The Baseless Nature of the Sexual Allegations Made against Adnan Oktar and His Friends

The sexual allegations made against Adnan Oktar and the BAV circle have always been an indication of the deep unease that atheist, Darwinist and materialist circles feel in the face of his scholarly activity. Whenever these people suffer an intellectual defeat they resort to allegations of a sexual nature, to which the public are most sensitive. And since it is Adnan Oktar who wages the most powerful intellectual struggle in the world against atheists and Darwinists, these circles have not hesitated to launch repulsive slanders against him.
In order for the claim in question about Adnan Oktar and the BAV circle to be accepted, there would first have to be a plaintiff, aggrieved party or witness. But there exists not a single witness, plaintiff or aggrieved party to confirm this false allegation. Eight years later, however, and as part of a psychological warfare campaign, a fictitious scenario about "little girls" was added to the accusations against the BAV. The fact is that no such claim existed in either the security department statements or the court file. Nor was there any plaintiff making such a claim. Indeed, NONE OF THE LADIES WHO MADE STATEMENTS AT THE SECURITY DEPARTMENT WAS YOUNGER THAN 18. The ladies in questions were forced to sign statements under threat, pressure and duress. These people all then declared, before the court, that they had not been damnified by Adnan Oktar and the members of the BAV in any way.

Baseless Slanders against Mr.Adnan Oktar

Moreover, claims regarding hidden cameras and secret records on the Wikipedia web pages have also been legally proved to have nothing to do with reality. In 1999, 45 homes were raided simultaneously at 03:00 in a move against the BAV. The homes were searched until the morning. But NOT A SINGLE SECRET RECORD or any other violation of the law WAS ENCOUNTERED. The imputation that appeared, illegally, in the press were part of a smear campaign against the BAV community. Some newspapers reported that "hidden cameras" had been seized in the early days of the police operation, but it subsequently transpired that these were lies. The objects described as hidden cameras were ordinary security cameras of the kind found in the gardens of many detached properties or at the doors of workplaces.
Electrical devices found in any home (dimmer switches, spotlight bulb holders, disk players and satellite antennae components) were confiscated from members' homes and displayed to the press as if they were espionage equipment. The fact is however, that the equipment recorded as a "disk wiping device" and displayed as a crime tool was in fact an ordinary "floppy drive" sold together with many laptops at the time. The commercial film tapes, magazines and CDs taken from BAV members' homes were used as psychological warfare propaganda tools and described to the public as blackmail equipment. But these were just documentary and music tapes and CDs of the kind found by the dozens in ordinary citizens' homes.
The court possessed not a single piece of evidence to support the claims in question. The reasoned opinion in favor of acquittal issued twice by the prosecutor was based on the fact that THERE WAS NOT A SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THESE or any other accusation, and the prosecutor makes this clear in these opinions. The verdicts of acquittal and dismissal of proceedings given by the Courts and public prosecutors totally disprove this claim.
These claims, which are in the court file BUT ARE UNSUPPORTED BY A SINGLE PIECE OF CONCRETE EVIDENCE, are based on the testimonies signed under duress and torture by all BAV members tried and taken under custody as a result of the plots hatched by the alleged Ergenekon terror organization in 1999. (There are 18 Forensic Medicine reports to the effect that members of the BAV were tortured in detention. Security officials of the time are still on trial for torture, with prosecutors demanding sentences of 216 years for each.) According to the law, police testimonies signed under torture and in the absence of advocates are utterly invalid. However, the penalty imposed on the BAV case was based on these invalid testimonies taken by police.

Please see for detailed documentation and indepth information on all the baseless slanders made on Mr.Adnan Oktar

Statements Regarding the Decision to Ban Richard Dawkins' Web Site and Dawkins' Claims about the Atlas of Creation:

image Judicial authorities' decision to ban Richard Dawkins' site (to ban access to the website from Turkey) is not related to the personal claims Dawkins expressed in his site. It is evident that Dawkins expressed these claims in a spirit of panic, out of the pitiful situation resulting from the collapse of Darwinism. The official verdict taken by the Court to ban Richard Dawkins' site is due to the libelous comments made against the author. Mr. Adnan Oktar's attorneys warned the administrators of the site about these comments, but because these warnings were not taken into consideration and the necessary precautions were not taken, there existed no way other than litigating. In the face of libelous words, Turkish courts found the demand justified and banned access to the site. Consequently the verdict of the ban of Dawkins' site is an official one given by the judges in the face of explicit evidence. Surely nobody has the right to insult any other person by any means. The verdict in question is an extremely important and necessary decision that protects the rights of all people and is taken for this purpose.


Dawkins' article about Adnan Oktar and the author's valuable Atlas of Creation was not written because of this closure ruling, as claimed on Wikipedia. The piece stemmed from Dawkins' concern over the Atlas of Creation, which rocked the world and caused huge masses of people to abandon belief in Darwinism. The claims made by Dawkins in the piece are not a scientific response, but merely childish and ludicrous claims that merely discredit himself. In particular, it is evident that he expressed his claims regarding the caddisfly in a spirit of terrible panic, out of the pitiful situation resulting from the collapse of Darwinism. Dawkins highlighted the photograph of caddisfly in Mr. Adnan Oktar's opus, Atlas of Creation as a great discovery.  However this is the photograph of a model particularly put in the book. Whether the photograph is of a model or not does not change the fact that this living being is still alive in our day. Desperate, speechless and bored in the face of the extraordinary evidences of Creation in the Atlas of Creation that invalidate evolution, Dawkins takes every opportunity to express this photograph of a model particularly put in the book as a great discovery. By this attitude Dawkins, in fact, reveals the pathetic situation in which Darwinism finds itself. Caddisfly lives in our time with the same appearance its millions of years old fossil has. That is, it has not undergone any change. That is why Dawkins feels offended.  You can read detailed information here.

Statements Regarding the Groundless Nature of the Claim That Some Families Were Threatened and Forced to Retract Their Complaints

The Wikipedia web site contains various untrue pieces of information based on reports taken from various Darwinist and left-wing publications. One of these is the claim that certain families that retracted their complaints stating that they had been forced, in the first place, to issue these complaints about the BAV community did so as a result of pressure and threats from that community.
The families in question were called to the Security Department when members of the BAV community were detained en masse by Adil Serdar Sacan, director of the Anti-Organized Crime Department of the time who is now on trial within the scope of the alleged Ergenekon terror organization case, and forced to sign the documents placed in front of them under the threat of "If you do not complain about Adnan Oktar you will never see your child again." Later on, the people in question renounced their complaints, stating in petitions presented to the Prosecutor's Office that the complaints were groundless. They later repeated this orally in court, in the PERSONAL PRESENCE OF THE JUDGE. In the same statements these people many times stated, both orally and in writing, that no pressure or threats was being employed against them. The renouncements in question have been put on record.
This is a very important point: In order for there to be a claim that the complaints were retracted under pressure, there also has to be a complaint on the subject or a damnification thereof. The fact is that THERE IS NOT A SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE, A SINGLE INJURED PARTY OR A SINGLE PLAINTIFF regarding this claim. It is unclear on what basis such a claim appears on the Wikipedia web site.
Another point worthy of consideration regarding the claim that the complainants retracted their complaints under duress and pressure is that Mehmet Agar and Celal Adan were among those people who had first complained and subsequently retracted those complaints. It is very odd that such an imputation be made regarding these people. Mr. Mehmet Agar spent years fighting terror, mafia and criminal organizations, personally leading operations and taking part in shoot-outs. He served as Director General of Security and as Interior Minister of Turkey. Celal Adan spent years as a party administrator and member of Parliament. The idea that the BAV community pressurized and threatened such people is nothing more than suggesting that these people changed their statements out of a fear of a few young university graduates with spotless records. If anyone had any evidence of this, a complaint should have been made to the Prosecutor's Office and proceedings brought. In addition, in such an event, the people in question would also have pressed complaints. It is clear that such a state of affairs is unrealistic. Mr. Mehmet Agar and Mr. Celal Adan retracted their complaints in the presence of the judge. It is therefore a grave mistake for such a claim to appear on the Wikipedia web site as if it were true fact, and the issue needs to be resolved as a matter of urgency.
It also needs to be stated here that the only name put forward in connection with the claims of threats made by members of the BAV community is that of Fatih Altayli. But it has also been established through various court rulings that Fatih Altayli's claims regarding the BAV community are groundless, and all these claims have been expunged.
The Kartal 2nd Court of First Instance that heard the case in the light of Fatih Altayli's complaint concerning the BAV administrators established that the written threats addressed to Altayli had nothing to do with the BAV and issued an ACQUITTAL RULING, No. 1996/381 E. 1998/508 K dated 12.06.1998, regarding the foundation managers. The ruling has also been confirmed by the 4th Chamber of Supreme Court of Appeals.  
Fatih Altayli also sued the BAV managers and members for libel at the Istanbul 6th Court of First Instance.  That court received reports from a 3-member team of experts regarding the writings in question. The team of experts whose opinions were canvassed by the court determined, as a result of their inquiries, that these writings were completely unconnected to the BAV community. In the expert witness report, dated 28.01.2002 and given to the Istanbul 6th Court of First Instance by Prof. Dr. Kemal Yavuz, Prof. Dr. Mustafa Ozkan and Asst. Prof. Dr. Fatih Andi, Fatih Altayli's claims were explicitly described as groundless.
In addition to all this, contrary to what is maintained on the State Security Court (DGM) Considered Legal Opinion, Fatih Altayli told the Istanbul No. 1 DGM that members of the BAV community made no threats against him and there was no question of any material gain. In answer to questions on the subject from the president of the Istanbul No. 1 DGM, Fatih Altayli replied THERE WAS NO THREAT OR FINANCIAL INTEREST, AND I WAS SUBJECTED TO NO THREATS." Anyone interested in examining the relevant evidence should visit this address.
The claims in question have been definitively invalidated by judicial rulings. The groundless nature of the claim regarding threats being made by the BAV community has been established by judicial rulings, and all these claims are completely untrue.

Ebru Simsek is the Only Person to Slander with Sexual Allegations, but All Her Claims Were Nullified with the Acquittal Rulings Issued by the Courts

Ebru Simsek People who set out on the path of Allah, who act for His good pleasure, who attract the opposition of Darwinists, materialists and various masonic forces for that sake and who never hesitate in the face of their pressure and threats are exposed to slanders from these forces that are so influential and powerful in many fields. The slanders about these people who risk all for Allah that will be most damaging in the public eye are without doubt sexual allegations. Indeed, since Mr. Adnan Oktar wages the most effective, courageous and wide-ranging intellectual campaign against Darwinist and materialist circles and various masonic forces he has been subjected to the same false accusations and slanders from those same parties.

This is a huge and blatant defamation because there exists NOT A SINGLE INJURED PARTY, NOT A SINGLE PLAINTIFF AND NOT A SINGLE WITNESS to confirm the sexual allegations against the BAV community. The allegations in question are entirely based on one person, a former model by the name of Ebru Simsek. This person's slanders have been widely published by the Darwinist press, though it never mentions how the fact that Ebru Simsek's allegations against Mr. Oktar and the BAV community are utterly false has been established by a number of court rulings. Likewise, the Wikipedia web site does not carry these facts, merely contenting itself with carrying false allegations against the BAV community. This is one of the most familiar examples of the psychological war being waged by masons, atheists and Darwinists.

Judicial rulings showing that all of Ebru Simsek's claims are slanders:
1. The Chief Prosecutor's Office's considered acquittal opinion showing that Ebru Simsek's allegations in Case No. 2006/26, an extension of the BAV case, were slanders and the VERDICT OF ACQUITTAL No. 2007/7 dated 22.01.2007 by the Istanbul 2nd High Criminal Court.
2. The Istanbul Chief Prosecutor's Office's VERDICT OF NON-PROSECUTION of Ebru Simsek's fantastical claims (in 1999) under ruling No. 96/9848 Hz - 99/8409 K. dated 12.08.1999.
3. The Istanbul Chief Prosecutor's Office's VERDICT OF NON-PROSECUTION No. 05/27549 Hz. - 05/12003 K. dated 18.10.2005.
4. The Istanbul Public Prosecutor's Office's verdict of non-prosecution No. 02/60013 Hz. - 02/18838 K. dated 31.12.2002 and the Beyoglu 3rd High Criminal Court's VERDICT OF REFUSAL OF OBJECTION No. 03/458 Mut. dated 28.04.2003 regarding the refusal of objection against the former.
5. The Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor's Office's verdict of non-prosecution No. 02/39606 Hz. - 03/8860 K. dated 30.06.2003 and the Beyoglu 2nd High Criminal Court's VERDICT OF REFUSAL OF OBJECTION No. 03/333 Mut. dated 03.10.2003 regarding the refusal of objection against the former.
6. The Bagcilar Public Prosecutor's Office's verdict of non-prosecution No. 02/21669 Hz. - 03/6120 K. dated 15.10.2003 and the Eyup 2nd High Criminal Court's VERDICT OF REFUSAL OF OBJECTION No. 03/894 D.Is. dated 02.01.2004 regarding the refusal of objection against the former.
7. The Uskudar Chief Public Prosecutor's Office's verdict of non-prosecution No. 04/7693 Hz. - 04/4749 K. dated 01.07.2004 and the Kadikoy 2nd High Criminal Court's VERDICT OF REFUSAL OF OBJECTION No. 04/437 Mut. dated 09.09.2004 regarding the refusal of objection against the former.
8. The Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor's Office's VERDICT OF REFUSAL OF OBJECTION No. 05/51724 Hz. - 06/2432 K. dated 27.03.2006.
9. The Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor's Office's VERDICT OF REFUSAL OF OBJECTION No. 05/51725 Hz.
10. Following the known images of Ebru Simsek in the press, an Istanbul University Medical School Department of Forensic Medicine expert carried out an inquiry in which IT WAS ESTABLISHED UNDER REPORT No. 2005/127765 dated 21.10.2005 that Ebru Simsek's claims were merely slanders.
11. Istanbul 2nd High Criminal Court had the home in the allegations of Ebru Simsek and the home in the images examined by an official expert, accompanied by the court judges. This expert report revealed that THE HOME IN THE IMAGES DEFINITELY DID NOT BELONG TO THE BAV MEMBER.
12. Filiz Karatas, who shared a house with Ebru Simsek at the time she began issuing slanders against the BAV members, gave a witness statement to the court in Istanbul 2nd High Criminal Court file No. 04/337 E. on 09.12.2004 and said that the BAV members were uninvolved in the matter and THAT THEY HAD ISSUED THIS IMAGINARY ALLEGATION TOGETHER TO SLANDER THE BAV.
13. Ten separate criminal complaints brought by those slandered by Ebru Simsek were examined by 10 different Public Prosecutors from different offices; these prosecutors concluded, as a result of their investigations, that Ebru Simsek's claims were slanderous.

The Collapse of Darwinism caused Panic at New Humanist

Statements Regarding the Closure Rulings against Various Web Sites in Turkey and Overseas:

site The works of Adnan Oktar are very valuable ones that have been instrumental in millions of people across the world seeing the truth and coming to believe. But since they fundamentally undermine atheist, Darwinist and materialist philosophy, these works have always attracted the attention of specific forces. And since these forces realized they were unable to overcome these works by way of science, knowledge, scholarship or evidence they attempted to silence them through baseless accusations, false allegations and defamation. It is this defeat and failure that lie at the root of the plots, groundless accusations and psychological warfare waged by certain sections of the press against Adnan Oktar for many years now.

These circles have now set about directing the same feeble efforts aimed at Adnan Oktar by way of various reports raised on certain web sites in Turkey and abroad and have resorted to defamatory comments in articles and writings published on those sites. Having realized that they cannot neutralize the works of Adnan Oktar using scientific and scholarly evidence, they have resorted to defamation as the only possible solution.


It needs to be specifically made clear that people have a right to freely express their ideas and to enjoy freedom of thought. Nobody has to agree with anyone else's ideas, and has no right to impose his own ideas on others. Everyone has the right to criticize everyone else, within intellectual and moral boundaries. But nobody has the right to "insult" anyone else. It is of the greatest importance for everyone that this right be preserved; but defamation is a criminal offense and character rights are under legal protection. No civilized community recognizes the freedom to defame others.

The sites that were ordered to be banned were those that carried various defamatory statements in articles about Adnan Oktar or in their readers' comments sections. Warnings were issued by way of lawyers to the administrators of the sites in question time and time again, and legal requests were made that the defamatory expressions on the sites be removed, but the site administrators ignored these. In the light of this, legal measures were requisite. The judicial body concerned found the complaints justified and ruled that the sites in question be banned for a specific period because of these writings that breached the human rights. The ruling confirms the necessity for and appropriate nature of these measures.

Also Read:

Who is Harun Yahya ?
A note on the books of Harun Yahya