As the 'insult' lawsuits filed by the President of Religious Affairs multiply...

Prof. Ali Erbaş has likely become the most criticized President of Religious Affairs in the history of the Republic of Turkey. Consequently, the number of "insult" lawsuits he has filed has become impossible to calculate. In fact, 10 months ago, he personally announced that he had filed insult lawsuits against 3,000 people and boasted, "I am sending the compensation to Palestine and Gaza."

Let us recount one of Prof. Erbaş's lawsuits and how the wires got crossed.

G.G., a retired female police officer, posted the following comment from her own account under a news item on social media about Ali Erbaş's brother approximately 5 years ago:

"Oh my God, these are all liars, frauds, shameless, immoral, creatures who do not fear God and are not ashamed of people..."

Erbaş or his lawyers noticed this comment 5 years later and filed a lawsuit against 65-year-old G.G. on charges of "publicly insulting a public official," demanding she be sentenced to prison.

In the case heard at the Ankara 50th Criminal Court of First Instance, G.G. stated that she did not remember the post in question because a long time had passed, and that she had not made any comments targeting Ali Erbaş knowingly and willingly.

Her lawyer, Kazım Farımaz, stated that G.G. was abroad at the time the post was made and explained the following:

"She is unaware of the agenda and people in Turkey. When the post is examined, it appears to be a comment made under a social media post. However, this is only a part of the screen; there are many posts before and after the client's post. As understood from the statement taken from the client at the police station, it is not even possible for her to remember Ali Erbaş. It is out of the question for her to make a targeted comment against someone she does not know or remember. Furthermore, it is not possible to make any determination that the comment in question was directly aimed at Ali Erbaş. The expression 'all of these' used in the comment content does not target a specific person. For the crime of insult to occur, the person targeted must be clearly identifiable."

REMINDED OF THE POPE

While reminding that Ali Erbaş is the President of Religious Affairs, Attorney Farımaz used the following expressions:

"The title of President of Religious Affairs requires representing not only public authority but also the principles of tolerance and patience of the Islamic religion. Therefore, in the face of criticisms and discourses expressed about him, it is expected that he display a more understanding, cool-headed, and tolerant approach within the framework of the responsibilities of this office. At this point, Pope John Paul II visiting Mehmet Ali Ağca, who attempted to assassinate him, in prison by forgiving him is a striking example of a religious leader's tolerance and peaceful approach. Although this example does not mean direct acceptance, it points out that people in religious representative positions should have high thresholds of tolerance."

G.G.'s other lawyer, Alper Kaan Farımaz, said, "Even if it is accepted that the discourse was made targeting the complainant, the elements of the crime of insult have not been formed due to its content. The discourse is within the scope of freedom of expression."

After Ali Erbaş's lawyer requested the punishment of the defendant, the Prosecutor, who gave his opinion, requested the acquittal of G.G. on the grounds that "it is not determinable who the discourse in question was directed at and that the expressions in the post referred to a plural group, not a singular person."

The court decided to acquit G.G. on the same grounds.

DOES THE DİYANET FABRICATE CRIMES?

However, Ali Erbaş's lawyer appealed the decision to the Regional Court of Justice. Let us convey the grounds for the appeal from the counter-petition of G.G.'s lawyers, Kazım Farımaz and Alper Kaan Farımaz.

Erbaş's lawyer argues that G.G. publicly insulted a public official.

G.G.'s lawyers responded, "The fact that the complainant learned of this 5 years later clearly reveals that the element of publicity for the act in question has not been formed. We submit to the discretion of your Chamber whether it is consistent with human characteristics for the complainant to feel an insult made to his personality over such a long period as 5 years."

Erbaş's lawyer claims that with the comment in question, "Erbaş's spiritual existence was harmed, and the public and Erbaş's circle were provoked."

G.G.'s lawyers stated that Erbaş's lawyer tried to mislead the Chamber by writing only a part of the comment, not the whole, and said, "The comment in question was only made from the client's own social media account and was not presented to the attention of any person or group, nor was it exposed."

Let us come to the most important detail.

Erbaş's lawyer makes a claim such as, "An unfair and unacceptable attribution of 'religious profiteer' was made to the client, damaging his honor and dignity."

G.G.'s lawyers, on the other hand, reported that such an accusation was not included in the indictment and that a "crime was fabricated" against G.G., emphasizing the following:

"This statement is proof that the complainant has too many insult files. We think that the appeal petition was written by copy-pasting from his other files. This situation is clear proof that the complainant sees insult files as a source of income."

Look at the accusation made; and against the President of Religious Affairs, no less!..

As Ziya Pasha said, "What days have we been left to, oh Gazi Hünkar"?..

Müyesser YILDIZ

August 28, 2025