A Turkish lawyer shouting: “I am a soldier of Allah,” opened fire in the country’s top administrative court yesterday, killing one judge and injuring four others. Witnesses described how the gunman shouted, “Allahu Akbar” (God is most great) as he fired a handgun in the court’s second chamber.
The assailant, a lawyer accredited with the Istanbul bar association, later told police he carried out the attack because the court had stopped a woman becoming a headteacher on the grounds that she wore a headscarf. One of the judges, Mustafa Yucel Ozbilgin, was shot in the head and died later in hospital, Anatolia news agency reported.
The attack was the most dramatic sign yet that religious-minded Turks are becoming frustrated in the predominantly Muslim, but strictly secular, country.
“Frustrated” may be the polite word. Violence against law and order — against constitutional law — is more accurate.
Ahmet Necdet Sezer, the president, who has voiced fears over the country’s creeping Islamisation, described it as a “black mark in the republic’s history”, adding that “pressure and threats will not intimidate the Turkish judiciary, which will continue its constitutional duties bound to the secular and democratic republic.” The opposition leader, Deniz Baykal, said the shooting showed Turkey was “being dragged towards a very dangerous place”.
Last week unknown assailants shouting “Allahu Akbar” lobbed a percussion bomb at the office of Turkey’s most staunchly secularist newspaper, the third attack in a few days.
The ban on headscarves, imposed when Mustafa Kemal Ataturk carved the modern republic out of the Ottoman empire in 1923, is regarded as one of the most divisive issues in Turkey today.
Turkish politics, too often dominated by military factions, so far, still respect the democratic traditions that have survived alliance with Nazi Germany during WW2 and fawning over whoever offered the best hardware deals from year to year during the Cold War. Like any Middle Eastern officialdom, the Turkish government is going to have to find its own way to build secular democracy — if it is to head-off theocracy.
You know, if Allah is so powerful, why does he need humans to do his killing for him?
I’m sure Allah does for the same reason the Christian and Jewish God needs it done.
God please save me from your followers!
‘Head-off” seems to be an unfortunate turn of phrase when referring to a possible Muslim Theocracy…
He may be all-powerful, but with nutcase fundamentalists running around, even Allah needs a bodyguard these days.
Of course, I kid my Muslim friends. Praise be to Allah 😉
At least the lawyer was making a good point. Headscarves should be allowed to be worn. They look decent and accents a young woman’s face. Sometimes killing is necessary when powerless people are forced to comply with undecent laws. What if Jews were not allowed to wear their beanies, or if you were not allowed to wear a crucifix around your neck? Wouldn’t you kill a judge too to protect your religious right if no other method was feasible?
I don’t think so David!!
David, the lawyer didn’t make a point. He took the law into his own hands. If you don’t like the law, then work to change it from within, not by ignoring it (like a certain pompous arse I could name) or acting like an anarchist. That is the difference between anarchy and democracy.
#5, if you’re conducting a poll, put me down for a “no” on that judge-shooting as well. I would channel my energies into political pursuits with fewer firearms, something around the zero level would be good.
Don’t they have metal detectors in the Turkish courthouse?
I’d put that on my “to do” list for courthouse renovations.
Gary, Just because our society has degraded to the point of requiring metal detectors to enter government buildings and schools, doesn’t mean that all countries have found them to be generally necessary.
#6, #7, #8. You guys cannot think out of the Matrix. You look at everything with the powerless mind that you think you have. That lawyer did what another man has done and,in which, you have supported.You see, you BELIEVE that a single man cannot declare war if his title is Esq., but that a single man can declare war if his title is Pres. That lawyer fought a JUST war where he killed only one man. Our president fought an UNJUST ware where he killed 2,300 of his OWN men and 100,000 of the other side. You limit your logic by granting power to a title. This is what those in power want you to think so that you don’t kill them. They have you fooled into believing rule of law, a belief that not even they follow.
The lawyer was a brave man. We need more people like him.
#10 david, before you all-too-quickly declare “that lawyer fought a JUST war,” remember that this was all over an employment discrimination case based on religion (the wearing of the scarf). Shooting a judge who even wrongly decides an employment discrimination case is a tad over the line, but for all we know, he may have decided the case correctly under the law.
David,
You are really screwed up. First, you cannot say that the lawyers “war” was “JUST” and the war in Iraq was “UNJUST” without assuming system of morals that we may not ascribe to. Second, anyone who declares war (or plans to make war) should be ready to face the consequences. Third, since rulers and laws are sustained – at least in part – by the people, and as you agree, the people have power, then you shouldn’t be too surprised when that power is turned against individuals that declare war on rulers and laws.