islam.
Secularism developed in European history as a social peace project to ensure the coexistence of conflicting religions among themselves without destruction, oppression or injustice, and it was operating according to this historical mechanism in Europe, the United States of America and Australia, with the exception of France.
Therefore, secularism - which is based on ensuring peaceful coexistence between the various components of society - requires the cooperation of states among themselves.
At this particular point, we can see that secularism is different from what it was in the past, it has turned into a phobia or hatred against religion, especially Islam.
This secularism has nothing to do with secularism as it should be.
For a long time, the debate over secularism was kept out of the press;
The success in keeping Turkey away from this ridiculous debate was achieved not by destroying secularism, but by putting it in its rightful place and making it more effective;
Effectiveness that guarantees freedom of religion and conscience, that is, no compulsion in religion, and no religious persecution of any person.
The state must serve its citizens on an equal footing without any religious or philosophical discrimination, and no person may be prevented from living and expressing his faith and transmitting it to future generations through education, whatever that belief is.
It is clear that the practices of the past have nothing to do with secularism in this sense.
Secularism in Turkey was far from neutral towards all religions, and did not guarantee religious freedom.
On the contrary, it was like an integrated philosophy and ideology, and religion was generally seen as a superstition, a misconception, even from the perspective of French secularism.
The understanding of secularism based on seeing religions - especially Islam - as a myth was the starting point for seeking to erase Islam from social and political life.
Secularism was also far from being an organizing principle that prevents different religions from exerting pressure on each other, in order to achieve freedom of religion at the social level.
In fact, secularism developed in European history as a social peace project to ensure the coexistence of conflicting religions among themselves without destruction, oppression or injustice, and it was operating according to this historical mechanism in Europe, the United States of America and Australia, with the exception of France.
Therefore, secularism - which is based on ensuring peaceful coexistence between the various components of society - requires the cooperation of states among themselves.
Today, it is impossible to witness such a wide controversy that has arisen in Turkey because of a cleric praying for the opening of a judicial institution, in any of the European countries, but it would be ironic in Europe to raise such a debate in the name of secularism.
Since the goal of the state and religions is to create a society that enjoys justice, prosperity and peace, the cooperation of the state with religious institutions is a prerequisite for the success of secularism.
This cooperation between state and church is most evident in England, when the state was subordinate to the Anglican Church, and in Germany, which institutionalized secularism in a society that was roughly evenly divided between the Protestant and Catholic churches.
In the United States, there is a constitutional provision that prohibits the state from enacting any laws that restrict religious freedoms.
In fact, we had not heard of secularism in Turkey for a long time, but the recently raised concept has changed the course of things.
Secularism in Turkey was not an organizational principle that worked to ensure social peace, but rather threatened peace in form and content.
It was more like a guardianship of people's beliefs and values, because it treated those beliefs - that is, Islam and all its manifestations - as reactionary and a colonial ideology.
Although its real role is to stand on the neutrality between religions, in Turkey it was more like an independent religion in its own right with its sanctities.
When you look at the perception of some secularists of the concept of secularism, you do not notice a difference from any religious discourse. What is the difference between a person who says about himself “I am secular” or “I am a Muslim” or “I am a Christian” or “I am a Jew”;
There is almost no difference in meaning.
Secularism was seen as a system that helps to avoid conflict between followers of different religions, but under the rule of those with a radical perception, a real need arose to protect secularism from the secularists themselves.
In recent years, this need has been met and the dangerous consequences of secularism have been eliminated.
Secularism was brought back to its rightful place to play its role effectively, so we didn't hear about it in the media.
But the turban of the head of religious affairs, Ali Erbash, appears to have revived secular nostalgia and revived forgotten debates about the nature of secularism.
However, the storm must subside, and things will return to normal, because in Turkey today no belief can be imposed on anyone, nor can it be in any way possible to return secularism to its old anti-Islamic formula.