The crime of cursing those who curse Atatürk!..

Today marks the 87th anniversary of the passing of the Great Leader Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the savior of our country and the founder of our state.

While some are trying with all their might to erase first the traces and then the name of Atatürk, somehow, upon the instruction of the Kocaeli Governorship, the Kocaeli Mufti's Office decided to have a mawlid recited in mosques on the occasion of his death anniversary.

Oh, how dare you do that!..

Certain groups and individuals, who not only think they have a monopoly on religion but also attempt to decide who is a Muslim and who is not, stood up. Would you look at these delusions?

“Imposition... This practice is contrary to legislation and traditions... Why is the Presidency of Religious Affairs being bypassed?... Is this an effort to appease secularist bigots?.. Our sublime religion of Islam, our religious officials, and our mosques are not political areas of exploitation for bureaucrats, politicians, and certain ideological circles to trample upon as they please... Mosques are neither places for secularism and Kemalism tests, nor are religious officials at the beck and call of secularist bigots... Let a mosque be built at Anıtkabir and let the Holy Quran and Mevlid-i Sharif be recited there constantly.”

There are also these:

“Even though Mustafa Kemal himself did not want it, trying to portray him as a Muslim and having the Quran or mawlid recited for him is not only religiously impermissible but also carries a great burden of sin... According to Islam, praying for and/or praising Atatürk is not appropriate... To whom and for whom will you open your hands to pray; for example, will you pray saying, ‘Oh Allah, we love a person who waged war on your religion, abolished the caliphate of your Messenger, banned the Sharia you sent down, removed Islam as the religion of our state and replaced it with secularism, banned our turbans, and forced us to wear the Jewish hat; you love him too and put him in your paradise’?.. The Taghut is rejected; prayers and mawlids are not recited for the Taghut.”

This, on the other hand, is the insolence of the so-called former chief imam of Hagia Sophia; according to him, “it is not permissible to pray for the mercy of a non-Muslim”!..

And what about this professor—even though he later deleted his post following the backlash; he also proclaimed, “While Atatürk tried to root out Islam from these lands and was against such religious ceremonies, who is the mawlid for Atatürk being recited to please?”

Everyone acts in a way that suits them; they did, and they continue to do so.

What is more grave and painful than this is that those who raise a ruckus and mobilize the judiciary when the slightest word is said against them cannot even say, “What audacity, what insolence, what rudeness. Pull yourselves together, be respectful,” against these curses and insults directed at Atatürk, the savior and founder of the country!..

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE CAPTAIN WHO CALLED VAHDETTIN A “TRAITOR”

While this is the situation, one cannot help but remember what happened to Captain C.H., who called Vahdettin a “traitor.” Because there are new developments.

The incident was, in summary, as follows:

On the 41st day of the Olive Branch Operation carried out in Syria in 2018, C.H., who organized an attack to prevent the bodies of our 9 soldiers martyred in the Keltepe region from falling into the hands of terrorists, planted our flag on that hill, and subsequently received the appreciation of Erdoğan, was discussing training disruptions and deficiencies with some non-commissioned officers at the Gendarmerie Commando Special Public Security Command Teaching Presidency, his new post in November 2021, when the subject turned to the Atatürk-Vahdettin debate. While C.H. was defending Atatürk and recalling that he called Vahdettin a “traitor,” non-commissioned officer C.D. replied, “He who calls the Sultans a traitor is a traitor,” and an exchange of curses ensued.

Just before this, there was another incident that occurred on November 10. Captain C.H. asked whether an Atatürk commemoration ceremony would be held that day. When he was informed that it would not be, he reacted, went to the Colonel, and said, “Even foreigners commemorate him. How can this be?” The Colonel reluctantly replied, “I cannot write it, you write it via WhatsApp.” He wrote it, and the commemoration ceremony was held that way.

Returning to the Atatürk-Vahdettin fight; the matter was referred to the administration. Without taking the statement of Captain C.H., an investigation was launched with a report prepared according to the accounts of C.D. and other non-commissioned officers in the room.

Days later, a new section was added to the report, stating that Captain C.H. had “insulted the President.”

Following this, C.H.’s place of duty was changed four times, he was given a salary cut penalty, he was suspended, and his dismissal from the Gendarmerie was brought to the agenda. Furthermore, a criminal complaint was filed with the Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office on the allegation of “insulting the President.”

Even in the indictment prepared upon that criminal complaint, it was emphasized that “the statements of the four non-commissioned officers who testified against C.H. ‘might be aimed at professional solidarity due to their being of the same rank and duty,’” that the allegations and accusations of “insulting the President” were not included in the report prepared after the incident, and that this was evidence in favor of C.H.; but in the end, a lawsuit was filed against C.H. for insulting Erdoğan.

In the case that has been ongoing since 2022, C.H.’s lawyers explain that when it was understood that the Atatürk-Vahdettin debate would grow, the accusation of “insulting the President” was fabricated, and that those who did this were the Menzil sect... The witness non-commissioned officers, who gave almost word-for-word identical statements in the administrative investigation, gave contradictory statements in the hearings.

Meanwhile, all administrative penalties given to Captain C.H. were canceled by the administrative judiciary.

Finally, the Ministry of Interior High Disciplinary Board, which discussed his dismissal from the Gendarmerie, concluded that C.H. “did not insult the President” and rejected the dismissal request, but C.H. was given a 16-month rank suspension penalty on the grounds that he entered into “such a debate with his subordinates.” However, the administrative court canceled this decision as well.

Ultimately, C.H. became a Major, but he was assigned to the East for the third time.

As for the case of insulting Erdoğan; the Prosecutor, who presented his opinion on the merits, requested that C.H. be punished as the “crime of insulting the President was deemed proven.” Erdoğan’s lawyer also stated that they joined the opinion.

In the final hearing held in recent days, C.H. and his lawyers presented their defense against the opinion. Major C.H. summarized the following:

“We experienced some incidents in the unit where I worked before this one as well. I was subjected to slander. Our struggle is for our organization to be an army of discipline. But unfortunately, those called 35-year experienced non-commissioned officers write reports, then deny the content of the report. The incompetence and sense of allegiance that started with the structuring of sects, especially during the FETÖ period, now continues under the names of other groups. Allegiance has replaced laws and regulations. These slanders thrown at me are also the work of groups bound to each other by a sense of allegiance. It is written in the disciplinary investigation documents that I did not commit the crime of insult, and I am still in the profession.”

His lawyer, Serdar Öztürk, explained that after C.H. stated that he would take action against the non-commissioned officers for insulting Atatürk after that debate, a retroactive report was drawn up and he was subjected to the accusation of insulting the President, and when this was revealed, it was called a “clerical error.”

Lawyer İbrahim Yılmaz pointed out the following:

“In the investigation report prepared by the Gendarmerie General Command, it was determined that non-commissioned officer C.D. insulted Captain C.H. by calling him a ‘traitor,’ and it was requested that a disciplinary investigation be conducted regarding this. As a result of the disciplinary investigation regarding C.D., a ‘24-month suspension penalty within the scope of insulting a superior or commander’ was proposed. Despite this, no disciplinary penalty was given to C.D.; he was protected by the institution. Witness C.D., whose established actions that were the subject of judicial prosecution and administrative disciplinary penalty were ignored, will of course not hesitate to make untrue accusations against C.H. Because this person is sure that whatever he does to C.H., it will go unpunished, and nothing will happen to him.”

Lawyer Süleyman Demirel İlbak also said, “One of the witnesses began his statement with the words, ‘In the statement I gave to protect our friend C.D.’ There is a setup here. It was acted entirely with the perception of ‘throw mud, let it stick.’”

The result? The court decided to acquit C.H. as the legal elements of the alleged crime were not formed.

NON-PROSECUTION FOR INSULTING ATATÜRK... PUNISHMENT FOR CURSING

But it didn’t end there; there was another case filed against C.H.

The plaintiff was non-commissioned officer C.D., a party to the Atatürk-Vahdettin debate; he wanted C.H. to be sentenced to compensation for the allegation of “insult and attempted simple assault.”

Just as a huge uproar was being made over the Kocaeli Mufti’s Office’s decision to have a mawlid recited for Atatürk, the final session of this case was held at the Ankara West 3rd Criminal Court of First Instance last Thursday.

The prosecutor gave an opinion in the direction of punishing C.H. Non-commissioned officer C.D. and his lawyer stated that their complaint continued.

In the hearing that Major C.H. did not attend, his lawyer İbrahim Yılmaz pointed out that the case of insulting the President resulted in acquittal, and that in both the cases regarding disciplinary penalties and the decision of the Ministry of Interior High Disciplinary Board, it was stated that all the witnesses who testified against C.H. were C.D.’s subordinates and entourage, and that their statements could not be relied upon as they could act with the instinct of protecting each other, and noted the following:

“Considering all these decisions, it is established that C.H. did not commit the crime he is accused of. C.H. only said, ‘I am cursing those who curse Atatürk,’ upon Atatürk being insulted. Other than this, there is no action directed at C.D. Meanwhile, C.H. had also filed a criminal complaint against C.D. for insulting Atatürk, but the prosecutor’s office decided not to prosecute. In other words, it was understood that he did not insult him personally.”

Lawyer Serdar Öztürk also added the following regarding that criminal complaint:

“In the investigation conducted against C.D. for the crime of insulting Atatürk, a decision of non-prosecution was given not because C.D. did not commit a crime or was innocent, but on the grounds that the element of publicity was not formed.”

Then, emphasizing that it was seen that the witnesses heard both in this court and the court handling the case of insulting the President gave contradictory statements, he continued as follows:

“We think that because the witnesses are military personnel and there is an instinct to protect each other in the military, they acted with this instinct while testifying. Those who slandered him by saying he insulted the President could also have said, ‘he attacked us, pulled a knife.’ Let me explain how the incident can be manipulated with a concrete example. In the incident regarding the death of an asylum seeker at a border outpost, all 40 soldiers gave statements in a way that protected each other. However, the incident could only be clarified upon the statement of a specialist sergeant. There is comradeship in the military. They can give false testimony with the instinct of protecting each other or feeling compelled to do so. Therefore, it is not possible for the statements of these witnesses to be the basis for a verdict. There is neither attempted assault nor insult. Yes, there is a debate; he cursed by saying, ‘whoever insults Atatürk.’ No honorable Turkish soldier can remain silent to an insult to Atatürk. The reason why another person behind C.H. held him while C.H. was reacting to the insult to Atatürk is to help C.D., who wanted to hit him. Because of those who came into the room and intervened at that very moment, this did not happen and the incident ended.”

The result of this case? It was decided that Major C.H. be sentenced to 6 thousand liras of judicial fine each for the crimes of “insult and attempted simple assault” and that the announcement of the verdict be deferred.

Would you look at what is happening in Atatürk’s Turkey; having a Mawlid recited for him is seen as too much, those who react to him being insulted are punished... In a word, shame on you!..

I commemorate our eternal and everlasting Leader with mercy, but above all with infinite gratitude.

Müyesser YILDIZ

November 10, 2025