Human history has witnessed various changes and transformations, some sudden and others intertwined with one another. Social scientists have classified these developments in the social structure primarily based on production relations and social organizations. The most commonly used categorizations include agricultural and industrial societies, as well as traditional and modern societies. These concepts, brought to the forefront to describe social and economic activity, challenge prior practices, and incorporate past projections. We define it as a challenge because, even if there is a fundamental change and transformation, the normality of certain periods and the consciousness of belonging in relation to that normality can give rise to conflicts. On the other hand, the harmonization and transformation of normality, while progressing reasonably in daily life practice, is brought to the forefront of the agenda with a sharper discourse due to the fear of the destruction of belonging. The key objective is to eliminate language that incites conflict among discourses and fields of representation and cultivate a thorough comprehension and interpretation of periods and the corresponding sociality on a sound basis. Therefore, it is crucial to comprehend the concept of digitality, used to refer to the postmodern era and the social and religious organization it produces, in terms of its dimensions of possibility and risk.
Although there are many definitions, in its most general form, digitalization can be defined as “the process of transferring accessible information into a medium that can be read by technological tools such as computers, smartphones, and tablets, edited in these environments, and incorporated into workflows”. In a sense, digitalization also refers to the radical change in the tools used to produce, distribute, and store information. Digitalization has an infrastructure that also triggers its own transformation.
Mass media, the primary tool of digitalization, has eliminated barriers of time, place, and physicality. Technological advancements have paved new opportunities in social, political, and religious spheres. Digitalization, rooted in the new technological landscape of the twenty[1]first century, has brought about variations in the daily lives of society. Since the early 2000s, Web 2.0 technology and its product, social media, have transformed communication from one[1]sided to multidimensional. With the Internet, all social structures, from individual life to traditional institutions, have begun to be affected by the online transformation.
We can analyze the social organization produced by this chronology under overarching headings such as digitality and the network society. In examining the relationship between the digital world and religious life, it is essential to highlight the structural differences that are prominent in the areas of risk. On the ontological level, the digital age derives its understanding of its social organization on the basis of technological, mathematical, and numerical data, while the religious sphere relies on a concept of truth based on scriptural and traditional teachings, preferences, and internal processes.
Today, in the digital universe, worship and social memory have begun to transform from a set of transmitted information to stored data. It is more important to photograph and store the places visited than the journey itself, to capture the act of worship than the pleasure of worship, and to present data with an aesthetic presentation than the place of worship itself. The image reflected in the digital world has become more valuable than the subject and the act itself.
The other pillar of the structural difference produced by digitalization is the “problem of centrality”. While traditional religious structures or societies were hierarchical, based on sacred references, and rooted in tradition, centralized hierarchy and control have become obsolete in the digital world. In this world, where the local is globalized, the global can penetrate the local, and the relationship between subordinate and superior disappears, everyone is equal. We are entering a new world where participation is valued, where people can communicate regardless of time and place, and where they can access all kinds of information at almost no cost. Digital tools can be considered positive in terms of the unrestricted circulation of data and information, equality of access to information, and their ability to provide diversity. In this regard, the digital medium provides a platform for encountering various forms of information and engaging in the exchange of diverse ideas.
The widespread use of digital media as a source of information exacerbates not only the problem of centrality but also the problem of trust. The ease with which website content can be manipulated amplifies skepticism towards the information presented. It is important to recognize that local and global digital power groups have the ability to manipulate the virtual information environment to their advantage by spreading disinformation on the aforementioned mediums. Additionally, the process of digitalization, which is promoted for reasons such as facilitating life and commerce, can become a highly susceptible and misleading platform. While digital information is decentralized, devoid of hierarchy, and has no source, the ultimate source of knowledge in Islam is Allah. For He alone is the “‘Allam al-ghuyub” (the All-Knowing of all that is unseen) and the absolute al-Alim (Ma’idah, 5:109). Allah has taught humanity what they do not know (‘Alaq, 96:4) and bestowed the knowledge of the names of objects on the Prophet Adam, the father of humanity (Baqarah, 2:131).
All kinds of information obtained from digital media can be used as the raw material for ethical problems such as lies, slander, suspicion, and obsession. These platforms lack ethical criteria, allowing everything to be used solely for the purposes of getting likes and attracting attention. Conversely, the religious field is based on a teaching that is based on truth. Especially the way of existence in virtual environments and the idea that the information created therein has no reality blunts the conscientious responsibility of people. Consequently, young individuals, for whom anonymization is prevalent, may perceive any activities performed under virtual identities as exempt from accountability.
It is important to remember that it is human beings who are experiencing the process of digitalization. We are now living in a world where what is committed in the virtual environment also has religious and legal consequences. The use of anonymous identities does not relieve individuals of responsibility for their actions online. On the other hand, religious posts on social media, which are important socialization platforms of the digital age, do not exempt individuals from the obligation to worship. Therefore, upholding the reference value of religious foundations in the performance of the religious field in digital media seems to be important in overcoming these structural disparities. It is important to learn digital culture in order to act in harmony with the ecosystem of social media and to be able to exist there without deviating from human values based on Islam. As a result, instead of viewing the digital environment as a contaminated world and a medium to be avoided, we can cultivate a digital habitat dominated by mutual understanding and empathy by incorporating the basic sensitivities on which our civilization is based into social media.
