The search for a religion to suit us

A religion of one's own, a religion that will meet our own needs, a religion that will serve our own purposes without changing us, a religion that will not affect our routine but will adapt itself to it, a religion that will never disturb our peace or trouble us but on the contrary will put us at ease, a religion that will never frighten or warn us but will constantly gladden us and give us glad tidings: what human motivation is this search connected to?

Should we, tempted by a very quick answer, see it as a manifestation of the desire to rule over God? After all, technical thinking brings to light, day by day, a desire and a will that wants everything brought under human control. In the modern era, the human desire to frame and to possess does not exclude God, nor the religious domains that concern God.

Religion ceases to be a call that is listened to, a summons demanding that we change our lives and ourselves, and becomes a field that we can use as we wish.

The propositions or demands that begin with "We need a new Islamic understanding, a religious understanding or interpretation of religion peculiar to Istanbul, or Turkey, or Anatolia" — from which feelings, from which attitude toward religion, from which existential choice before God do they draw their motivation, for example? How much has an attitude that bargains with the Owner of religion actually accepted religion? How open can it be to the message of religion? Can a civilization arise from such a religious approach?

It can, of course. Let us not deny it its due. Civilization does not always emerge from a sound relationship of the human being with God, with nature, with other human beings. Let us go further: no civilization that has made a name for itself in history stepped onto the stage of history while keeping its relationship with God on a sound line. The stage of history is where the material manifestations that humanity prizes so highly, and, because it prizes them, deems worthy of recording in its history, are seen: artistic structures that cover up injustice, inequality, oppression and tyranny. The pyramids, the towers, the hanging gardens, the great magnificent palaces... Manifestations of civilization that came about at the cost of how many people going hungry, being exploited, being crushed and dying, and of resources being squandered.

Today, what civilizational structure, what great mosque, what palace, what concrete urban life remains from the Prophet, who was the embodiment of justice and of the most sound and beautiful life? Processes of civilization very often begin when human beings, after hearing the message addressed to them and carrying out what it requires, distort that message. A successful synthesis then makes the motive of nationalizing religion very tempting. That is why success is sometimes a greater trial than failure. It has a side that makes one dizzy, intoxicates one with pride, leads one, because one attributes success to oneself, to a feeling of superiority, and makes absolute loss inevitable there.

If we return right here to the beginning, to the matter of religion ceasing to be a call that is listened to, a summons demanding that we change our lives and ourselves, and becoming a field that we can use as we wish: can we say that this is a new form of relationship between religion and human beings? Is it not, in one respect, a universal motivation in humanity's expectations of religion?

It is true; this is a summary of one of the attitudes that can be seen everywhere and at all times in the human being's relationship with religion. But what does the human being expect from religion? What, in return, does he find in religion? What kind of bargaining or obstinate resistance does he enter into with what he finds? There is also a more neutral formulation of this question: How does religion interact with people? How does it affect them and how is it affected by them?

The whole history of religions shows that some religions at first provoked great unrest in society, but through this unrest, by disrupting society's routines and disturbing the established powers, played a revolutionary role, contrary to Marxist prejudices. But before long these same religions themselves became a matter of tranquility, tradition and established order. The masses, perhaps not in the first founding-charismatic moment but after a generation or two, manage to strike their own bargains with religion and make it conform to themselves.

The famous German sociologist Max Weber sets out, with examples, this tragic fate that befell the world religions in particular: none of those known as world religions insisted too strongly on their initial claims in order to reach the masses they targeted. That is, in order to reach more people, all of them softened their original founding claims and were obliged to accept the idols they had rejected under other guises, for instance as the saints or friends of God of the new religion.

In this respect religions are pushed from an active position (vis-à-vis the masses who adopt them and make them resemble themselves) into a passive one. It is no longer religions that decide and exert influence, at least in this matter. "Religion is changed by the masses it invites to change."

This rule applies not only to religions but to all political and ideological movements. Of course, this rule is not one that exhausts everything, every possibility of existence. There are, naturally, excellent examples in which the influence of religion has worked differently. But to see this, one first needs to look with different eyes at the pendulum movement of human existence between heedlessness and guidance.