Ramadan at the heart of education: the school meeting life

The controversies stirred up around the Ministry of National Education's circular titled "Ramadan at the Heart of Maarif" invite us once again, like all debates on such subjects, to an accounting that goes beyond itself. We can actually say that secularism, which had been understood and applied as virtually a declaration of war on Türkiye's national and spiritual identity and values, has been settled onto a relatively more reasonable line. Secularism, which was never a need of Türkiye's own and was applied like a chain clamped on Türkiye's authentic identity, values and developmental potential, could of course never have been the demand of this nation, of this people.

Otherwise, what madman would ever have wanted to put such a chain on himself? At the limits of this madness, it is at least somewhat better understood today that secularism can never be a function of the people or of the individual, but only of the state. A context in which an individual can say that he is secular is, in essence, a strange context. Those who say they are secular end up treating secularism as a religion, as an ideology; as a religion with its own rituals, its own beliefs, its own idols and gods. Indeed, if you look at the reverence, the intonation and the allusions in the words of those who say they are secular, you feel this very clearly.

It is nonetheless not incomprehensible that the Ministry of National Education's circular titled "Ramadan at the Heart of Maarif" has taken us back once again to the question of how the relationship between religion, secularism, culture and education in Türkiye is to be established. Reflexes left over from eras in which secularism was understood as the domination of one religious and philosophical outlook over all other religious and philosophical outlooks have awakened and are making their customary noise. They simply fail to see that the pressures exerted to destroy every manifestation of Islam were, in Türkiye's case, extraordinarily irrational, unreal and excessively audacious practices. Even if they themselves do not understand that the pressures they once applied on this nation reduced them to the position of enemies of Islam and occupiers, this nation understands it very well by now. They deserve to be accused and condemned as the perpetrators of policies that could only have been applied over this nation from the standpoint of an occupier, and in a manner utterly alien and hostile to this nation. But perhaps this Muslim people, out of its courtesy, has not been able to read this guilt clearly enough on their faces until now.

Minister Yusuf Tekin's statements place law, social reality and an emphasis on national culture at the center of this debate. Let us first concede this: Türkiye is a state of law. Minister Tekin said exactly this. He noted that the prepared circular refers to its constitutional bases and especially to the Basic Law of National Education No. 1739. The preservation of national culture and national values and their transmission to future generations are counted among the fundamental aims of the education system. If one of the most distinctive times of this society's Muslim and cultural fabric is the month of Ramadan, should National Education be expected to remain indifferent to it?

Ramadan is not merely an individual act of worship. With its iftar, its fitr, its zakat, its sadaqa, its suhoor, its tarawih, its drum, Ramadan is a social sharing, a solidarity, a socialization, a festival and an all-encompassing atmosphere, a climate. Perhaps they uprooted, even if temporarily, many things they tried to rip out of the public sphere, but precisely because of this social-atmosphere quality, Ramadan remained like a fortress whose visibility and presence they could not get rid of. It resisted to the very end; they could not demolish it, and they never could have. For it has within it a magnificent power of resistance whose software and design God Himself has written.

In Minister Yusuf Tekin's words, "In Anatolia, Ramadan is a period in which national unity, brotherhood and mutual aid are lived at the maximum level." This is a sociological fact. In the memory of Anatolia, Alevi and Sunni, devout and secular alike, Ramadan has its place as a social time. To think of the school as a sterile laboratory cut off from social reality is neither pedagogically correct nor democratically possible.

In fact, even if the Ministry of National Education or the institutions of the state were to remain wholly indifferent, Ramadan would continue its own educational activity in its own flow. But for the state of a society, of a nation, and its institutions to remain indifferent to the society's beliefs and culture only shows their alienation from the society. What the Ministry of National Education has done is in reality nothing more than overcoming this alienation, removing an obstacle, a wall, a linguistic difference between the nation and the state.

Those who see this as an attack on secularism may perhaps not be considered wrong from the standpoint of the perception of secularism in their own minds. For that secularism is not a function of the state but their own belief. Yet even when viewed from that angle, secularism is not the de-culturing of the public sphere. Secularism is the state not forcibly imposing a religion. In any case, the circular contains neither compulsory worship nor any imposition of belief. What is at issue are cultural activities that draw attention to the mutual aid and solidarity dimension of Ramadan. If celebrating religious festivals at school is not contrary to secularism, neither is reminding students of the social dimension of Ramadan.

Another problem is the language used. To call a broad social segment that holds Ramadan sensibilities a "reactionary minority" is not democratic criticism but plain insult. That is why Minister Tekin's determination to take these remarks to the judiciary is very meaningful. Criticism is a right; but demeaning a society and vilifying the faith of millions of people is not freedom of expression. Unfortunately, it is a manifestation of the reckless and audacious Islamophobia of a minority that we have been accustomed to in Türkiye until now. What they want is not secularism but the chaining of Islam. In a society in which they are a minority, they want to make their own Islamophobic values a norm; they have done so until now, but it is evident that they are very upset that they will not be able to do so from this point on.

Of course there is a delicate balance. The state cannot force any student to worship; it must not separate out any child on the basis of his faith. This principle is beyond dispute. But explaining the social dimension of Ramadan through voluntary activities and cultural awareness work is not a violation of functional secularism. On the contrary, it is a requirement of pluralism. Pluralism is not only protecting secular sensibilities, but also recognizing the cultural presence of the devout majority.

In conclusion, when properly implemented, the "Ramadan at the Heart of Maarif" approach should be read neither as an imposition nor as an ideological project. It is National Education's effort to make contact with the cultural fabric of society.

When Ramadan comes, the tempo of life changes; tables widen; doors open. Why should it cause discomfort for schools to draw inspiration from this climate, to teach children sharing, to strengthen social bonds? Secularism is not banning belief; it is guaranteeing freedoms. Within this freedom there is living Ramadan, and there is also not wishing to live it. The state's duty is to keep these two spheres in balance.

The circular of National Education claims to establish precisely this balance. And to approach the matter not with ideological fears but on the ground of law and social reality is the responsibility of all of us.