Can Sisi's Abidin draw the picture of freedom?

Today I was going to say let us have a little fun, but I am giving up on it because the matter has as much of a sad side as a comic side. The level to which reason, conscience and character have fallen leaves one no cause to laugh.

Let us keep dealing in Turkey with the minds that say "if Erdoğan had had a beer, the world would have been entirely different"; especially since the Khashoggi case, the campaign, worthy of brazen thieves, that troll armies centered in BAE and SA are waging against Turkey, against Erdoğan, against my humble self and against my valued friend Turan Kışlakçı knows no pause.

Even if we let them be, they seem not to let go of our collars. They are in special pursuit. Context-schmontext, flow-schmow do not matter at all. They have gone out hunting for any word, sentence or phrase they can use. They are following very closely for this. In every case they thought they had hunted so far, they themselves could not escape being the prey, but what difference does it make? Isn't their very existence a gift to their masters anyway? One way or another.

So far we have seen a great deal of their complaining to their Western, liberal, secular masters by accusing Turkey of Ikhwanism, of radical Islamism, of reviving the caliphate. What do I mean by a great deal? This is their general dominant discourse. So whatever you say, however much you say "we never had any caliphate claim, Turkey is a secular-democratic state under the rule of law, and it has nothing to do with the Ikhwan," it is useless. You cannot break their rote, because the rote has gone past the head and been tied to the mechanics of a jaw that works without thinking and is unaffected by external factors.

I think something happened that upended this mechanics. Another signal came to the jaws from somewhere. I looked, and those who until now have accused Turkey of Ikhwanism or radical Islamism had wired the cables the other way round, and this time they are complaining to the Ikhwanis about Turkey, or rather about my person, that it is not Islamist enough, even talking of my having led Turkey away from Islam.

A new campaign set in motion from somewhere. Some of them criticize in this way, while others begin the accusations with "making the haram halal, inventing a new religion."

The words that form the basis for the accusation are those I said in the program of Muhammad Nasir on Mekameleen TV, which broadcasts in Arabic, in recent days. Muhammad Nasir, a very successful program host, asked me, in view of Turkey's noble stance that is so widely appreciated in the Islamic world, whether, as a Muslim, we had considered ultimately closing or banning such situations as the mixed entertainment venues, with men and women together, where alcohol is drunk and which do not befit Muslim culture.

Of course, first of all I immediately answered "no," then, as far as my tongue could turn, I tried to explain that Turkey is a secular country and that what we understand by secularism is above all the freedom of the individual, that the freedoms of such people have not been touched so far and that touching them has never even been considered.

Of course my individual view of alcohol or of such a lifestyle is not independent of my own faith. Alcohol is the mother of evils and is haram. But my regarding it as haram does not require my forcing others to regard it as haram.

Even if I do not consider it good myself, even if I wish what is good for them too and for that purpose use my right of advice or expression (preaching and counsel), others have the right to choose to live this way, and the right not to want to be subjected to my sermons. There is nothing we can do against this, neither by law nor by religion.

Taking these words of mine, the Sisi media on the one hand complains about me to the Ikhwanis, and on the other presents me to the devout who may keep their distance from the Ikhwan too as follows: "Look at the new religion of Ikhwanist Turkey with its caliphate claim. They are making the haram halal, they are deeming alcohol and adultery halal!"

Of course, there is no expression close to this in any of my words. Even the expressions of mine that they took out of context as evidence for their words do not say such a thing. Of course we could never have an expression anywhere that could mean making adultery or alcohol halal. That something is haram according to religion is one thing; that it is prohibited by law is another. There is no such thing as the state banning everything that is haram according to religion.

Believing individuals avoid the things they know to be haram, and the means necessary for them to avoid them are provided to them. Or they do not avoid them and bear the sin, or they hold their own separate views or understandings on whether it is haram for them.

Indeed, all citizens of a state like Turkey may not have the same understanding of halal and haram, and they do not. There are Muslims and non-Muslims. Muslims too have diversity among themselves. There are those who regard Islam's commands as in no way binding on themselves, and there are those who belong to other madhhabs. In Turkey the state has no business determining the limits of halal and haram and imposing these limits on people.

What is fundamental is freedoms. Not only for the devout, but for everyone, of course up to the limit of another's freedom.

Besides drinking alcohol being haram according to Islam, since its harm to individual and public health is also scientifically established, the state in Turkey has an obligation to protect young people against alcohol, and it already does this within the framework of the laws.

But beyond that, no one can interfere, nor should they, with adult people drinking of their own free will, without encouraging the young. This is not called making alcohol halal. We recommend alcohol to no one, but after a certain point we do not interfere with the one who drinks either.

Of course, we call "freedom" what those who are voluntary slaves to money and fear in the land of a dictatorship that tramples all of people's will, even if they wished, would find difficult to understand, as we well know! Can Sisi's Abidin draw a picture of freedom?

But even if they do not understand, we must say that the most fundamental principle of Islam is freedom. Not only of Islam, but of every kind of moral conduct, the most fundamental principle is freedom.

One who has no freedom of course has no moral responsibility either, but this is a principle that does not cover those who voluntarily surrender their freedom.

There is no compulsion in Islam, and saying that everyone's religion is their own is itself the most ideal practice of Islam.

Of course the tragicomic side of the matter is that, in the face of words of ours to this effect, the Sisi and BA media have turned into Shariah-ists. Were we to go a little further, they would even become radical Islamists. And they would, and they would even declare us takfir…