Morality and Transformation in the Public Sphere

 

In order to understand morality and transformation in the public sphere, one must first possess knowledge about the source and framework of morality. Since this subject was sufficiently clarified in the presentation of the first table, we feel no need to re-enter this topic. Therefore, below we will first examine the concept of the public sphere and then the meaning and scope of morality in terms of this concept.

 

1. The Public Sphere

The “public” in the public sphere, in terms of its dictionary meaning, can be understood as amme or umum (the general public), or in the language of Yunus Emre—who said, “We bear grudge against no one, the entire universe is as one to us”—as “cümle alem – everyone”.

 

In other words, every situation in which a human is in relationship with others is essentially a public situation, and every place where such relationships are experienced is a public sphere.

 

Accordingly, the common area belonging to other than the “I”—that is, to the “we”, to the “entire universe”—is the public sphere. Otherwise, as some claim, the state is not the public, and the public sphere is not an area belonging to the state. Essentially, the state is not the owner of something or an area. The public in the public sphere is obligated to ensure public order.

 

Therefore, it does not seem correct to load more meaning onto this concept than it deserves. Because today this concept is used as an instrument and arena of despotism by certain individuals who have somehow seized state authority. To achieve this purpose, it is made to be perceived as the sphere of sovereignty of the state and as wide an area as possible. Moreover, while this is done in the name of the state and under the pretext of ensuring public order, social peace is disrupted, and consequently public order is destroyed. Considering that this concept is resorted to in matters such as the right to wear a headscarf merely to step-stone tyranny, resorting to this concept regarding morality might even be objectionable.

 

Again for this reason, the concept of the public sphere will be used below not in the sense of the authority of the public (state), but in the sense of a common space.

 

1. Morality

Morality has certain fundamental characteristics:

 

1. Whether a behavior is moral is directly related to that behavior being conscientious. The primary feature that distinguishes man from the animal and makes him human is his conscience. Conscience is addressed by revelation. Therefore, in all religious beliefs, the first human is simultaneously the first being possessing a conscience and the first addressee of revelation—namely, Prophet Adam. Again for this reason, religion is edep; in Bediüzzaman’s expression, “the ultimate goal of humanity and the duty of human nature is to be adorned with Divine morality and beautiful characteristics [secâyâ-i hasene].”

 

The most perfect of religions is Islam, and the perfection of morality is Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).

 

In this case, the source of morality is revelation and conscience—that is, fitrah. Consequently, every behavior that can be called conscienceless is simultaneously immoral.

 

1. An immoral behavior is also essentially contrary to religion. In other words, every behavior not approved by fitrah, revelation, and religions is also contrary to morality.

 

Viewed from this perspective, there is no difference between human disrespect toward the universe and disrespect toward people. Indeed, ignoring or denying the purpose of creation of objects is also an immorality. For example, performing worship is fulfilling gratitude toward Allah. This right is the right of Allah, Hukukullah. However, since there is no worldly sanction for the violation of this right, this behavior is viewed as a religion-belief matter.

 

In contrast, suppressing the rights of others or society is viewed as immorality and injustice since it also has a worldly sanction. If a person commits immorality against others, they will receive its recompense from both Allah and society. This type of morality is hukuk-ul ibad (rights of servants).

 

1. Morality is a type of value judgment that man faces both when alone with himself and that he is obliged to obey in his relations with others. In other words, morality is not a concept belonging solely to the public sphere. Because a person living alone also has and must have moral rules.

 

However, when morality in the public sphere is mentioned, morality in interpersonal relations—that is, in social life—comes to mind. When morality is limited to this sphere and cut off from conscience, morality ceases to be true morality. In other words, since secular morality distances man from the purpose of creation and therefore views him as a purposeless being, it settles for a weak and ineffective concept of morality.

 

1. The perception of morality, like all other perceptions, is a heart-brain activity. However, morality in the public sphere concerns human social behaviors that also affect other people.

 

Therefore, the approach that denies the relationship of morality with behaviors—saying “Morality is in the human brain”—is essentially the trick of those who want to banish morality from society and imprison it in consciences. Whether a person’s heart is pure can only be known by Allah with the help of the scale of conscience and revelation. What is important is that a person’s heart, hand, and tongue are all pure. Because other people look—and must look—not at the heart and intention, but at the hand and tongue (expression).

 

1. The Public Sphere and Morality

1. There is a direct relationship and bond between law and morality. Because the goal of both is right and justice. Immorality is tyranny, exactly like injustice. Therefore, being contrary to law is also being contrary to morality.

 

1. Every behavior contrary to morality necessarily disrupts an order:

 

1. • Immorality against the rights of an ant disrupts the order of the universe and environment and insults the universe. However, since it is assumed not to concern the public sphere, this immorality is not given importance. Yet, true environmentalism and true consciousness of existence require perceiving this moral norm as well.

 

1. • Immorality against human rights is contrary to both interpersonal order and the order of the universe. In other words, public order is essentially a part of the order of the universe. Such immorality not only violates the order of the public sphere (public order) but also destroys the order of the universe.

 

1. Every immorality is simultaneously aggressive (mütecaviz).

 

Immoralities that do not aggress against human rights are behaviors merely of the nature of sins. The consequence of sinfulness is related to Allah’s account.

 

In contrast, immorality in the public sphere—along with sinfulness that aggresses against human rights—has two-sided consequences. It requires giving an account both to other people and to Allah. Therefore, this immorality is simultaneously a violation of the rights of servants (kul hakkı).

 

1. The public authority determining moral rules and their sanctions should not assume the right to deem immoralities of the nature of violations of Hukukullah (behaviors of the nature of mere sins) as crimes and punish them. Because such sanctioning drives people toward hypocritical religiosity.

 

In contrast, the state should also be able to apply sanctions against immorality directed at human rights.

 

As for behaviors that do not violate human rights—that is, that do not aggress against hukuk-ul ibad—it is most correct to suffice, especially de facto and presently, with advice.

 

Therefore, separating non-aggressive sins from others, Bediüzzaman states in Hutbe-i Şamiye, “…do not let the misdeeds of our enemies—on condition of no aggression—attract your enmity. Hell and divine punishment are sufficient for them.” Continuing, he shows the behavioral pattern that should be developed against such situations: “…if enmity in its reality is in the heart, then affection, getting along, and not meddling turn into the form of being outwardly friends. This can be against the people of misguidance who do not commit aggression.”

 

1. The essential thing is for people to be inclined to behave morally not because they fear the sanctions to be applied by the state or society, but through the influence of the prohibitor in their consciences. In other words, what is acceptable in morality, just like in religiosity, is that which comes from within—that is, that which is non-hypocritical.

 

However, while making pressure for religiosity is harmful rather than useful, for aggressive immorality, it is an inescapable necessity for society and especially legitimate authority to apply sanctions. Because immorality must be prevented before it spreads in some way.

 

The matter of what should be done against aggressive misdeeds (mütecaviz seyyiat) has been explained in a Hadith:

 

1. • First, society (efkâr-ı amme) should not ignore such behaviors and must react. This reaction should be in the form of correcting it with one’s tongue if possible, and if not possible, working for the day to come when this will be possible and waiting ready until that day (harboring resentment in the heart).

 

No one can be condemned due to their beliefs and opinions. However, everyone must at least be condemned and ostracized due to behaviors of the nature of aggressive immorality so that they do not dare to repeat their action.

 

1. • Second, society should mobilize the legitimate authority, and the legitimate authority should apply a material sanction. This is in the form of correcting the environment by hand in order to protect public order and prevent aggression or prevent its repetition.

 

Both of these behaviors are not only a right for both the individual, society, and state, but an obligation. In fact, it can be said that it is primarily an obligation. Because the ideal human should achieve moral behavior not by listening to the voice of others (the environment or the state), but directly and truly to the voice of their own conscience and revelation. However, this is not always possible.

 

1. The measure to be taken by the state against aggressive immorality is primarily to deem immoral behaviors that disrupt public order as crimes and punish them. Thus, just as the state should deem sin a crime, the prevention of erroneous thoughts will also be achieved.

 

Indeed, since Allah has granted man a choice regarding committing the greatest sin like disbelief (küfür) and announced that He will determine its consequence Himself, the sanction of the crime committed against Allah—that is, sin (violation of Hukukullah)—will be determined and applied not by humans, but by Allah. Thinking otherwise is no different from those who use the authority to legislate and execute in the name of the state placing themselves in the place of God.

 

1. Morality and Transformation

The measure of morality is essentially determined by conscience and revelation and is universal. However, when immorality increases in a society during a period, this change is interpreted as the measure of morality having changed.

 

In a society, as the gap between the ideal morality and real morality measures increases, the collapse in society also increases. When the majority begins to ignore any moral value, no exit route remains for the minority. Therefore, precautions should be taken before society reaches this point, and a transformation in a positive direction should be achieved.

 

The most important matter is to be hopeful. It may be true that immorality has increased. However, this should not be interpreted as meaning that the bad course of events can no longer be prevented and that the time of the apocalypse has arrived. Indeed, life continued after Sodom and Gomorrah.

 

The failure of the legitimate authority to apply sanctions against immorality should not cause society to remain silent either. Because no society can survive for long solely with state sanctions.

 

Therefore, one should not be tolerant toward social movements that destroy moral values, and one must decipher the focal point of these movements and eliminate them or at least reduce their impact.

 

Again in this context, tolerance should only be toward differences; otherwise, it should not turn into tolerance toward immorality.

 

Especially if a Muslim abandons their religion, no character remains in their soul that will lead to perfection (kemalât). Therefore, society must reinforce faith with the help of its internal dynamics.

 

The good must continue to set an example in society and spread it. Because morality is essentially righteous action (amel-i salih). Training of the ego (nefis terbiyesi) cannot be done by the state through coercion and domination, but can and must be done by teaching with remedies from the pharmacy of the Qur’an, by setting a good example, and more importantly, by reforming with grace, making people exemplary. All kinds of organizations (loose or tight-knit) that exemplary people will establish among themselves should be encouraged.

 

Moral people must be at least as courageous as the immoral. What falls to the state is to establish an environment of freedom that will ensure moral people set good examples.

 

Although the state does not directly mandate devout people to behave immorally, it restricts the freedoms of the devout and does not allow them to be examples of good morality. Therefore, public freedoms must be developed.

 

It can be accepted that a secular morality can also be found. However, this matter should not be exaggerated, and it should be kept in view that the fundamental value that will keep societies, and especially Eastern societies, on their feet is religions and revelation. Within this framework, dialogues should also be developed in this direction among members of different religions.

 

In this scope, in order to prevent the spread of the West’s immorality to the world, it is essential to establish true freedom, which is essentially the genuine property of Islam. True freedom is freedom imbued with faith. Anyone who does not recognize Allah and fails to become His servant is bound by no material tie and becomes a potential danger to social life.

 

Lessons in faith and morality based on revelation should be taught in schools and prisons. Both the rights of the ant and human rights can be guaranteed only through such moral lessons. Otherwise (as long as one suffices with penal sanctions alone), a social structure in which people equipped with moral characteristics are in the majority cannot be established.

 

The exploitation of women, especially in advertisements, must be prevented, and standing against the encouragement of immorality under the name of women’s rights must be maintained.

 

Due to the positive contribution of religious-social motifs (şeair) to moral development, no compromise should be made on the revival of şeair.

 

A social and legal ground must be established that will ensure those aspiring to state (public) service also remain within moral boundaries. Otherwise, officials lacking concern for morality become tyrannical petty Nimrods on the one hand, and perform civil service as begging or gypsydom on the other.

 

Media morality is at least as important as professional morality in other professions, and even more important because it is related to fundamental rights and freedoms.

 

“Ethical codes” determining professional morality should be associated with the religious value judgments of society.

 

Behaving morally also means auditing oneself rather than others in terms of morality. Investigating and spreading faults is not necessary.

 

Particularly, the confusion of concepts regarding social life, the abundance of subjective value judgments, pluralism, uncertainty, secularization, hedonism, and freedom—which are characteristics of the 21st century—require determining new approaches regarding morality. One must be prepared for this, and such studies should be popularized. In all studies, the facts that morality is increasingly becoming a relative concept, tolerance toward immorality has become widespread, and the world has become a global village must be taken into consideration.