Woke culture as a new religion

 

In the summer of 2024, as the world gathered to celebrate the Olympics in France, the opening ceremony became a crucial point for discussions about the influence of woke culture on global events. One of the most talked-about moments was a reinterpretation of Leonardo da Vinci's The Last Supper where instead of religious figures, the table was occupied by individuals representing marginalized groups—fat people, homosexual individuals, and others often discriminated by mainstream society. This scene symbolized the central tenets of woke culture: the celebration of diversity and rejected people by society and the challenge to traditional norms. The prominence of this imagery in such a significant global event underscored the ongoing debate about the role of secular ideologies in shaping contemporary ethics and social norms. This discussion is not merely a passing trend but reflects deeper shifts in society where traditional religious authority over morality and social behavior is increasingly replaced by secular ideologies like woke culture.

In modern societies, religion has undergone a significant transformation, especially within the framework of functional differentiation, as explained by sociologist Niklas Luhmann. According to Luhmann, in a functionally differentiated society, religion is limited to a specific role that primarily addresses spiritual needs, existential questions, and personal morality. This means that religion, once central to ethical guidance and social cohesion, is no longer the dominant force shaping societal norms. Instead, other subsystems such as politics, law, and education take over these functions, each operating according to its own principles. This transformation has led to what many scholars, including Peter Beyer, describe as a form of secularization where traditional religious practices and beliefs persist, but their influence on public life and ethics has significantly decreased.

As religion’s role in defining and enforcing ethical standards diminishes, a vacuum is created that is often filled by other ideologies. Woke culture, in particular, has emerged as a powerful secular ideology that provides a comprehensive framework for understanding and addressing social issues. Rooted in the principles of social justice, inclusivity, and the dismantling of systemic inequalities, woke culture has quickly become a dominant force in shaping public discourse and policy. It offers a set of moral imperatives that are increasingly being adopted by institutions, governments, and even global events like the Olympics. The 2024 Olympics in France are a case in point, where the opening ceremony prominently featured woke culture themes, signaling its growing influence on global cultural and ethical norms.

One of the defining characteristics of woke culture is its emphasis on celebrating differences rather than enforcing similarities. Unlike traditional religions, which often promote uniformity in beliefs and behaviors among their followers, woke culture actively seeks to highlight and legitimize differences. This focus on diversity is seen not only as a moral imperative but as a foundational element of its ethical framework. In traditional religious contexts, doctrines are typically clear, rigid, and aimed at creating a community of believers who share similar values, behaviors, and worldviews. The goal is often to mold individuals into a collective identity, united by common beliefs and practices. In contrast, woke culture challenges this paradigm by asserting that differences—whether in race, gender, sexuality, or cultural background—are not only valid but should be celebrated and protected.

This emphasis on differences as sacred can be seen as a direct challenge to the homogeneity often promoted by traditional religious doctrines. In woke culture, what is considered sacred is the diversity of human experiences and identities. This cultural shift reflects a broader trend in modern secular societies where inclusivity and the protection of marginalized identities are increasingly seen as central moral values. These values are propagated not through religious institutions, but through social movements, educational curricula, and public policies that prioritize diversity and inclusion.

Peter Beyer’s analysis of religion in a globalized world also highlights another important aspect: the individualization of religion. Beyer argues that globalization and modernization have led to the transformation of religious practices, making them more individualized. In contemporary society, religious belief is often a personal matter, with individuals interpreting and practicing their faith in diverse ways. This has resulted in multiple interpretations and forms of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and other religions. Similarly, woke culture can be seen as promoting this individualization of belief. It does not necessarily reject traditional religions but supports a framework where all forms of belief, including secularism, atheism, and personal spiritualities, are seen as valid. Woke culture legitimizes the idea that individuals can have their own unique religious or ethical beliefs, reflecting a society where diversity of thought is highly valued.

The rise of woke culture can also be understood through the lens of transnational religions, a concept discussed by Beyer. In the age of globalization, the media plays a crucial role in creating and spreading transnational religions—religious movements that transcend national boundaries and adapt to various cultural contexts. Similarly, woke culture, although secular, functions as a transnational ideology. The Olympics, serving as a global media event, became a platform for disseminating woke culture’s values on a global scale, making it a kind of "secular religion" that reaches across borders and influences diverse societies. This global reach underscores the power of media in shaping and spreading ideologies, much like how religious movements have historically used media to spread their messages.

In this context, woke culture can be seen as one of the many secular ideologies that have replaced religion’s role in providing ethical and moral guidance. Scholars like Charles Taylor and José Casanova have extensively discussed the notion of secularization and how it leads to the pluralization of moral authorities. Taylor’s work on the secular age describes how modern individuals are increasingly navigating a marketplace of beliefs, where traditional religious ethics compete with various secular ideologies. Woke culture, with its emphasis on social justice and activism, resonates strongly in this secular age, particularly among younger generations who seek to align their ethical beliefs with broader social movements.

Furthermore, the enforcement of woke culture’s moral standards in public life mirrors the way religious orthodoxy once functioned. Just as religious communities have historically used social pressure to enforce conformity to moral norms, woke culture employs mechanisms like social media campaigns, cancel culture, and institutional policies to maintain its ethical standards. This phenomenon is reflective of what Emile Durkheim referred to as the “sacred” in society—the set of norms and values that are held as inviolable. In contemporary secular societies, the sacred has shifted from religious doctrines to secular ideologies, with woke culture being one of the most prominent.

It is also worth noting the criticisms of woke culture, particularly its perceived intolerance of dissent and its sometimes dogmatic enforcement of moral norms. Critics argue that woke culture, much like religious fundamentalism, can become exclusionary and divisive, stifling open debate and leading to social polarization. This criticism is echoed in the works of scholars like Jonathan Haidt, who in his book The Righteous Mind explores how moral ideologies can lead to the formation of insular communities that are resistant to external perspectives. Haidt’s analysis of moral psychology provides insights into how woke culture, despite its secular nature, functions in ways that are strikingly similar to religious communities in terms of enforcing moral conformity and group identity.

In conclusion, the rise of woke culture as a dominant secular ideology reflects the broader shifts in society where traditional religious authority over ethics and social norms is increasingly supplanted by secular movements. The 2024 Olympics in France, with its woke-themed reinterpretation of The Last Supper exemplifies how such ideologies are shaping global events and public consciousness. The Last Supper scene was for signifying the emergence of work culture as a new religion. As religion becomes just one of many functional subsystems in a differentiated society, ideologies like woke culture step in to fill the ethical void, offering new frameworks for understanding and navigating social issues. However, this replacement of religious authority with secular ideologies raises important questions about the nature of moral authority in a secular age and the potential for new forms of orthodoxy to emerge in the public sphere.

Love your Neighbor in the Gospel of Matthew

 

The commandment to "love your neighbor as yourself," rooted in Leviticus 19:18, holds a central place in both Jewish and Christian traditions. This principle has been explored by numerous Jewish scholars and teachers, such as Rabbi Hillel. In the New Testament, the Gospel of Matthew presents its interpretation of this commandment as taught by Jesus, which not only aligns with but also expands upon traditional Jewish teachings. This essay examines how the Gospel of Matthew presents Jesus' teachings to offer a broader and more proactive understanding of this commandment compared to other Jewish interpretations, particularly those of Hillel.

Rabbi Hillel, a seminal figure in Jewish thought, famously summarized the Torah with his version of the Golden Rule: "What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor" (Borowitz & Plaskow, 1983). This negative formulation, found in various Jewish scholarly texts, emphasizes the importance of refraining from actions that harm others. Hillel's teaching highlights empathy and ethical behavior as the cornerstones of Jewish law. Scholars such as Borowitz and Plaskow (1983) have emphasized the lasting impact of Hillel's interpretation on Jewish ethics, illustrating how it has shaped the moral framework within Judaism.

In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus is presented as offering a more proactive interpretation of the commandment. Matthew 7:12 records Jesus' Golden Rule: "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." Unlike Hillel's negative formulation, this version calls for positive action—actively doing good to others. Scholars have noted that this proactive ethic represents a significant development in moral thought within the New Testament, promoting an active engagement in love and kindness.

A significant aspect of the Gospel of Matthew's portrayal of Jesus' teaching is the understanding of the law and the commandment to "love your neighbor as yourself." Traditional Jewish interpretations often limited "neighbor" to fellow Jews. However, the Gospel of Matthew presents Jesus as challenging this notion. In Matthew 5:44, it is written, "But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." This radical expansion includes not only fellow Jews but also Gentiles and even enemies. This teaching implies that the commandment extends beyond the Jewish community, advocating for love and kindness towards all people, including those who are different or opposed.

Jesus' teaching in the Gospel of Matthew was primarily an interpretation of the law and an attempt to elucidate its true meaning. He created a perspective that sometimes ran parallel to the teachings of other rabbis and at other times stood in opposition to them. This interpretation aimed to reveal the deeper essence of the law, emphasizing the spirit over the letter. According to Meier (2009), Jesus' approach often involved reinterpreting existing laws to uncover their foundational principles of love and compassion.

The Gospel of Matthew interprets "love your neighbor" as involving more than just a passive attitude of refraining from harm. It calls for proactive citizenship and active involvement in the well-being of others. This proactive approach is evident in the command to "love your enemies" and to act with compassion and kindness towards all. This perspective emphasizes that loving your neighbor is not merely a feeling or a passive state but involves concrete actions that contribute to the well-being of others (Levine & Brettler, 2011). Therefore, if "love your neighbor" means to do good to others, "love your enemy" means to do good to your enemies.

The examination of textual variations and interpretations has shown how the understanding of biblical texts can evolve over time. The Gospel of Matthew's presentation of Jesus' teachings might have been influenced by the early Christian communities' efforts to address their specific social and theological contexts. This reinforces the idea that the proactive ethic in Matthew's Gospel was a significant departure from previous interpretations and was intended to guide believers towards active engagement in loving others.

Analyzing the historical context reveals that Jesus' teachings, as presented in the Gospels, were received and interpreted within early Christian communities. The radical nature of Jesus' commands, such as loving one's enemies, was a deliberate attempt to redefine social and religious boundaries, promoting a more inclusive and compassionate community. This historical perspective underscores the transformative impact of Jesus' teachings on traditional Jewish norms and the broader implications for Christian ethics.

Further insights can be gained by comparing Jewish and Christian interpretations of biblical texts. Comparative exegesis reveals how different cultural and religious contexts can lead to varying understandings of the same scripture. The proactive love advocated in the Gospel of Matthew aligns with broader themes of inclusivity and compassion found in both Jewish and Christian traditions, but it also marks a distinct shift towards a more active and outward-facing practice of faith.

The Gospel of Matthew presents a profound and inclusive interpretation of the commandment to "love your neighbor as yourself." While this teaching aligns with Rabbi Hillel's ethical principles, it also extends them by advocating for active love and expanding the definition of "neighbor" to include all humanity, including Gentiles and enemies. This inclusive and proactive understanding underscores the transformative nature of the message and highlights the differences and similarities between the teachings attributed to Jesus and those of Hillel. The approach emphasizes that loving your neighbor involves active participation in the well-being of others, a significant departure from merely refraining from harmful actions.

References

• Allison, D. C., & Wright, N. T. (2003). Jesus and the Victory of God. SPCK Publishing.
• Borowitz, E., & Plaskow, J. (1983). Jewish Ethics and Halakhah for Our Time. Behrman House.
• Ehrman, B. D. (2005). Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. HarperOne.
• Levine, A.-J., & Brettler, M. Z. (Eds.). (2011). The Jewish Annotated New Testament. Oxford University Press.
• Meier, J. P. (2009). A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Volume 4: Law and Love. Yale University Press.
• The Holy Bible. (1978). Biblica.

Symbols and rituals of nationalism as active figures of daily life

 

    Nationalism is a considerably modern political ideology that has dominated human history since the period of enlightenment. With the emergence of nationalism, people started to identify themselves with the nation they ascribe to rather than their other identities such as their religion. This shift reveals itself with the emergence of sacred symbols and rituals of nationalism. The new rituals and sacred symbols become the part of daily life. However, the new rituals and symbols has not only provided the autonomy of the national identity but has also reshaped the minds of the members of the nations. Thus, this paper argues that sacred symbols and rituals exist implicitly and appear in daily life while also constructing and shaping the minds of the members of the nation. The first paragraph argues that sacred symbols and rituals exist in daily life and are perceived as normal even though some of these actions are bizarre in nature. The second paragraph explains that the rituals and symbols are more than implicit in that they shape human life and thoughts significantly.

     National identity is shaped with respect to the myths of nationalism such as the myth of common history, sacred land, the sacred community and autonomy (Smith, p.19-44). These myths result in the sacralization of the land, community, and history. They are kept alive and depicted via sacred national symbols and rituals. The most ubiquitously observed manifestation of the unity in identification bought about by nationalism is the homogeneity of celebrating the same national holidays, revering the same flag, respecting the same national heroes and upholding national solidarity. A typical act of national allegiance in this sense, can be observed during remembrance days of national heroes through rituals. For instance, thousands of people come together and remember the death of Ataturk (meaning “the father of Turks”) every year at the time of his passing. Many Turks visit the grave of Ataturk and even go as far as stopping their car and standing in the middle of the road in order to properly pay tribute and remember him. These rituals and symbols create unity among the members of the nation in that all members of the nation are expected to participate. These rituals and symbols have a distinctively important character in terms of maintaining the autonomy of the nation and ensuring its authenticity in comparison to other nations. However, the most interesting aspect about the rituals is not their peculiarity per se but their peculiarity going unnoticed, as argued by Michael Billig as well (Billig, 8). Put in context, the most intriguing aspect is that when people stand in the middle of the road collectively, the reason behind this action is never interrogated. This is an example of how symbols and rituals are integrated into daily life.

          National symbols and rituals do not have a passive character, but they are capable of actively shaping the minds of the members of nations. They affect the members in many different aspects, including political ideas, social relations and their perception of their national identity and their nation. For example, national anthems and pledges of allegiance actively shape the minds and characteristics of the people. Each nation has its own unique anthem, and many nations have distinct pledges of allegiance that ensure the idea of autonomy for the nation. Furthermore, they are collective rituals in which members of nations assemble, observe the rules of the ritual, and recite the sacred words. The anthems and pledges not only represent the constituents of national identity, but the ideas and emotions conveyed are of a guiding nature, a sort of imposition of the characteristics of the ideal member of the nation. For instance, the British national anthem starts with “God save our king” signifying that there is a legitimate monarchy which rules the British nation, thus the monarch is a very important person for the British nation who should be respected and cherished by the members of the nation. Similarly, students pledge their allegiance to the flag of the US by reciting the following: "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all" (Britannica). Initially, the idea of the pledge as a nation to something holy is very similar to the Judeo-Christian idea of the testament between God and the people of Israel. In Judeo-Christian literature, ancient Israel made an agreement with God to keep certain principles and they were the chosen people of God, and the chosen people was protected by God (Biblehub, 2 King 17.35-39). This similarity implies that the American identity is sacred. However, the parties of the pledge is not the nation and God but rather an American and the US flag which is a symbol of the nation. This distinguishment represents the importance and sacrality of the flag in the minds of Americans. Wilbur Zelinsky that American flag holds a visual power on Americans like crucifix (Marvin, 770. Secondly, it also implies that Americans should uphold and defend the liberal principles such as liberty and justice for all. As a third point, the pledge inherently includes the idea that the people of the US are chosen by God. Thus, these rituals implicitly shape the national identity and political, social and even metaphysical components of the members of the nation. They represent how an ideal American and British should believe, live and behave.

         As a result, rituals and symbols of nations instill unity among members of the nation and ensure the idea of the authenticity of nations. Their bizarre nature goes unnoticed and are in fact integrated in daily life despite their peculiarity. They are also significant in the creation of national identity, enhancing the impact of nationalism by shaping political, social and individual ideas of people. 

Works Cited

2 Kings 17:35 For the LORD had made a covenant with the Israelites and commanded them, "Do not worship other gods or bow down to them; do not serve them or sacrifice to them. (biblehub.com)

2 Kings 17:39 but worship the LORD your God, and He will deliver you from the hands of all your enemies." (biblehub.com)

Billig, Michael. Banal Nationalism. SAGE, 1995.

Billig says that: “The metonymic image of banal nationalism is not a flag which is being consciously waved with fervent passion; it is the flag hanging unnoticed on the public building”

Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America | History & Text | Britannica

Smith, Anthony Douglas. Chosen Peoples. Oxford University Press, 2003.

Zelinsky, Wilbur. Nation in State. Chapel Hill University of north Carolina Press. 1988.

Render unto Caesar: A Critical Examination of Its Interpretation and Implications for Secularism

 

The phrase "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's" from the Gospels is often cited in discussions about the relationship between religion and secularism. Secularists frequently interpret this phrase as evidence that Jesus advocated for the separation of church and state. However, this interpretation is contentious and has been the subject of much academic debate. This article argues that the early Christians' understanding of secular obedience based on this phrase is fundamentally flawed when considering the broader context of Jesus' teachings. We will explore how this interpretation arose, the influence of Paul on early Christian thought, the broader implications for understanding the relationship between religion and secularism, and the inherent contradictions in the secular interpretation.

The Gospels' Perspective on Obeying the Law

The Gospels offer a nuanced view of Jesus' stance on law and authority. Jesus emphasized the importance of obeying God's commandments, often critiquing the Pharisees for their legalistic interpretations and failure to uphold the spirit of the law.

In Matthew 5:17-20, Jesus explicitly states, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." This passage highlights Jesus' commitment to upholding divine law, countering Paul's assertion that the law was abolished. Jesus emphasized that obedience to God's commandments must come before any other authority.

In Matthew 15:1-9, Jesus criticizes the Pharisees for neglecting God's commandments in favor of human traditions. He rebukes them for making void the word of God for the sake of their traditions, underscoring the primacy of divine law.

In Matthew 23:1-3, Jesus acknowledges the authority of the Pharisees to teach the law but condemns their hypocrisy, advising people to observe what they teach but not follow their example.

In Mark 10:17-20, Jesus emphasizes the importance of keeping the commandments for salvation, listing several key commandments and affirming their significance.

Jesus' Role as the Messiah and Secular Authority

Jesus' role as the Messiah positioned him against Roman rule. As the king of the Jews, his mission was to establish God's kingdom on earth, making the idea of advocating for Roman authority incompatible with his role. If Jesus had promoted the idea of obeying secular laws over God's commandments, it would have attracted significant criticism from Jewish leaders, which is absent in the Gospels. This absence suggests that Jesus did not advocate for prioritizing secular laws.

Paul's Influence on Early Christian Thought

Paul's teachings significantly shaped early Christian attitudes toward secular authority. In Romans 13:1-7, Paul instructs Christians to submit to governing authorities, suggesting that all authorities are ordained by God. However, Paul's views often diverged from those of Jesus, particularly regarding the continuity of Jewish law. Paul's emphasis on faith and love led to an interpretation of Jesus' teachings that aligned more closely with secular obedience.

Transformation of Christianity and the Role of Paul

After Jesus' death, early Christianity was significantly influenced by Paul, who argued that believers should obey Roman rule and that the laws of God had been abolished. This Pauline perspective shaped the early Christian community's understanding of their relationship with secular authorities. As the Gospels were later read and interpreted through the lens of Paul's teachings, Christians began to see the scriptures with what can be described as "Pauline sunglasses," significantly altering the interpretation of Jesus' teachings.

Who First Interpreted Jesus as Advocating Secular Obedience

The idea that Jesus' phrase "Render unto Caesar" meant that people should obey secular authorities was not directly linked to Jesus' words until nearly 200 years after Paul. Early Christians who obeyed secular authorities did so primarily because of Paul's teachings. Origen, an early Christian theologian, interpreted "Render unto Caesar" as a directive for Christians to pay taxes and fulfill their civic duties without compromising their primary allegiance to God. Tertullian also argued that Christians should obey secular laws insofar as they do not conflict with God's commandments.

Potential Interpretations of "Render unto Caesar"

One interpretation is that Jesus is directly addressing the question of whether it is lawful to pay taxes to Caesar. By saying "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's," Jesus acknowledges the practical necessity of complying with tax obligations, suggesting a pragmatic approach to living under Roman rule. Another interpretation, as suggested in the Jewish Annotated New Testament, is that Jesus' response is a strategic maneuver to avoid a trap set by his questioners, allowing his listeners to interpret the statement based on their own beliefs.

Several contradictions arise if we accept the secular interpretation of "Render unto Caesar":

1. Criticizing the Pharisees: Jesus frequently criticized the Pharisees for not obeying God's laws. Advocating secular laws over divine laws would be hypocritical.
2. Holistic Nature of Divine Law: Jesus' teachings emphasize that God's laws encompass all aspects of life, making partial obedience inconsistent.
3. Primacy of God's Authority: Jesus consistently taught that God's authority supersedes all earthly authority, contradicting the idea of prioritizing secular laws.
4. Paul's Divergent Teachings: Paul's teachings in Romans 13:1-7 suggest submission to secular authorities, but his views often diverged from Jesus', creating theological inconsistency.

Conclusion

The early Christians' understanding of obedience to secular authorities based on "Render unto Caesar" is fundamentally flawed when considering Jesus' broader teachings. Jesus consistently emphasized the importance of adhering to God's commandments and maintaining inner moral integrity. The absence of criticism for advocating secular obedience and the profound nature of Jesus' teachings suggest that his message was not one of compliance with secular laws but of unwavering commitment to divine commandments. This reinterpretation is essential for understanding the true relationship between religion and secularism within the context of Jesus' teachings.

 

Abrahamic religions and modern nation states

After the establishment of the modern secular nation-states, religion became a personal matter rather than a social phenomenon and authority of the modern secular nation-state became central in social life with their laws, norms and practice. This article will argue that the main values of modern states and societies: nationalism and secularism are incompatible with Christianity, Islam and Judaism according to the doctrines stated in their holy books; the Bible, the Quran and the Torah which have the belief of the ultimate sovereign God. The doctrine of sacred texts; which designates a law and social system and depicts God as the ultimate sovereign. I call the problem between the modern states and religions: the issue of sovereignty, that is the issue of who is the ultimate sovereign.   

     The relation between the modern state and Abrahamic religions was examined by famous scholars such as Ernest Gellner, Adam Smith, Elie Kedourie and Erik Durkheim. They argued that nationalism is the new religion by underlining the similarities between Abrahamic religions and nationalism. The only difference being, a shift in the methods of identification: (German rather than Christian), social structure(my nation rather than my religion) and political aim(for Germany rather than Christianity). Unlike the previous scholars who were mentioned, I will mainly focus on the issue of sovereignty based on sacred texts and clarify the understanding of a God who is a law maker and the concept of religion which is inconsistent with the modern secular nation-states. The article will explain the issue of sovereignty in three parts for each Abrahamic religion. In the first part, the authority of God in civic life and his commands will be discussed in Judaism based on the Torah. In the second part, I will examine the commandment of Christianity based on the New Testament. In the third part, I will examine the understanding of divine law in Islam based on the Quran.

Judaism

     In Judaism there is one God who created everything, and God is not only a creator but also a commander and a law maker. According to the Torah (sacred written text of Judaism) God declared his laws to the people with his messengers after the creation of humankind. The prophets had the laws and declared them to the people. Then the law of Israel appeared, God made a contract with the sons of Israel. The commandment includes moral laws, basic beliefs such as the existence of only one God, how to worship God and social laws. In English, this commandment is referred to as religion. So, religion is not only based on simple belief system but it is also a social system in Judaism as it designates a specific code in which one is supposed to abide by. The divine law is the ultimate law of the sons of Israel and it shows the ultimate sovereignty of God.

Examination of the Bible:

     According to the Bible, there is a contract between the people of Israel and this testament is called Judaism, the religion of the people of Israel. This contract which we can refer to as the religion of Israel is about what they believe in and how they are supposed to behave. It includes fundamental beliefs such as worshiping only one God, when and whom to fight, how to behave to Israelis and foreigners, how to judge among people and laws and punishments, etc. In order to be a part of the religion, people must abide by the Testament. The Bible states that “You have declared this day that the Lord is your God and that you will walk in obedience to him, that you will keep his decrees, commands and laws—that you will listen to him… you are to keep all his commands.” (Bible, 2008, Deuteronomy 26:17-18). This part explains that the Lord of Israel is God, so he makes the laws and gives commands. It also means that obeying God means preserving his laws and commands and the people of Israel have to obey all of his commands. The bible says “dominion belongs to the Lord, and he rules over the nations.”( Bible, 2008, Psalm 22.28). Thus, law making and commanding are basic features of the Lord. So, we can say that the God of Israel is the Lord and thus, the law maker of Israel.

    Living according to another law is forbidden in Judaism. People must live according to the commands of God no matter where. The Jewish Bible denies the law of the kings and believers should not obey their laws according to its teachings. The Bible says “You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices. ⁴ You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the Lord your God. ⁵ Keep my decrees and laws, for the person who obeys them will live by them. I am the Lord.” (Bible, 2008, Leviticus 18:3-5). Thus, because God is the Lord of Israel, he is the only sovereign power who makes the laws for the people. The people of Israel are forbidden to obey any other law system. The laws of Egypt or the law of the US have no grounds of legitimacy and the people of Israel cannot be a part of that law system. The Jewish Bible interprets the following laws and practices of another nation as being heretic. The people of Israel either keep the law or they are punished. In this part, God punishes and rejects the people of Israel many times because they follow the laws of another nation: “who had brought them up out of Egypt from under the power of Pharaoh king of Egypt. They worshiped other gods and followed the practices of the nations the Lord had driven out before them, as well as the practices that the kings of Israel had introduced.” (Bible, 2008, 2.Kings 17.7). Regardless of who makes the law and creates the practices of religion, the people of Israel should keep to the law of the covenant, their religion and must not be a part of the laws of the king of Israel and thus, they should not participate in their illegitimate act by applying their laws. On the other hand, Mendelssohn(1969) argued that the civic law and religious law should be separated. People are responsible for each other when they apply civic law (p.69). However, these verses also make the idea impossible. How can somebody divide the laws when applying non-religious laws is a great sin according to religion? As we have seen, this division is impossible according to the Bible.

God as the Lord of Israel commands people of Israel that regardless of a person’s nation, he must obey the law of God. Thus, the law of Israel is universal. ^“You are to have the same law for the foreigner and the native-born. I am the Lord your God.’” (Bible, 2008, Leviticus 24.22). The people of Israel do not have any right to change the law because the right of commanding laws is reserved solely to the Lord of Israel, God. So, it is impossible to say that the people of Israel created new laws. Creating new laws is outside of their jurisdiction. “Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you.” (Bible, 2008, Deuteronomy 4.2). Thus neither Kings nor people possess this authority but it is only God who has the authority to make a law and people can just apply it rather than transform or change it. As Şemot(2002) argued, the Jewish Bible is the law book of any king of Israel and they have to keep, read and apply it(p.387).  

The bible separates people as Israelis and others. They are fundamentally different according to the Bible. For example, the bible says that  ^“You may require payment from a foreigner, but you must cancel any debt your fellow Israelite owes you.” (Bible, 2008, Deuteronomy 15.3). Israelis are brothers of each other, and they cannot even get married with foreign women (Ezra 10). They fight against polytheists. Thus, in the law of Israel, religion is the vital factor that shapes social relationships and designates the manner of behavior based on this belief. The law also elevates Jews in relation to other nations. Spinoza (1951) had stated that the only way in which the Hebrews surpassed other nations is the way they incorporate the Bible’s conduct with the government. Because the Jewish bible is not just a philosophical text but more importantly it is political (p.46).

As a result, the ultimate sovereignty over nations is owned by God in Judaism. God uses his sovereignty and commands laws for people. The word “Lord” includes the meaning of ultimate sovereign and law maker. God as the Lord of Israel, rejects any Lords except himself and makes his laws and demands people to not obey other laws. Being a Jew means living according to the law of God in any part of the world, no matter where. Thus, the people of Israel must not live according to the laws of other states. Furthermore, the bible separates people according to their religions and stresses the brotherhood of Jews regardless of where they are. So, there is a fundamental conflict between modern nationalism and Judaism on the basis of social relations and ties. There is also a conflict between modern secular state understanding and Judaism in terms of sovereignty and legitimacy, which we will focus on in the fourth part.

 Christianity

     Christians believe in the Jewish bible (Christians call as old testament) but they also believe in the New Testament: the collection of 27 books and 4 of them explain the life of Jesus Christ who is a Jew and the protagonist of Christianity. Many of the others were written by the apostles of Paul. For Christians the Old Testament is the holy book like the New Testament but the legitimacy of the laws of the old testament is questioned when some scholars argued that the laws of the Old Testament were abolished with Jesus when others argue that this is not the case. Both scholars accept the sovereignty of God in the public sphere, but the role of the Old Testament is very crucial because almost all of the laws in the bible are also in the Old Testament. I believe that the issue of the Old Testament is discussed contradictorily in the speech of Jesus and the letters of the apostle Paul. Firstly, I will focus on the significance of the message of Jesus and its relation to sovereignty and the laws of the Jewish Bible. Then I will compare his message with that of the apostle Paul’s.

     Jesus Christ emerged as the new prophet of the Jewish people and as the new king of Israel in Jerusalem, the holy city of Judaism. He argued that the Old Testament is the book of God and its laws are valid. He speaks about the laws of the Old Testament: “Do not think that I have come to abolish these things but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth pass away not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter will pass from the law until everything takes place.” (Bible, 2008, Matthew 5,17-18). So, he rejects the claim that he is the abolisher of the laws of the Jewish bible, but his role is to fulfill the agreement. Because Jesus declares the Old Testament was not abolished, all the principles of the Old Testament that I have mentioned in the previous part should be valid for his followers.

     There are discussions in the Bible about the teachings of Jesus and Jewish scholars. Jesus argued with the Jewish scholars not about whether the laws of the Jewish Bible were valid but why they did not abide by them. Jesus argued that the Jewish scholars did not give judgement according to the laws of the Jewish Bible. He argued that they made their cultures superior and ignored the laws of God. For example, according to the New Testament scholars, the Jews condemned the behavior of Jesus and his friends for not washing their hands before the meal. Jesus responded to them with the Jewish Bible, the message of Isaiah: “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:

“‘These people honor me with their lips,
    but their hearts are far from me.
⁷ They worship me in vain;
    their teachings are merely human rules.’

⁸ You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.” (Bible, 2008, Mark 7. 6-7). Jesus calls the Jewish scholars hypocrites and he resembles the Jewish scholars to the infidels in the period of Isaiah by quoting him from the Jewish Bible. In addition, he argues that the worship of the people who don’t judge among people without the law of God is a meaningless act. So, what he means by hypocrites is that they claimed to be a part of the religion of God but in reality, they were not. Jesus continued this part by explaining why they were not a part of the religion and why they were hypocrites. He argued that the scholars had their own traditional law which is contradictory to the law of the Jewish Bible and they chose to apply this traditional law rather than the law of God. Hence, in the words of Jesus: “you cancel the word of God in order to hand down your own tradition” (Bible, 2008, Mark 7:13). Thus, he asked the people to reject the other laws and live according to the laws of God. Jesus taught these subjects in Jerusalem in accordance with the Bible. Jerusalem was a part of the Roman Empire in that period so he advised that people should live according to the law of the Jewish Bible rather than the Roman law because as it is explained in the part of Judaism, the people of Israel cannot live according to another law.

     The teachings of Paul the apostle was entirely contradictory with the teachings of Jesus in the Old Testament. According to him, Jesus came to tell the people that the laws of the Old Testament was abolished, and Christians should not keep to it. He mentions the laws of the Old Testament as follows: “having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances” (Bible, 2008, Ephesians 2.15). According to Paul, Jesus was not one of the prophets of Israel. They had to keep the law, but Jesus came and abolished the law that creates “walls” between nations (Bible, 2008, Ephesians 1.14). Paul calls the laws a wall because it was separating people according to their religion. He also thinks that the laws of the Old Testament were the reason of the sins and he calls these laws the “law of the death” (Bible, 2008, Corinthians 8.1-5). So, all these principles and the laws of the Old Testament were abolished with Jesus and therefore, people are no longer constrained with the law, but now they can create their own laws which are completely permissible for Christianity.

    Paul’s views are not inconsistent just with the gospels but also with the letters of James in the New Testament. James thinks that people should keep and live according to the law of God (Bible, 2008, James 2:8-12). He also says that “There is one Lawgiver” (Bible, 2008, James 4.12). So, God is the only law maker and his laws were not abolished according to him. Yet, the overwhelming majority of Christians agree with Paul and they think Christians don’t have to keep to the law of old testament.

Islam

The Islamic understanding of the laws is completely the same with the Jews. According to the Quran, which is the holy book of the Muslims, God sent a message and communicated his laws to the prophets. Like the Old Testament, the Quran declares these laws and demands the obedience of Muslims. The Quran says that “Legislation is not but for Allah” (Ates,1990, Quran 12.40). Thus, God is the only authority who makes laws and designates how people must live and proceed with their affairs. “whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the disbelievers.” (Ates,1990, Quran, 5.44).  Hence, accepting only the laws of God and rejecting any other law is the main condition of Islam. The Quran insists that only God can judge among people and whoever refers to the law and judgement of any other authority are disbelievers even if they suppose that they identify themselves as Christian or Muslim (Ates, 1990, Quran 4.60). Furthermore, Muslims are just brothers of one another like in the Old Testament(Ates, 1990, Quran 5.55) and religions and books came to judge among people throughout the history(Ates, 1990, Quran 2.213), so the law is the demonstration of the sovereignty of God on Earth as it is in the Bible. Ibn-I Kesir(1994) calls the Mongol emperor Cengiz Khan an infidel because he had another law book, and he argued that there is a consensus among Muslim scholars in that whoever makes or judges among people with something which did not come from God (p.244). So, like in Judaism people must obey the one true God and his laws to be a Muslim. Otherwise they would worship other things as Qutb(2017) argued because they did not determine their laws, customs, norms, traditions, lifestyles, cultures according to the Commandment of God (p.66-73).

Modern nation states and the religions

In the first three parts it is shown that Judaism, the message of Jesus and Islam creates a kind of mindset in which God is the ultimate authority and he shows his authority with the laws he designated to the people. People must keep to these ultimate laws in any place of the world. God is the only law maker of these religions and people cannot obey any other system of law. Furthermore, the established social structure is also different in religions and only believers are brothers of one another, and the society is separated according to their religions. These ideas are inconsistent with the idea of modern secular nation states. Nationalism is the main channel of unification of peoples for political purposes. This subsequently defines itself as a nation. The main doctrine of the nation-states is the state, laws and that social phenomena should be regulated according to the will of the nation. Thus, not the will of God, but the will of people determines the laws and structures of society. That is the main legislation system of modern states. People regardless of their religions share a common system of laws. However, A Jew or a Muslim cannot legislate according to the laws of such states and they cannot apply them, as I mentioned the books of religions call the people who legislate or obey another book as disbelievers. But in Paul’s Christianity that can be different due to the views on the old testament. According to Paul the laws of God were abolished, so humankind has the authority to create laws as God did. This, in a way, makes the prospect of a secular state possible for Christians because there is no law which encompasses all people in the many parts of life.

      Allan Bloom argued that religion turns out to be a need such as eating or having sex in the US and they have no effect on politics (Breslauer, 1993, pp.149). Not only in the Us but also in the almost all nation-states the religions are either secondary or isolated from politics. Thus, modern states have taken the most important role and have become the ultimate sovereign actor while religions became secondary during the emergence of modern nation-states. According to Kedourie(1993), This transformation started with the ideas of enlightenment (p.60-82). The creation of the will of the people created the new religion, nationalism. This led to the new form of identification of people with the names of nations rather than their religions. Gellner(2008) adds to Kedourie that the new religion is spread by the institutions such as education(p.63-74). The understanding of dying for a nation is a clear example of its replacement to the religions. There are many war stories in the religious texts however they only refer to the sanctity of fighting in the name of God. This is very similar with, for instance, the holiness of dying or working for the “German nation”. More importantly, the understanding of brotherhood is also different in nationalism and classical religions. In the classical religions, people are separated according to their religions. People have strong social ties if they share the same religion. However, the sense of brotherhood in nationalism is very different. People from different religions are seen as brothers of one another.

Nationalism has their own sacred symbols and ultimate loyalty understanding like religions have. As Hayes(2016) argued that the idea of religion is very similar with the idea of modern state. According to him the idea of Church in the medieval era is very similar to the institutions of modern states. In both cases people are willingly subject themselves (p.144-157). They both have eternal character, nationalism has unending future and eternal past like God has. Furthermore, there are holy symbols in nationalism like in the religions. Smith pointed out that national flag is the supreme symbol of devotion and expression of faith is made in the salute to the flag and the flag is a sacred, holy object. The national anthem is also a powerful sacred symbol. In contrast to the ultimate loyalty to the God, German anthem “Deutschland uber alles” cannot be explained by feel of loyalty but it refers to that loyalty of Germany should be more than any loyalty (Smith, 1994, pp.94). These ideas are not only similar to the understanding of the religion, but it is also the concept of God. As I have mentioned in the Abrahamic religions God is the Lord which means ultimate power who shapes society and people only worship him. But in nationalism people have ultimate and holy purposes, meaning of like and loyalty not to the God but the nations.

To sum up, there is a conflict between modern nation states and Abrahamic religions in many areas. In religions God is the ultimate authority who makes laws when modern nation states create their own laws. Nationalism is the idea of based on the brotherhood of people who share the same ethnicity or fatherland but in religions only the believers are brothers of each other. Nationalism has its own holy and sacred symbols and purpose of life or death when religions have their own.

References

Hayes, C. (2016). Nationalism : A religion. New Brunswick (U.S.A.): Transaction.

Breslauer, S. (1993). Judaism and civil religion (South florida-rochester-saint louis studies on religion and the social order, no. 3). Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press.

Smith, J. (1994). Quasi-religions : Humanism, marxism, and nationalism. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Kedourie, E. (1993). Nationalism (4th, expanded ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Gellner, E., & Breuilly, J. (2008). Nations and nationalism(pp.63-74) (2nd ed., New perspectives on the past). Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.

Quṭb Sayyid. (2017). Milestones. New Delhi: Islamic Book Service (P) Ltd.

Kesir, I. (1994). Büyük i̇slam tarihi (Çağrı yayınları, 53). İstanbul: Çağrı.

Ateş, S. (1990). Kur'an-ı kerim ve yüce meali. İstanbul: Yeni Ufuklar Neşriyat.

International Bible Society. (1984). The holy bible : New international version. East Brunswick: International Bible Society.

Spinoza B. (1951). A theologico-Political Treatise. New York: Dover.

Mendelssohn M. (1969. Jerusalem and other jewish writings. Alfred Jospe. NewYork: Schocken.

Farsi, M., Yanni, D., Saylağ, S., Asa, E., & Haleva, Y. (2002). Tora : Türkçe çeviri ve açıklamalarıyla tora ve aftara. İstanbul: Gözlem.

Tevrat’ta ve İncil’de Allah’ın kanunlarıyla hükmetmemek

                    

Kuran-ı kerime göre Allah’ın indirdiğiyle hükmetmeyenler, ondan başkasının hükmüne başvuranlar, bu hükümleri koyanlar kafirdirler (5.44, 4.60, 4.65) bu konuyu diğer yazılarda detaylıca anlatmıştık. Peki bu mesele daha önceki kitaplarda nasıl işlenmiştir, Onlarda insanların Allah gibi teşride bulunma hakkı var mıydı? Allah’ın kanunlarıyla hükmetmemek onlarda da küfür olarak mı isimlendirilmiştir? İşte bu makalede bu sorulara cevap vereceğiz. Nisa suresinin 60. Ayetinde Allah kendinden başkasının hükmüne gidenlerin kurana ve daha önceki kitaplara inandığını zannettiği bildiriyor, demek ki Allahtan başkasının hükmüne gitmek tıpkı kuranda olduğu gibi İncil ve Tevrat’ta da yasak olmalıdır. Ayrıca Nahl suresinin 36. Ayetinde Allah, bütün peygamberin gönderiliş amacının insanların tagutlardan içtinap etmesi olduğunu söylüyor. Bunlara ek olarak maide suresinin 44. Ayetine göre Allahtan başkasının hükmüne giden Yahudiler kafirse bunların küfrü Tevrat’ı inkarına yönelik olmalıdır çünkü onlar kurana zaten inanmıyorlardı. Eğer onlar Allahtan başkasının hükmüne gitmekle kafir oldularsa bunun Tevrat’ta yazması gerekir. Sonuç olarak Kurana göre Allah’ın indirdiğiyle hükmetmemenin küfür olduğu daha önceki kitaplarda bildirilmiştir, ben de bu makalede şunu kanıtlamaya çalışacağım: Kurandaki hükmün Allaha ait olduğuyla ilgili neredeyse aynı ayetler Tevrat’ta ve İncil’de vardır. Öyle ki Allahtan başkasının hükmüne gitmek, Allaha paralel kanun koymak, o kanunlara itaat etmek gibi kuranda küfür olduğu söylenen şeylerin tamamı Tevrat’a ve İsa(as)’a İncil’de nispet edilen sözlere göre küfürdür.

Lakin yazıya başlamadan önce sıkça duyduğum bir hatayı düzeltmek isterim. Kendini İslam’a nispet edenlerin bir kısmı günümüzdeki İncil ve Tevrat’la kuranın indiği dönemdeki İncil ve Tevrat’ın farklı olduğunu söylüyorlar ki bu tamamen uydurmadır. Tarihi belgelere göre 4. yy’dan sonra Hristiyanlar bugün elimizde olan incili kullandılar. Dolayısıyla Kuranın bahsettiği ve Hristiyanlar ve Yahudilerin ellerinde tuttuklarını söylediği kitap bunlardır. Ayrıca bu makalede İncil’i ve Tevrat’ı incelerken tıpkı Kuran çalışmalarında yaptığım gibi ayetler üzerinden uzunca konuşmaktansa ayetleri olabildiğince yalın bir şekilde bırakmayı tercih ettim ve olabildiğince Tevrat’ta ve İncil’de anlatılan mesajları incelemeye çalıştım. Allah bizi Kurandan ayırmasın.

Tevrat’ın incelenmesi

     Tevrat’a göre Allah yaratan olduğu gibi hükmeden ve kanun koyan bir varlıktır. Zaten Tevrat’ın önemli bir kısmı İsrail’e koyulan kanunlarla ilgilidir. Bu kanunların bir kısmı ibadetlerin nasıl yapılacağını bir diğer kısmıysa sosyal düzenin nasıl sağlanacağıyla ilgilidir. Bu kanunlar arası hiçbir ayrım yapılmaz ve bu kanunların Allah’la Israil toplumu arasındaki anlaşma yani din olduğunu söyler. Zaten Türkçede de İngilizcede de Tevrat eski anlaşma (old testament) olarak isimlendirilmiştir. İşte bu anlaşma İsrail toplumunun uyması gereken kanunların adıdır ki biz buna Türkçede din ismini de veriyoruz. Batının ünlü aydınları da (Ernest Gellner, Elie Kedourie, Durkheim vs.) Tevrat’ı ve İncil’i İbrahim’i dinler(Abrahamic religions) günümüzün sistemleri olan ve vela bera akidesini yerle bir eden milliyetçilik veya bir küfür nizamı olan demokrasiyi beşeri dinler (civil religions) olarak isimlendirmişlerdir. Dolayısıyla zaten sırf Allah’ın Musa’ya din indirdiğini bilen birinin başka bir kanuna gitmesi bile onu başka dine mensup yapar. Tevrat’ı bir kere okuyan bir kişi bile bu kitabın bir kanunlar kitabı olduğunu ve başka kanunlara tabii olamayacağını rahatlıkla anlar. Bu meselenin bu kadar açık olmasına rağmen Tevrat’taki birçok ayette de bu akideyi görebiliyoruz. Bu ayetlere geçmeden önce şunu da belirtmek isterim ki Tevrat aynı zamanda dönemin kral peygamberlerinin anayasasıdır. Yani Tevrat’ta Allaha teslim olmuş kabul edilen bütün peygamberler ve krallar bu anayasayla hükmetmişlerdir.

Ayetlerin incelenmesi:

1-) “Bugün RAB'bin Tanrınız olduğunu, O'nun yollarında yürüyeceğinizi, kurallarına, buyruklarına, ilkelerine uyacağınızı, O'nun sözünü dinleyeceğinizi açıkladınız. 18. Bugün RAB, size verdiği söz uyarınca, öz halkı olduğunuzu açıkladı. Bütün buyruklarına uyacaksınız.” (yasanın tekrarı 26.17). Bu ayette Allahın İsrailden aldığı söz ortaya konuluyor. O söze göre İsrail bütün kanunlara uyacaktır ki bu kanunlar medeni hukuku, vela berayı, dış politikayı vs ortaya koyan hususlarla oluşur. Tevratta çok açık seçik bir şekilde kimle savaşılacağı kimle barışılacağı, faiz konusu, zinanın hükmü kimle evlenilebileceği gibi sosyal hayatın içinden birçok konu kanunlarla ortaya konulmuştur. Bu ayette dikkat çekilmesi gereken bir diğer hususta rububiyet vurgusudur. Onun kanun koyan olması rububiyetle doğrudan alakalıdır ve tevratta Allahın teşri yetkisine vurgu yapılan hemen hemen her ayette rububiyet vurgusunu görürüz.

2-) “Çünkü egemenlik RAB'bindir,

Ulusları O yönetir.” Mezmurlar 22.28

Bu ayet biz Müslümanların zebur ismini verdiği bölümde geçer. Bilindiği üzere zebur tevratın bir parçasıdır. Bu ayette hakimiyetin doğrudan Allah’a ait olduğu anlatılmıştır. Ayetin bağlamının Allah’ın kevni hakimiyetle bir ilgisi de yoktur. Zaten Allahın milletleri yönetmesi vurgusu da buradaki hakimiyetin dinde kanun koymayla ilgili olduğunu açık bir şekilde ortaya koyar.  Tabii vurgulanması gereken bir diğer husus da yine Rububiyet vurgusudur. Allah rububiyetinin gereği olarak egemenliğin mutlak sahibidir.

3-)”RAB Musa'ya şöyle dedi: 2. “İsrail halkına de ki, ‘Tanrınız RAB benim. 3. Mısır'da bir süre yaşadınız; onların törelerine göre yaşamayacaksınız. Sizleri Kenan ülkesine götürüyorum. Onlar gibi de yaşamayacaksınız. Onların kurallarına uymayacaksınız. 4. Benim kurallarımı yerine getirecek, ilkelerime göre yaşayacaksınız. Tanrınız RAB benim. 5. Kurallarıma, ilkelerime sarılın. Çünkü onları yerine getiren onlar sayesinde yaşayacaktır. RAB benim.”

 Bu ayetlerden sonra uzunca bir kanun bölümü vardır orada evlilik ahkamıyla ilgili kanunlar sunulur ve ardından bölüm şöyle biter.

“İster yerli olsun, ister aranızda yaşayan yabancılar olsun kurallarıma ve ilkelerime göre yaşayacaksınız. Bu iğrençliklerin hiçbirini yapmayacaksınız. 27. Sizden önce bu ülkede yaşayan insanlar bütün bu iğrençlikleri yaparak ülkeyi kirlettiler. 28. Eğer siz de ülkeyi kirletirseniz, ülke sizden önceki uluslara yaptığı gibi sizi de kusar.

29. “ ‘Kim bu iğrençliklerden birini yaparsa halkın arasından atılacaktır. 30. Buyruklarımı yerine getirin, sizden önceki insanların iğrenç törelerine uyarak kendinizi kirletmeyin. Tanrınız RAB benim.’ ” Levililer 18. Bölüm.

Tevrat’a göre hakimiyet Allah’ın olduğundan hiç kimse kanun koyamaz ve teşri iddia edenlerin de kanununa itibar edilmez. Burada da açık olduğu şekilde İsraillilerin başka milletlerin yasalarına göre yaşaması kesinlikle yasaktır. Ayette öncelikle dikkat çekilmesi gereken husus 5. ayetteki onları yerine getiren onlar sayesinde yaşayacaktır ifadesidir. Tevrat’ta Allah kafir olan toplumlara azap eder ve onları yok eder, ona teslim olan toplumları da kalkındırır. Dolayısıyla burada da bir tehdit var ve bu bölüm kanunlara uyarsanız yaşayacaksınız manasına geliyor. Eğer Allah’ın indirdiğinden başkasına muhakeme olma veya onunla hükmetme küfür olmasaydı biz burada bu ifadeyi göremezdik.

Bu noktaya ek olarak Allah Tevrat’ta başka töreleri iğrenç olarak isimlendiriyor çünkü Tevrat’a göre yalnız İsrail’in töresi temizdir.

Tevrat boyunca Müslüman kabul edilen İsrailliler asla başka kanunlara göre yaşamamışlardır. Hatta Babil’in kralının kanunlarına uyulmaması Babil’de rahatsızlık da uyandırmıştır.

Bunlara ek olarak yine Allah’ın teşri yetkisiyle onun Rab olması bağdaştırılmıştır.

4-) Yerli yabancı herkes için tek bir yasanız olacak. Tanrınız RAB benim.’ Levililer 24.22

Tevratın kanunları evrensel bir nitelik taşır kim olursa olsun onunla hükmetmek zordundadır. Allahtan başka yasa yapan olmadığı gibi ondan başka konulan yasaların da hiçbir geçerliliği yoktur. Dolayısıyla meşru kanunlar yalnız Allah’ındır.

5. delil

 “1. Şimdi, ey İsrail, size öğrettiğim kurallara, ilkelere kulak verin. Yaşamak, ülkeye girmek ve atalarınızın Tanrısı RAB'bin size vereceği toprakları mülk edinmek için bunlara uyun. 2. Size verdiğim buyruklara hiçbir şey eklemeyin, hiçbir şey çıkarmayın. Ama size bildirdiğim Tanrınız RAB'bin buyruklarına uyun.

3. “RAB'bin Baal-Peor'da neler yaptığını kendi gözlerinizle gördünüz. Tanrınız RAB, Baal-Peor'a tapan herkesi aranızdan yok etti. 4. RAB'be bağlı kalan sizler ise hâlâ yaşamaktasınız.

5. “İşte, Tanrım RAB'bin buyruğu uyarınca size kurallar, ilkeler verdim. Öyle ki, mülk edinmek için gideceğiniz ülkede bunlara uyasınız. 6. Onlara sımsıkı bağlanın. Çünkü ne denli bilge ve anlayışlı olduğunuzu uluslara bunlar gösterecek. Bu kuralları duyunca, uluslar, ‘Bu büyük ulus gerçekten bilge ve anlayışlı bir halk!’ diyecek. Yasanın tekrarı 4. Bölüm

Öncelikle ilk ayette kanunlara uyulmasının zorunluluğu açıklanmıştır sonrasında 2. Ayette de ona ek yapmanın yasak olduğu bildirilmiştir. Yani kimse kanunun serbest bıraktığı bir şeyi yasaklayamaz veya yasakladığı şeyi serbest bırakamaz. Serbest olanı da yasak olanı da Allah belirler.

Ek olarak 1. Ayette yaşamak için bu kanunlara uymanın gerektiği söylenmiş 3. Ayette de puta tapanların yok olduğu anlatılmıştır. Dolayısıyla yaşamak için puta tapmamak ve Allah’ın indirdiğiyle hükmetmek zorunludur aksi takdirde Allah o toplumu yok eder ve ayrıca buradan da anlaşılacağı üzere Allah’ın kanunlarına uymayı onunla hükmetmemekle Puta tapmak arasında bir fark da yoktur. Anlaşıldığı üzere puta tapan helak olmuştur ve İsrail helak olmamak için hem kendi toplumunda hem ele geçirdiği toplumlarda Allah’ın kanunlarıyla hükmetmelidir.

5. ayete göre İsrail’in yasaları o kadar muazzamdır ki bu İsrail için bir övünç kaynağıdır. Bu kanunlar İsrail’i müşrik uluslardan üstün yapar ve onlarda bunun farkındadırlar ve İsrail’e hukuk sistemi sebebiyle hayranlık duyarlar.

6. delil

RAB İsrail ve Yahuda halkını bütün peygamberler ve biliciler aracılığıyla uyarmış, onlara, “Bu kötü yollarınızdan dönün” demişti, “Atalarınıza buyurduğum ve kullarım peygamberler aracılığıyla size gönderdiğim Kutsal Yasa’nın tümüne uyarak buyruklarımı, kurallarımı yerine getirin.”

Yahudalılar bile Tanrıları RAB’bin buyruklarına uymadılar. İsrailliler’in benimsediği törelere göre yaşadılar. ²⁰ Bundan dolayı RAB İsrail soyundan olan herkesi reddetti. Çapulcuların eline teslim ederek onları cezalandırdı. Hepsini huzurundan kovdu. Krallar 17.19

Bu bölümün paylaşmadığımız parçalarında İsrail’de putperestliğin ve Allaha paralel kanun koymanın yaygınlaşması anlatılmıştır. İsrail putperest olduğu için helak edilmiştir yalnız Yahudalıların helak sebebi putperestlik değildir, onların yok olma sebebi İsraillilerin kanunlarını benimsemiş olmalarıdır. Dolayısıyla bu ayete göre de puta tapmakla yasa yapmak veya ona uymak arasında hiçbir fark gözetilmemiştir. Puta tapan nasıl müşrikse Allah’ın kanunlarından başkasına tabii olan da aynı şekilde müşriktir.

7. delil

Ama siz yollarımdan sapar, kurallarımı, buyruklarımı bırakır, gidip başka ilahlara kulluk eder, taparsanız, 20. size verdiğim ülkeden sizi söküp atacağım, adıma kutsal kıldığım bu tapınağı terk edeceğim; burayı bütün ulusların aşağılayıp alay ettiği bir yer durumuna getireceğim. 2. Tarihler 7.19

Burada da Allah’ın kanunlarını bırakmak başka ilahlara kulluk etmekle eş görülmüştür. Bir insan ister başka ilahlara secde etsin isterse de kanun koysun bunların Tevrat’a göre hiçbir ayırıcı yanı yoktur.

Incil

İsa(as) kendi döneminde Roma toprağı olan Kudüs ve çevresinde, insanları İslam’a çağırmıştır. İsa döneminde Yahudiler Romanın boyunduruğu altında yaşamaktaydılar ve İsa as mesajını böyle zor bir coğrafyada yaşayan insanlara anlatmıştır. İsa’nın mesajını İncil adında bir kitabın içerdiği kabul edilir. Bu kitap 27 kitabın toplamından oluşur ve bunların yalnızca dört tanesi İsa as’ın hayatıyla ilgilidir geri kalanı genellikle İsa döneminde yaşamış olduğu iddia edilen insanların mektuplarından oluşur.

     Öncelikle şunu belirtmek lazım ki özellikle Matta’nın anlattığı İsa bugün Hristiyanların inandığı gibi kendini tanrı ilan eden biri kesinlikle değildi ve tevhidi savundu. Hatta Tevhid davasının merkezinde hakimiyet tevhidi vardı da diyebiliriz. İncil’de İsa as’ın Ferisilerle (Yahudi din bilginleri) sıkça tartıştığını gözlemleriz. Bu tartışmalar Ferisiler’in yozlaşmasına da sıkça değinir. İsrailliler Roma’da Tevrat’ta anlattığımız ilkelere bağlı olduklarından Roma kanunuyla hükmetmiyorlardı diğer toplulukların yasalarına tabii olmak Tevrat’a göre küfür olduğundan sadece Tevrat’ı kanun olarak benimsiyorlardı. Ancak Yahudiler Tevrat’ın bazı kanunlarını sınırlandırmışlardı. Örneğin Tevrat’ta anne babaya sövme cezası ölümken onlar bu kanunu bazı şartlar altında yürürlükten kaldırmışlardı. Bu anlayış zamanla töre haline gelmiş ve böylece bazen Allah’ın kanunlarıyla hükmederken atalarından gelen bu anlayışı da dikkate alıyorlardı. İşte bu anlayış İsa as tarafından incilin metinlerine göre direk tekfir edilmiştir. İsa as Allah’ın kanunuyla birlikte bir başka töreye uyan insanlara ikiyüzlü(münafık) demiş ve onlara Tevrat’taki Yeşeya bölümünden bir bölüm okumuştur ve onunla cevap vermiştir (Yeşeya 29.13). Bu bölüm kalpleri ve gözleri örtülü kafir Yahudilerle alakalıdır ve İsa kendi döneminde yaşayanları o dönemde yaşayanlara benzeterek tekfir eder ve onların bütün amellerinin boşuna olduğunu bildirir:

Ya siz, neden töreniz uğruna Tanrı buyruğunu çiğniyorsunuz? 4. Tanrı şöyle buyurdu: ‘Annene babana saygı göstereceksin’; ‘Annesine ya da babasına söven kesinlikle öldürülecektir.’ 5-6. Ama siz, ‘Her kim anne ya da babasına, benden alacağın bütün yardım Tanrı'ya adanmıştır derse, artık babasına saygı göstermek zorunda değildir’ diyorsunuz. Böylelikle, töreniz uğruna Tanrı'nın sözünü geçersiz kılmış oluyorsunuz. 7-8. Ey ikiyüzlüler! Yeşaya'nın sizinle ilgili şu peygamberlik sözü ne kadar yerindedir:

‘Bu halk dudaklarıyla beni sayar,

Ama yürekleri benden uzak.

9. Bana boşuna taparlar.

Çünkü öğrettikleri, sadece insan buyruklarıdır.’ ” Matta 15

Dikkat edilmesi gereken en önemli hususlardan birisi İsa as’ın tartıştığı Yahudiler‘in Allah’ın kanunlara aykırı bir yasa koymaları değildir, o yasaya uymaları ve onunla hükmetmeleridir, onlar ne tevrattan başka bir kanun kitabı edinmişlerdir ne de kendilerini kanun koyacak bir ilah seçmişlerdir aradaki mesele yalnız bir detayda ataların kanunlarına bağlı kalınmasıdır. Sırf fıkhın bir meselesinde bir konuda Tevrat’la değil de başka bir töreyle hükmeden kafir oluyorsa bugün Allaha paralel kanunlar koyan tagutlar, insanları bu kanunlara muhakeme olmaya ve itaat etmeye çağıran bel’amlar ve insanlar arasında Allah’ın indirmediği bir kanunla hükmeden yöneticiler İncil’deki bu bölüme göre nedir?

İncil’de İsa as kanunlarıyla ve hakimiyetiyle ünlü Roma topraklarında kendini İslam’a nispet edenleri İslam’a davet etmesi oldukça rastlanır bir olaydır. Peki akla şu soru gelebilir: günümüz Hristiyanları neden böyle düşünmüyor? İncil’deki mektupların önemli bir kısmı kendini İsa’nın yoluna nispet eden Pavlusundur. Pavlus İsa’nın kutsal yasayı kaldırdığını iddia eder (efesliler 2.15) ve kutsal yasanın (Allah’ın yasası) günaha sebep olduğunu ve tanrının insanları kendi oğlunu dünyaya göndererek bu kötü şeyden kurtardığını iddia eder (korintililer 8.1). Kendisi bununla da yetinmez ve vela-bera akidesinin insanlar arasında duvar ördüğünü ve İsa’nın bunu da kaldırdığını iddia eder (Efesliler 1.14). İsa her ne kadar “Ben kutsal yasayı kaldırmaya gelmedim” (Matta 5) demekle birlikte belki yüzlerce yerde insanları kutsal yasaya itaate çağırsa da günümüz Hristiyanlarının çoğu ona ve yasaya itaati reddeder. İncillerde İsa’nın mesajıyla Pavlus’un mesajının zıt olmasının Kuranın metnine de yansıdığı kanaatindeyim Allah Maide 44’te insanları Tevrat’a itaate çağırırken maide 47de doğrudan İncil’e değil İncil’de Allah’ın indirdiği bölümlere çağırır. Bununla birlikte İncil’deki mektuplardan birinin İsa’nın kardeşi olduğu iddia edilen Yakup’a ait olduğu öne sürülür. Yakup İsa’nın mesajını insanlara anlatan bir kişi olarak temsil edilir ve onun da insanları davet ettiği şey şudur: “Yalnızca bir kanun koyucu vardır” (Yakup 4.12)

Sonuç olarak Tevrat’a ve İncil’de İsa’ya ait olduğu iddia edilen bölümlere göre Allah’ın indirdiğiyle hükmetmemek, ondan başka kanun koyucu edinmek, başka yasalara itaat etmek küfür ve şirktir, sahibini dinden çıkaran bir ameldir. Tıpkı kuranda dendiği gibi Tevrat’ta ve İncil’de de peygamberler Mısırda, Kudüs’te Roma topraklarında ve dünyanın başka her yanında aynı şeyi haykırmışlardır: “Allah’a kulluk edin, tâğûttan kaçının” Nahl 36.