Every society’s socio-cultural structure and political order are intertwined in a mutual relationship of determination and interaction as an organic whole. Wherever politics takes the form of a process of power concentration and distribution, the nature of this relationship provides clues about the overall societal structure.
Although interconnected, different factors such as the mode of production, geographical conditions, cultural traditions, and belief system affect the political sphere separately and in different level. In this sense, any discourse on politics and, by extension, governance, the state, and administrative structures will have direct implications for each individual. It is natural that the “common” traits most widespread among individuals or shared by them have the most active role in this interaction. In this context, it would not be wrong to say that factors that are “social”, that is, the most common feature, will have a critical role in determining the nature of politics.
The most widespread and common factor of a socio-cultural structure is undoubtedly its belief system. People’s mental frameworks are primarily shaped by their belief system. Here, belief is not limited to its narrow meaning of religious faith but rather refers to any form of attachment or commitment to something. Because religious belief has a more formal and learned feature. However, the belief system is informal and deep-rooted to the extent that it also affects religious beliefs. The geographical conditions in which societies live have outlined their belief systems as well as all the historical heritage they have inherited.
The Mesopotamian-Mediterranean basin can be regarded as “unitary geography and history” in terms of its belief system. History in this region appears as the infinite repetition of the “same events” that nourish and reproduce one another. Geography, on the other hand, has had a determining role in the mentality of the society of every ethnicity living in this basin, both in terms of the constants of the natural state such as river-mountain-plain-sea and climatic conditions, and the dynamic character of migration and trade routes.
The most convenient data to be used in order to analyze the features of the belief system as a way of believing in and adhering to anything is the concept of God. Whether people believe in or not, they definitely have a perception of God and a relationship of obedience or rebellion that they establish with Him. The analysis of this way of thinking, which religions play a role in reinforcing as the collective conscience of societies, will also facilitate the analysis of the concrete, that is, the economic and political. The concept of God inherently carries elements related to humans, nature, and indeed all aspects of existence. In most cases, people believe not in what is declared the God by religions, but in a God who is determined by history and geography and who stands out as a distorted and abstracted image of their own concrete reality. This “God” is also a power that belongs to “nature” as much as the limit of people’s knowledge of nature but transcendent from the nature. “God” is actually like the expression of the knowledge and judgments of the people of the Mesopotamia-Mediterranean basin regarding to the human, society, the state and the nature. Divine religions introduced real “knowledge” about God to people instead of this knowledge and judgments, but social practice re-established its own habit over time and made socio-cultural metaphysics dominant instead of the truth of divine religion. In this context, talking about the “conception of God” of any region is actually talking about the historical and social reality of that region.
For example, the idea of a God with the image of an “absolute and sacred father/master” reflects a patriarchal societal culture, an authoritarian state, and rigid, discriminatory governing-governed relationships. Most importantly, this “god” is only the god of a society or community, not a god that has meaning in each individual. However, for example, in the Holy Qur’an, Allah, who “introduces Himself”, and states that He is the Most Merciful and the Most Compassionate, that He is a friend, and that He allows criticism and even rebellion. He will complete His divine light. In other words, God is on the side of the struggle against the darkness and the evil in an ongoing process that is not yet completed. He created man and made him a “vicegerent”. He entrusted nature and other living creatures to the human responsibility. He introduces himself to the human as their side and their helper in order to destroy the devil (evil), which is the enemy of the human. “Allah (swt)”, who introduces himself to us in the Holy Qur’an, has little in common with the concept of god in the social subconscious. Likewise, there is a contradiction between the pure human conscience and the idea of ”God”, which is the product of the brutal reality of history and society.
Perhaps for this reason, most people establish a relationship with God not based on “faith” but on a slavish fear or rebel against this relationship altogether. But in any case, the idea of ”divinity” programs brain activities as a way of thinking, and all social relations are established through the immutable boundaries of this “program”. The reason why people living in this geography cannot establish non-authoritarian relationships or become free individuals is that they cannot think outside of the program in their minds and do not dare to go beyond the frightening and destructive effects of that program. Again, the “fixed and unchangeable” concept of God also plays a role in the existence of a fixed and unchangeable natural philosophy and, as a result, political-economic orders based on the endless repetition of the same. It is not a coincidence that societies with a completely tautological, closed, fixed and absolute way of thinking believe in a God with the same characteristics.
During the recorded history of the Mesopotamian-Mediterranean basin—over five thousand years—the “Gods” worshiped have remained similar, and the nature of human relationships with these gods has not fundamentally changed despite varying peoples and imperial systems. The pantheon of regional “Gods” included deities associated with functions such as the heavens, earth, the underworld, fertility, love, war, and good and evil. Some of these gods represented the untouchable and incomprehensible forces of nature (the Sun, Moon, stars), while others intervened in tangible relationships, appearing as “human-gods,” i.e., rulers. The latter always derived their legitimacy from and were “related” to the former, setting them apart as superior beings.
In the traditions of Iran, Sumer, Babylon, and Akkad, there was the concept of the God-king; in ancient Egypt, the king was the son of God (the Sun), and in Rome, deceased emperors were deified (Augustus). The God-king concept gradually underwent “metaphysical limitation” under the influence of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, evolving into the conception of “sacred state-sacred ruler.” For the last 2,000 years, the history of “sacred states” has been central to both Christian and Muslim societies, and though its impact has diminished, this understanding persists even today.
Sacred hierarchies, ancient customs, and boundless hegemonic systems continue to be reproduced and persist in both the “state” and all societal relationships.
What is Liberation?
Freedom is a principle of praxis. In the Mesopotamia-Mediterranean basin, in which we are located, history, takes place in the form of religion and state, and the human being cannot emerge as a subject. Philosophy and politics is expressed as mythology and theology, using the terms of theology. “Human” can exist as the object of the great and sacred wholes produced by history. The possibility of existence and self-expression outside these sacred wholes is feeble. In this sense, liberation is a completely practical problem in the geography we live in, and it is a political action that enables “the human” to exist as himself, to express himself, and to realize his own autonomous existence by breaking away from dependencies. However, a new way of existence can emerge through new “wholes” that can be established within praxis. Therefore, in our country, freedom is not a metaphysical fantasy in the stoic sense or a human rights issue in the western sense, but a completely ontological and political principle of development. In the society we live in, the set of demands consisting of demands for bread, security and justice will continue to be the main problem and will always remain at the demand level unless it includes the principle of freedom that will reveal “the human” with all its features. Because in every situation where there is no struggle for freedom and there is no free people, the demand for bread, security and justice serves to maintain the deep-rooted order of the great wholes that objectify people and, in such situations, these demands, themselves become the tools of a tautological discourse.
Thus, people will continue to submit to the authorities that distribute sustenance and promise stability and justice, and governments will enslave people on the basis of these needs. This vicious circle is the fundamental contradiction of our history and can only be overcome with freedom. Freedom basically means purification from all kinds of factors that make the human slaves and the mortal, that is, humanization. The key to freedom is “having”. Having the blessings (property), religion and the state is the most radical step of liberation that will change the historical structure of the human. Inverting the bondage relationship established with these three basic facts and developing a new style of relationship as a subject and as an owner / master is the essence of the practical liberation effort. In this sense, the problem of liberation is a social problem rather than an individual one and can only be realized through steps of collective change.
Liberation Through Ownership
Owning Property (The Blessings):
Despite all efforts toward capitalism, the economy in Türkiye is still fundamentally institutionalized as the distribution livelihoods by the state and accumulation of the property by the society. Instead of the capitalist principle of capital accumulation, the medieval concept of “property accumulation” prevails. For this reason, even “money”, as a medium of circulation and exchange of capitalist trade, is a value accumulated as “commodity” and often “stored” as a “property” in itself. Society becomes a slave to the property it has acquired and accumulated with great effort and sometimes by force, and people are the objects controlled by this property they own. The process that turns from a propertyless past to the lust of accumulating property also produces new forms of objectification, of instrumentalization, of devaluation and slavery of ‘the human’. Except for a few sectors that are necessarily based on production and work, almost the entire economy consists of relations with the character of a ponzi scheme dependent on this modern-looking “property”. After all, in this country, owning property at any level, small or large, means being a slave to property. However, in real terms, “owning the property” is a feeling that gives people a sense of confidence, increases their creativity, develops their horizons and abilities, helps them overcome their fears, and gives them the spirit of partnership and entrepreneurship. There are two ways to own property. The first is to earn it through labor and talent, and the second is to have a monotheistic worldview that sees all life, including this earning process, as an opportunity to become ADAM. Haram (undeserved) income, that is, without effort and talent, will definitely make the human become slaves to itself. A person who does not have the consciousness of tawhid and being the human (Adam) will tend to become a servant who boasts about what they has earned, exceeds his limits and harms others. Therefore, owning the blessings is the insurance of owning the property. However, the property obtained under these two conditions is halal (deserved). Property that does not meet these conditions is theft and haram (undeserved) both because it was obtained by stealing the rights of others and because it will be used as a lord to be worshiped. Today, the capitalist understanding of ownership and accumulation model is based on theft and is a system based on the entire society stealing each other’s rights. For this reason, only the cunning, immoral and the selfish people can own property. The property of all of these is theft property and must be transferred back to society in some way.
Creating a system where every individual can own property under equal conditions, through labor, talent, and effort, while also being the master of that property, requires a new socio-economic paradigm. This paradigm, which empowers individuals to become masters, is freedom. Owning property is a tool that liberates individuals, enabling them to avoid dependence on others, meet their needs, remain ungrateful to no one, and live without fear of the future. Ownership provides confidence, time, and opportunities for individuals to develop skills and engage in actions that benefit society.
Owning Religion:
Likewise, having a religion also making the human an object of religion in this country. Instead of guiding and saving people, the way religion is approached has turned it into a new mechanism of attachment and submission for society. Islam, which fundamentally rejects servitude to anyone but God, has been forced to serve a spiritual function that reinforces society’s habitual submission to authority at all levels. In this sense, institutionalized Islam, which contradicts the essence and purpose of Islam, has come to serve the objectification of ‘the human’ in some aspects. The paradox of ownership applies to religion as well. Some religious organizations that claim to be based on a libertarian religion such as Islam, but produce slavish forms of institutional relations such as submission, servitude to the individual, fatalism, obedience, contentment and loyalty, have a tautological character that reproduces the ancient pagan priest tradition through religion. As such, many religious organizations primarily serve as the tools of control and discipline for the state and authorities rather than facilitating human liberation. In many cases, especially in Anatolia, thanks to this wrong relationship with religion, it is possible to fill the gaps created by the state, politicians and property owners and to keep people as subjects/reaya/servants by accustoming them to obedience to these centers of the power.
This social role attributed to religion stems from people’s passive relationships with their religious affiliations, which nullify/destroy themselves rather than “having religion. Instead of embracing ‘the Most Honorable Created’ mission and personality that Islam has given to the human, enslaving communities have spread that keep our people into meaningless crowd through these wrong understandings of religion. The mechanism that produces ignorance, fanaticism, laziness, hypocrisy, power-worship and dogmatism from the members of a religion that preaches reason, work, honesty, honor and decency as a form of faith is the irony of history. Reversing this relationship will not only make it easier for policies that reduce Westernization to the liquidation of Islam to be wasted, but will also ensure the fermentation and universalization of a unique and indigenous modernity with the contribution of the values and dynamics of Islam, which form the soul of the nation.
The real owner of religion is, of course, God. In this sense, he is the real owner of everything. And everything in human life, including religion, has been given to the human’s command and responsibility by God. In other words, nature, things and phenomena, body and soul, mind and conscience, as well as moderation, self-limitation and other recommendations taught to the human by the prophets, that is, religion itself, are only a tool for the human. Religion, that is, divine messages, have been sent for man to become conscious of being the human, to comprehend God and his existence through the consciousness of God, and to realize that life and death are temporary opportunities for the essentially given purpose of being the human.
However, throughout history, people have mixed these divine messages with animistic-pagan traditions, distorting the awareness of Allah into idolatry and transforming religion into an institution resembling priestly hierarchies. Each time this occurred, prophets were sent to correct these distortions. Islam represents the final correction and perfection of this process. Islam inherently contains a definitive rejection of servitude to anyone or anything other than Allah. Yet, it has been reduced to a collection of dogmas serving different agendas in the hands of clerics and states. To truly own the revealed message, it must be reclaimed from clerics, states, and ruling classes and made a tool for liberation and well-being for all humanity.
This requires that every individual directly engage with Allah, read and interpret the Holy Qur’an, eliminate monopolies on religious knowledge, and dismantle the clergy class, whose profession is to speak on behalf of religion. Each person should be encouraged to interpret Allah’s messages sincerely and within their capacity for reason and effort, integrating them into their lives. Religion is life, and it must exist naturally within society as its deep and innate spirit and safeguard.
To own religion means to adopt the enlightening messages of the Qur’an—defined as a guide, advisor, and source of healing for humanity—as one’s compass. However, many adherents treat religion like animist-pagans, elevating it superficially as a theatrical, ritualistic, and ceremonial dogma, while giving it no place in their actual lives. This is because religion, like the state and property, can become an institution that, if not owned, enslaves its followers and causes more harm than benefit.
Owning the State
Another crossroads of the problem of freedom is the state. In the geography we live in, the “state” is more than a governing device; it associates to power, authority, hierarchy, sanctity, status, prestige, status quo, tradition, hegemony, keeping alive, killing, providing sustenance, war, peace, peace, order, discipline, loyalty, allegiance, obedience, to many other similar things… The state is much thing.
If the state has become an “other” in relation to its people/society, there is always an inverse correlation: as the state grows stronger, the individual and society weaken. The power of the state signifies the weakness of society. Hegemony arises from submission, authority from servitude, and power from loyalty. Ultimately, blessings and religion are registered under the state’s dominion. Therefore, empowering the people to own their state is one of the most fundamental issues in this country’s political struggle.
The state’s expansion at the expense of society and its pervasive dominance is primarily due to its alienation from its original purpose—to serve as the organized collective spirit of society. Like religion, which alienates from its essence and becomes an goal in itself, transforming into an unearthly institution, the state has turned into an apparatus above society. This transformation is evident in our language, where terms like “state and society,” “state and nation,” and “state and citizens” imply that the state is an autonomous, living entity distinct from society and its citizens and establishes relations with its society and its citizens and as if problems in these relations were discussed through these binary expressions.
In reality, the state is nothing more than the organized form of the people. The state emerged naturally as societies transitioned to settled life, intending to manage increasingly complex human relations, resolve conflicts through a public sphere, and meet societal needs via delegated public officials. At its core, the state belongs to the settled, productive society—it is, in the true sense of the word, communal property belonging to all.
Over time, through exploitation and the pursuit of privilege by dominant classes, the state has deviated from its original purpose and mission. It has become the instrument and arena for the powerful to govern the weak, ensuring the continuity of this relationship.
Owning the state, therefore, means restoring it to its original purpose and transforming it into the shared and equal property of all society, not a tool for any single group or class. The power of the state is the power of society, delegated through representation by individuals and groups. Using this power against society is an invention of dominant classes who see the people as flocks serving them. In this sense, a state alienated from society, using its power and operation against the people or for internal-private institutions, is not truly a state but a private security and power organization.
Reclaiming the state by society entails empowering both the community and individuals, fostering sharing and solidarity through public partnership. In this context, freedom creates a society that masters the state. A state mastered by its society does not dominate individuals but takes on the mission of empowering and developing them. It redistributes collective power and resources to society through the organization of reason. Such a state ceases to be separate from the nation—it becomes synonymous with it.
Freedom, therefore, is a fundamental principle that must precede the need for bread, security, and justice and should be at the heart of efforts to meet these needs.
The struggle to “own” property, religion, and the state is both an effort of existence and a critical threshold for societal development and progress. Owning religion, owning property, and owning the state are foundational to the principle of liberation, which elevates, develops, and individualizes the human. It is the realization of the human essence—transforming individuals into values, subjects, and central elements of society.
Source: The Geopolitics of Theology: God, Nation, Freedom by Ahmet Özcan (Bakış Publishing, Istanbul, 2005).
