A few words uttered by Erol on the television program Esra Erol'da in the past few days, Turkey's endless “regime and religion” the controversy has been reignited. A guest used a phrase to emphasize his confidence in justice “Sharia law does not hurt” to the words of the program host Esra Erol “Only Sharia exists in the Middle East” His response turned into a digital lynching campaign. So why did a technically correct statement (that Turkey's legal system is not Sharia law) cause such an outrage?
This incident has once again exposed Turkey's socio-cultural fault lines, the different meanings of concepts in minds and the risks of live broadcasting. Esra Erol's “Sharia exists in the Middle East” His exit and subsequent apology is not just a slip of the tongue, but a reflection of a deep polarization in our social memory...
What is Sharia? Let us take a brief look at this definition. Because in order to understand the issue “Sharia” We need to see and accept how the concept is perceived on two different planes:
Shari'ah, in the religious/jurisprudential sense, is a set of divine rules for Muslims based on the Holy Qur'an and the Sunnah. In this context, Shari'ah means “the way of Islam” and is a sacred whole for believers.
Sharia, on the other hand, represents a theocratic form of government in the political/legal sense, with specific penal sanctions. Esra Erol's “It exists in the Middle East” what he really meant was Sharia as a form of government.
So why was Esra Erol lynched? Shall we look at it from this perspective? According to its Constitution, the Republic of Turkey is a secular state of law. So Erol's “There is no Sharia (as a form of government) here” I read his statement as a legal determination. However, the reason for the lynching of this statement is semantic.
In this way, we have seen together that some idioms have a sacredness.
“Sharia law does not hurt” the term is used colloquially to refer to the desire for a religious regime “My neck is thinner than a hair before absolute justice” means “justice”. When Erol intervenes in this idiom by taking it to a political level, the audience does not see this as "justice", “To Islam” as a reaction, frankly. This perception led to a reaction of identity defense. Because the tension between religiosity and secularism in Turkey has turned the concepts into “fortresses” and any criticism of the word sharia is coded by conservatives as a direct attack on the belief system.
So you've written so much, so tell me; ; ” Were the reactions justified or not? ”Let me say very clearly that the reactions “justified” depending on where you're standing.
If you read Esra Erol's words as “excluding the rules of Islam”, it would be a cause for offense for those with religious sensitivities. But if you read it as “To remind Turkey's secular legal system” it would be correct to say that the lynching was unjustified.
In Erol's apology sentences “I have never been involved in any wrongdoing that would make us question our faith” that the issue has moved from a technical legal debate to a “to the test of faith” that it has been transformed.
This is a situation where I feel hurt; “In a modern society, when a presenter defends the country's official form of government ‘having to prove his faith’ It is a painful rupture that needs to be emphasized sociologically.”
The Esra Erol incident should have taught us that a presenter must maintain this delicate balance on live TV. “reflex” Unfortunately, it proved once again how fragile social polarization is.
Esra Erol's apology is not only an attempt to correct a misunderstanding, but also a reflex to survive in the midst of this polarization.
In Turkey, some words are bigger than their dictionary meanings. Sharia is not only a legal system but also a symbol of identity for millions of people. Secularism, on the other hand, is the guarantee of social peace for some.
The polarization in Turkey has unfortunately turned words into barriers rather than bridges. Esra Erol's situation was reflected to all of us as a “linguistic accident” of an individual hitting these barriers.
And of course, where you look from is very important. In some situations that require restraint, we risk drowning in the unfamiliar sea by diving in too quickly. Why, because there is a rule of not missing any line with high interaction.
But it's worth remembering that everyone “red line” in this environment where he is expected to chew, the rational ground is lost.
For this reason, Esra Erol's apology is not only an individual step back; it is also a document of how vulnerable the individual is in the face of this gigantic social pressure machine.
My perspective on Esra Erol as a journalist is this; I would like to state that I do not find him very sincere in his program. While switching between topics, I have watched her send her guests away with an attitude of indifference to their pain under the mask of professionalism. I don't have the habit of watching her all the time and frankly I don't have the tolerance.
But she is not Müge Anlı in my opinion. Since there are two programs with the same format, I had to mention Anlı in my evaluation. The most basic element in Anlı's handling of the subjects is that she gives a “television content” as a realistic empathy. Although there are some things I criticize, I can say that there is a realistic empathy in his style of making programs, far from artificiality.
With love