While there is no core definition of Muslim subjectivity and thereby a singular definition of Islam contrary to Western stereotypes, this paper critically interrogates how Islam has come to be defined as the state’s religion under the authoritarian restoration of the Justice and Development Party (JDP) in Turkey. What goes into such definitions and institutional arrangements that make such large-scale definitions possible? How do Muslim subjects experience this singular interpretation of Islam and its state-led verifications once their experience is defined outside of this terrain? It is true that this type of reductionist reading misleadingly reinforces the polarization between seculars and Muslims and enables the JDP to consolidate its electoral power. However, I argue that this intertwinement also designates Islam as an indispensable component of the authoritarian apparatus, thereby justifying the spread of Islamophobia alongside denouncing authoritarianism. By depending on 15 months of ethnographic research and interviews with queer pro-bono lawyers and judicial experiences of Turkish queer activists in the courtrooms, my paper analyzes significant consequences of this process wherein Islam and the state’s secular institutions are discursively entangled. Is it possible to talk about Islam without relying on the epistemological oppression of the authoritarian governance, which takes religion as its primary base in Turkey? This presentation approaches this question by specifically focusing on legal cases such as femicide, hate crime, the protection of children and family, and public decency. It demonstrates how this discursive intertwinement between authoritarianism and Islam conceptually aims to separate queer activists from Muslim feminists as if they cannot have a common political ground to critique the state’s gendered power.