The claim of a "coup-loving foundation" and the Directorate General's examination
Unfounded
Claim
Fact
This claim belongs to the summer of 2016. The complaint was made to BİMER on 11 August 2016; the inspector's report that answered it came out of the indictment file completed after the operation of 30 January 2018 and was shared with the public on 26 October 2018.
The basis of the complaint was the clipped version of the speech Kuytul made at the end of the exegesis lesson on the night of 15 July 2016. Looking at this recording, the applicant concluded that the foundation was pro-coup and asked for it to be closed.
The complaint went to the body charged with supervising foundations — the Directorate General of Foundations. The chief inspector appointed to it examined not the short video circulating on social media but the recording published on the foundation's own channel. The conclusion he reached appears in the report as follows:
... although nothing constituting an offence was found in the video recording ...
Inspector's report of the Directorate General of Foundations — DOCUMENT-6 in the indictment file
What is decisive here is whom the answer came from. There is no statement here made by the foundation about itself; a state inspector charged with examining the complaint watched the recording and could find no element of an offence.
The passages the report quotes from the full recording show the same thing: in the speech it is prayed that the coup should not harm Islamic work, and it is said plainly that no pleasure would be taken in the government being brought down by a coup. These are exactly the sentences that were cut out.
What did the complaint say?
In the BİMER application of 11 August 2016, number 23975, a citizen — referred to in the report as M.Y.E. — asserted that the Furkan Foundation, which he said operated under Kuytul's leadership, was coup-loving, and asked that the foundation be closed immediately. There is one single piece of evidence in the application: the video recording circulating online.
The recording in circulation at that time was the speech made on the night of the coup, cut down to under a minute. That someone watching this abridgement should be angered is understandable; the problem lies not with the viewer but with those who put the recording into that state.
Who examined the complaint?
The supervision of foundations is the duty of the Directorate General of Foundations. The chief inspector appointed after the complaints reached the body carried out his examination not on the basis of the short video on social media but on the recording published on the foundation's own channel.
The conclusion of the report
... although nothing constituting an offence was found in the video recording ...
The weight of this sentence has to do with whose mouth it came from. The Directorate General of Foundations is not the foundation's friend or its lawyer; it is an administrative authority established to supervise foundations and, where necessary, to open proceedings against them. And what the complaint asked for was precisely that this authority should act. The authority acted, carried out its examination and could find no element of an offence.
In reaching this conclusion the report also quotes the parts of the recording that were cut out: it is prayed that the coup should not be a blow to Islamic work; it is said that although the government had been criticised for years, no pleasure would be taken in its being brought down by a coup; it is noted that there is no telling where the coup will go. In the version served up to social media, none of these sentences appears.
The limit the report draws around itself
We do not wish to make the document look stronger than it is, so let us write this too: after his assessment the chief inspector noted that whether the recording is original, whether it was published in full, and whether anything was added to or removed from it can only be established by a prosecutorial examination. That is, the report says where its own field of authority ends.
This note of caution does not bring the claim back. The full recording has been published at the same address for years; the difference between the clipped version and the original can be seen by anyone who spares a few minutes.
Why does this document matter?
Because the answer on this page is not given by the foundation itself.
When an institution denies an accusation about itself, the reader weighs it, and it is natural to do so. But when the state inspector charged with supervising the institution whose closure is demanded watches the same recording and writes that he could find no element of an offence, there is no two-sided claim left to weigh. The party complained of and the party examining the complaint reached the same conclusion.
The distance between them deserves attention: on 11 August 2016 the closure of a foundation was demanded; the report prepared about the same recording said that nothing constituting an offence was found. Despite this, the clipped video went on circulating for years, while nobody saw the report until the indictment file was opened. The difference between the speed of slander and the speed of a document is the reason this site exists.
For another clipped recording circulated in the same period: the claim that "he knew about the coup in advance".