"By God's permission, by the Prophet's word"

The storm that broke out over granting muftis the authority to perform marriage ceremonies is having the effect of summoning anew the spirit of the old version of a concept of secularism that had, for some time, reached a certain tacit consensus. What is longed for is of course not secularism itself, but the synergy, excitement and nostalgia that secularism campaigns tried to produce.

In one respect, granting muftis the authority to perform marriages is in fact an instance of secularism itself, of all the model practices in the West. The only difference is that in place of church officials there, we have muftis.

That this practice, which does no harm to secularism in the West, is seen as very harmful here reflects the excitement of having discovered one more fortress that can be defended in the name of our own old secularism. In fact, because of the concept of secularism, which was not forgotten but only updated during the AK Parti government, setting out on this defense in the name of secularism looks very archaic.

When the AK Parti came to power in 2002, it did not enter into a conflict with secularism; it merely updated the concept and practice of secularism and brought it into line with general standards in the world. Secularism did not signify a state function of neutrality toward religions, one that prevents wars among religions and regulates their relations with one another. Instead of a principle of peace among religions or a state function that ensures freedom of religious expression and organization, secularism was a separate philosophy of life, alternative to all religions and above all religions. Quite in keeping with this, it had its own religious psychology, rituals and symbols.

The "secular identity" was an identity that expressed a distinct stance and attitude against all religions. Moreover, this identity was not at all tolerant. It saw all religions as superstition and saw the adherents of those religions as people chasing after nonsensical superstitions. The perception that religious people were, at best, in a state of ignorance or wretchedness continuously produced an intolerance inherent in the secular identity. What followed was complete intolerance, hatred and enmity.

For years in this country, headscarf bans were maintained in the name of secularism with this outlook, stubbornly, at the cost of leaving women uneducated, ignoring women's free will and placing them at a disadvantage. At bottom was their inability to understand how people could insist on this attire for the sake of a belief they considered "empty superstition."

This incomprehension and this intolerance formed the basis of secularism, but on one side there was also the matter of power. The headscarf ban was a typical indicator of bio-power. It triggered a deep fight over who or which power would rule over the body. For the first time, in the name of those beliefs that they coded as superstition, women, by saying "my body is mine, and I dedicate this body not to human whims and desires but to God, knowingly, willingly and of my own free will," all but drove the sovereign power mad.

In this move a subjection was imagined for the Muslim woman, whereas there is probably no other act that takes place so entirely within the limits of individual will as the decision to wear the headscarf. Whether in covering or in uncovering, Muslim women displayed and developed an exceedingly strong individual character. In covering, they defied the state's desire to appropriate their bodies and its thuggishness. At times they took on this act by standing against their own fathers and mothers. Muslim women displayed, at this point, in its best form, the liberating, indeed individuating, dimension of servitude to God.

The marriage issue too represents a return to the days of bio-power that the same old secularist circles are trying to revive. It is quite normal for them to link it to secularism, but what they need to know is that secularism in Turkey is no longer a tool that gives someone the privilege of bio-power, but a sphere of freedom.

Even in the periods when they enjoyed their own power, they were so far from the people that they failed to see that the people, even when they performed it because they were obliged to, never regarded the marriage authority they had grabbed from the religious sphere and made their own domain of power as a procedure producing sufficient legitimacy for their own marriage. In this country there prevails an understanding in which a marriage performed at the municipality but not religiously is considered invalid.

Of course, I am not even discussing whether this is correct from a religious point of view. It is unnecessary. Because the offer and acceptance, which are the minimum condition of marriage in religious terms, take place in any case. But despite this, it is a sociological fact that people regard the municipal marriage as insufficient for the marriage to be realized. Moreover, not only the religious but even people living a more secular life than you would ever expect always have an imam marriage performed before the municipal marriage. Because they think that, in religious terms, this marriage is not completed within the limits of the municipal marriage alone.

In fact, what is wanted through the law is simply the removal of this duality. This situation, which holds everywhere in the world from the most secular to the most religious, will have been made valid in Turkey too.

When the muftis perform the offer and acceptance, with their prayer, in accordance with the command of God and the word and sunnah of our Prophet, this procedure will also have been entered into the state's official records.

Moreover, the muftis will perform this marriage again in accordance with the terms of the existing civil law. There is no room for worry. Neither underage marriage, nor multiple marriage, nor marriage without consent will be possible.