Is the State an Extension of Religion in the Economic-Political Conflict?

It is known that the sense of religion, which is simultaneous with the history of humanity, occupies an important place in the lives of societies and is an important element in the creation of culture. Today, this is what Durheim's sociology has put forward since the 19th century, and it is generally accepted. The German thinker Karl Marx says that the economy is the main factor that constitutes the infrastructure in societies, and that all the institutions that make up the superstructure, especially religion, are determined by him. If we remember that a German scholar, Max Weber, said that religion is the determinant of social structure, culture and especially economy, it is seen that both views explain one side of the same truth. The Protestant Ethic was an important factor in the Germans becoming a world power again in a short time after they were defeated in two great wars. It is also known that Plato emphasizes the necessity of envisioning religion, teaching it in state institutions, and fulfilling the religious beliefs of the people by state officials in official places of worship.

What was the situation in Islamic Political Philosophy?

If we remember the attitude of our Prophet during the formation period, the theoretical basis of Abu Zer's struggle after the death of our Prophet, Nurettin Topçu's Anatolian Socialism, Kemal Tahir's imagination and Ali Shariati's struggle in Iran can also be understood.

As it is known, our Prophet first tried to make social reforms. Making these reforms to empower the socio-economically weak and oppressed poor, orphans, women and slaves required assuming political power. In this context, the reasons why our Prophet, who fought for the personal rights of the oppressed, low income groups, that is, the proletariat, in the economic and political conflict environment with the Karl Marx mentioned above, and the Meccan merchants who took their wealth from their tribe, and the ruling class, namely the bourgeoisie of the period, should be examined in detail.

In order to understand that period well, it is normal for the aristocratic oligarchy, the aristocratic oligarchy, to show this reaction among the Arabs, that is, the tribal, patrimonial structure, the parental order, and the class of the nobility, which held the economic, social and political power in today's terms. It is so clear that the struggle is economic and political, and if we remember that the Prophet came from the Ben-i Hashim branch of the Quraysh Tribe, it becomes clear that other tribes feared that these reforms would bring the rule of the Hashim sons. To eliminate this risk, they offered our Prophet an influential position in the Mecca city council instead of a religious/political leader. The statement (hadith) "If they put the sun in one hand and the moon in the other, I will not give up on my cause" is based on this.

The fact that the aristocratic and rich people of Mecca, upon the rejection of their offer, stated that they would accept the condition of faith offered by the Prophet in case the poor and weak followers of our Prophet were marginalized, shows that the conflict is basically economic-political. As a matter of fact, when he moved from Mecca to Medina in 622, the obligation of Zakat was introduced in order to improve the situation of the poor as a religious and political leader, to save them from the burden of chronic debt, to improve their defense power and other social services. In the face of the very bad conditions of the period, he implemented social reforms such as regulating marriage and divorce by arranging the inheritance rights of women. When he returned to Mecca in 630, he took the city without resistance; Delegations representing Arab tribes flocked to the meeting. This means that St. The rule of Muhammad (pbuh) was the way in which his prophetic mission was carried out.

From this point of view, zakat, which is used to improve the condition of the oppressed, as well as to believe in Allah and fulfill the prayers, has been highlighted, doing what is good, staying away from all kinds of evil, not doing to others what one does not want done to him, and injustice done to a person - his religion, language, race, gender. It has been emphasized that it is as if it has been done to all humanity, no matter what. There are many verses and hadiths stating these issues.

Our Prophet, who showed that arranging the world and eliminating injustices can be done with taqwa, that is, with an attitude and consciousness that can distinguish right from wrong and make an effort in accordance with it, also trained a core staff for this purpose. H.A.R. Gibb defines it as "yeast that affects them all".

The State Is Not an “Extension” of Religion

When our Prophet died in 632, he was the de facto and effective prophet-ruler of the entire Arabian peninsula. It seems that the state was a reflection of the moral and spiritual values ​​of Islam at that time. Therefore, it is transparent, that is, it is a transparent tool that disappears by itself when it is respected. In this sense, the state is not an "extension" of religion.

Therefore, Democracy as today's management style will serve the requirements of the Qur'an much better than medieval government forms - caliphate or sultanate. The Qur'an asks those who represent the people to decide in consultation. The adoption of democracy from the public is not a "legitimation" but a reinvention of the task of administration. The management styles that emerged under the name of caliphate or sultanate may have been valid at that time, but it is clear that it does not say anything today. When we look at the social structure, fundamental rights and the situation of workers brought from other poor Muslim countries despite the economic wealth in the Gulf countries, it is seen that there are deviations that leave these systems behind. The whole world is already watching what political organizations that say they are devoted to bringing about the caliphate and that use the term Islamist very easily, are doing in Afghanistan and Iraq, Syria and Africa.

If we are to answer the question of why the state is not an "extension" of religion, starting from Namık Kemal, the duties described as Islamic are not assigned to a single individual or class, but to all Muslims, so it is out of question for any class or elite group to claim their rights. In this context, Namık Kemal says that there are people in Turkey who have the understanding to understand the issues of war and peace, taxation and education, and that their government will be governed. He points out that there is no need for "technical" theological knowledge to govern society. At this point, it would be useful to compare the difference between the concepts of "forbidden" and "haram", the DIB and some theologians saying that cigarettes are haram, but the analysis of Kemal Gözler, a constitutional lawyer. (http://www.anayasa.gen.tr/sigara-haram-mi.htm)

Conclusion

If we speak from Namık Kemal, if the Qur'an, which calls itself the guide of people, is such a difficult technical issue to understand, it cannot appeal to humanity. Seeing it as a technical book dulls our consciousness. However, the Qur'an wants to create a consciousness in people, to maximize spiritual energy and to use energy in appropriate channels. For this reason, it is not consistent to see religion as an extension of the state, to engage in leadership and religion trade.

***

(For grounding, see Ahmet Yaşar Ocak, Turks, Turkey and Islam, İletişim spring, Istanbul 2016, p.13-14; Fazlur Rahman, “Islam and Political Action: Politics in the Service of Religion”, Political Thought in Islam, compiled and translated by Kazım Güleçyüz, Human spring. İstanbul 1995, pp.7-19)