Cübbeli Ahmet’s Court Decree

The most striking moment of the Battle of Siffin, which took place between the ranks of Ali ibn Abi Talib and Muawiyah and resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of people, was undoubtedly the act of fastening pages of the Quran to the tips of spears. Legend has it that when the side of Muawiyah realized they were going to lose the battle, they remembered the Quran as a tool of war and sent it onto the battlefield, saying, "Let it be the arbiter between us." We remember the results, and what happened afterward.

When it comes to the Quran, Ali ibn Abi Talib signed one of the most striking statements regarding the use of the book in politics. For Ali said, "The Quran does not speak; people make it speak."

Is he wrong?

Do people not try to find a verse according to their location, position, the relationships they enter into, or the segments they represent to legitimize their actions or criticize those done in the opposite direction? This is leaning on religion or strengthening one's position with the weapon of religion; we know this from history and from today. As we all know, neither the Muawiyahs nor the Siffins have ceased to exist since that time.

In recent days, we witnessed another one of these examples. Ahmet Mahmut Ünlü, known to the public as Cübbeli Ahmet, harshly criticized the court's decision regarding Yusuf Ziya Gümüşel, the founder of the Hiranur Foundation. Let us recall that, according to the content of the mentioned case, Gümüşel's daughter was married off with an imam marriage while she was a "child." Following this, a trial that lasted for months began, and ultimately, the founder of the foundation was sentenced to 18 years and 9 months in prison. Cübbeli reacted to this sentence, saying: "Deeming an 18-year and 9-month sentence appropriate for our brother Yusuf Ziya Gümüşel Hocaefendi is a sanction that is contrary to Islam and the Sharia of the Quran."

Cübbeli Ahmet's words are quite clear: According to these words, the court panel opposed Islam and the Quran within the scope of the mentioned case and therefore did not recognize religion. You see, don't you, how the course of the subject and the axis of the issue changed all of a sudden. We arrived at a point where we are practically accusing the court panel of "falling into disbelief" from an event that is quite shocking in terms of its content. Look, this is how targeting, lynching, and taking a religious position to fire shots with verses and hadiths happen. Those who place themselves in the position of religion judge people in the inquisition courts they have established themselves, using the power they derive from there. Let's call it by its name; this is clearly religious exploitation, the abuse of religious feelings. And according to the Turkish Penal Code, this is a crime. Furthermore, it is the targeting of the court panel in the name of religion, which is also a separate crime.

Cübbeli Ahmet, who also made a name for himself with products like fireproof shrouds and "Nal-ı Şerif" slippers, may not be aware of what he is saying, but we are. We all know how many intellectuals have been targeted and how many lives have been taken in this country due to these and similar discourses.

Moreover, we live in a secular country. Since when did court panels start basing their decisions on religious texts? Is the country being governed by a religious regime, and are we unaware of it? For example, in every decision made regarding the crime of theft, are we going to say that the courts do not recognize religion and are opposing it? If this is not failing to know what one is saying, it is clearly a provocation.

Furthermore, an approach like handling issues, cases, and events on a religious basis is a situation that is inherently open to danger. For example, according to Salafi groups, the very structure of the sects (tarikats) is contrary to religion; these groups are in a state of shirk (polytheism). Let alone expressing an opinion, their very existence cannot be accepted. You say religion? Then take the religion! Besides, there is not a single interpretation of religion, so that we can say in an event, "Let's say this is right or wrong according to this religion." Even during the Ottoman period, were interest-bearing loans given through cash foundations not considered permissible by the decision of the Sheikh al-Islam? Well, wasn't interest forbidden (haram)!

The result?

Courts will, of course, not give their decisions based on the views that Cübbeli or this or that community or sect imposes on religion, or their interpretation of religion, but rather with the existing evidence and the general principles of law. It should not be forgotten that the Kharijites also declared Ali an infidel according to religion. If you accept this scale as correct, you might encounter such a result in return, right? Anyone with a little bit of common sense sees this and speaks accordingly.