Fellow Turkish Daily News commentator Yusuf Kanlı harshly criticized this “crooked” mindset in his column yesterday. He likened it to the mentality of the Taliban, and inferred a political assessment: “The only consolation we have,” he said, “is that they are not in full executive power in Turkey!”

Well, I take a different line. And here is why.

Everybody's Own Business

The Taliban regime was a nightmare, to be sure, but the reason was not the strict moral rules that they believed in. It was that they imposed it by using state power. There is a huge difference in believing that women should ideally cover their bodies, and forcing them to do so. The former is an opinion that can exist in a democracy, while the latter is an assault on human freedom.

But is it really possible to make that distinction in practice? Would ultra-conservatives agree to keep their moral standards to themselves, and not to impose it on the rest? The answer is, yes, of course. Orthodox Jews, for example, organize their lives according to the Halakha, Jewish religious law, which is not too different from traditional Islam in the way that it organizes gender relationships. But they co-exist with all sorts of other people. In Israel, Orthodox Jews live in their neighborhoods such as Meah Shearim of Jerusalem, in which “modesty” is asked from all visitors. But in the very same city there are also very secular areas full of bars and nightclubs. And Israel is a democracy — well, at least a Jewish democracy — precisely because it hosts these strikingly different groups, which hold quite dissimilar moral values.

In Turkey, the secularists, who are always ranting about the possibility of Islamic despotism, have their own actual despotism. They not only forbid conservative practices, as seen in the senseless headscarf ban, but they also mock conservative Muslims for what they believe in. “How dare you think that dating is a sin?” is the attitude they have.

The appropriate answer to that should be, “Would you please kindly mind your own business?” There are all sorts of beliefs in this world, and people have very diverse notions of sin. For Seventh Day Adventists, a cup of cappuccino might amount to sin, because it includes the potentially harmful caffeine, while God has told you take care of your body. For the Sikhs, a deadly sin can be as simple as a haircut. For the Amish, it could be indulging in electrical devices. None of these views might be your cup of tea — they are neither mine — but these people have the right to believe in what they believe.

Saudis, Iran and Turkey

Having said all that, I concede that there is some justification to be alarmist in the face Islamic conservatism. “Islamic” regimes such as Saudi Arabia and Iran follow a policy of forcing their citizens, and even the visitors who come to their country, to abide by what they consider as moral. In other words, they don't just hold the idea that women should cover their heads, they also force them to do so. This is, of course, tyranny. And I understand when Turkish secularists look at these horrible cases and infer that the conservatives in this country must be the same.

But that's where they are wrong. Turkey has its own unique Islamic tradition, which is quite free from the tribal and arid harshness of Saudi Wahhabism, and the politicized Shiite totalitarianism of Iran. Polls show that the majority of Turkish Muslims are concerned about preserving their values, not imposing them on others. They might not like to have a bar in the neighborhood, but they don't care about the watering holes of “white Turks.” Actually it has become a generally accepted dictum among them that “all life styles should be respected.”

What the secularists should do is not to bash, mock, and politically attack the conservatives, including the ultra-orthodox, but to try to engage in dialogue. We don't have to agree on what is sinful or immoral in order to live in the same society. We just need to agree to disagree.

The Need For Revision

Now, that was all about democracy and religious freedom. But I need to say something else, too. I, as a Muslim, also think that most of the ultra-conservative rules in traditional Islam actually need to be revised. People cling to them as if they are God's orders, but they are actually God's orders as interpreted in the eighth or ninth century. The Koran, the only divine source of Islam, often gives only generally principles in most issues. It says believers should be modest, for example, and that modesty was defined by Islamic scholars during Middle Ages. Times have drastically changed — hence the interpretation needs to change.

Take the example of hand-shaking. A thousand years ago, you wouldn't go and grab a woman's hand unless you had something romantic, or even erotic, in your mind. So the Islamic jurisprudence books written at the time considered it immoral to have extramarital hand-grabs. When hand-shaking came from the West as a modern way of courtesy, conservative Muslims rejected this, and some of them still refrain from it. But hand-shaking is simply a normal act of civility today, devoid of any sexual connotation.

This is just a single example among the countless issues that traditional Islamic sources need reinterpretation. And that reinterpretation is actually on its way: As Muslim societies modernize, new ideas about the old texts constantly emerge. This is not a collectivist project, though, and while some Muslims will modernize, others will choose to remain more traditional. Perhaps at the end, as with the case with Judaism, there will be reformed, conservative and orthodox versions of the faith. None of these should be less welcome than others in a democracy. Pluralism is, to be sure, the perfect antidote to autocracy.