Iranians Face Deportation From Turkey For Spreading Posters

Two Iranian nationals, Ali Lakzaeian Teimour and Sajjad Jafary, members of the Ahmadi Religion of Peace and Light (AROPL), have faced a relentless series of challenges since fleeing religious persecution in Iran and seeking refuge in Turkey. In their search for safety, they were instead confronted with inhumane conditions, constant relocations between refugee camps, coercion to sign documents under duress, and threats from extremist individuals, all while being denied the protection they desperately sought. Now, after enduring months of mistreatment, they are facing forceful deportation under vague and politically charged accusations that have often been used to target individuals for their beliefs. Their peaceful religious activities, which are central to their faith, are now being criminalized, marking another painful chapter in their long journey for safety. This article explores the latest development in their ongoing struggle and highlights the broader implications of religious freedom and asylum in Turkey.

On February 4, 2025, the Isparta Provincial Directorate of Migration Management issued deportation orders for Ali and Sajjad, under Article 54(1)(d) of Turkey’s Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection. The provision authorizes deportation for individuals deemed a threat to public order, security, or health — in this case, under the charge of “inciting the public to hatred and hostility.” But the alleged act behind this serious accusation reveals a deeply troubling precedent.

The two individuals were involved in peaceful missionary work — distributing brochures and stickers that read: "The Awaited Savior Is Among Us — Abdullah Hashim Eba Sadiq M.S. Ahmedi Religion of Peace and Light, the Religion Foretold by the Blessed Ahl al-Bayt of the Prophet Muhammad for the End Times." This message is in no way unique or controversial within the broader religious discourse in Turkey. On the contrary, the belief in the Mahdi is a widely accepted tenet in Islam, including Sunni Islam, which is followed by over 90% of Turkey’s population. In fact, Turkish religious scholars regularly speak about the Mahdi on state-sanctioned television broadcasts, often declaring that his emergence is imminent or has already occurred.

Thus, the question arises: how can such a belief — not foreign to Turkey — be deemed a criminal offense? If it is neither inciting hatred nor disrespecting religion, what, then, justifies the legal action taken against Ali Lakzaeian and Sajjad Jafary? The only distinguishing factor appears to be the identity of the Mahdi, because he is not officially endorsed by state-sanctioned Turkish religious authorities. This raises uncomfortable questions about religious freedom and state neutrality in matters of faith in Turkey.

Turkey, in its constitution and international commitments, claims to guarantee freedom of conscience, religion, belief, and expression. Yet in practice, these freedoms are selectively upheld. The 2022 U.S. Department of State Report on Religious Freedom in Turkey outlines a legal framework that enables systemic control and restriction of religious life, particularly for minority or non-state-approved expressions of Islam:

"The constitution establishes the Diyanet, through which the state coordinates Islamic matters. According to the law, the Diyanet’s mandate is to enable the beliefs, practices, and moral principles of Islam, with a primary focus on Sunni Islam; educate the public about religious issues; and administer mosques. By law, its duties include writing the sermon delivered in all mosques across the country and at Diyanet-staffed mosques abroad each Friday. The Diyanet operates under the presidency, with its head appointed by the President and administered by a 16-person council elected by clerics and university theology faculties. The Diyanet has five main departments, called high councils: religious services, hajj and umrah services, education, publications, and public relations. While the law does not require that all members of the council be Sunni Muslim, in practice this has been the case." 

The Diyanet’s authority includes writing the weekly Friday sermon delivered in mosques across Turkey, thereby centralizing religious narrative and messaging. This institutional dominance, combined with penal codes criminalizing “insulting religious values” or “provoking hostility,” gives the state expansive power to suppress alternative religious voices. Moreover, as the same report explains, religious groups must receive municipal and government approval to legally operate and hold services. Unregistered groups or those deviating from government-sanctioned theology often face legal and administrative penalties.

In this context, the deportation of Ali Lakzaeian Teimour and Sajjad Jafary appears less about public safety and more about the monopolization of religious interpretation. Their message is framed not as a theological claim but as a threat to state-defined order. Such an interpretation dangerously equates difference in belief with criminal intent. Turkey’s professed commitment to religious freedom must be reflected in practice, not just in principle. If the mere act of believing in the Mahdi and inviting others to consider his reappearance is sufficient cause for deportation, then the promise of religious liberty is rendered meaningless.

The principle that “there is no compulsion in religion,” enshrined in the Quran (2:256) and echoed in international human rights norms, demands not just tolerance but legal protection for divergent religious expressions. It is not the role of the state to determine which Mahdi Muslims are permitted to believe in, nor should peaceful religious discourse be met with criminalization and expulsion.

The case of Ali Lakzaeian Teimour and Sajjad Jafary is not merely about two individuals — it reflects a deeper conflict between state-imposed religious conformity and the right to religious plurality in Turkey. This raises serious concerns about whether there is still room for religious diversity and freedom of belief in a country that prides itself on its Islamic identity. This deportation order, therefore, cannot reasonably be viewed as a response to a legitimate threat to public order. Rather, it appears to be a politically charged act of religious suppression — targeting individuals solely for professing a belief that deviates from the state-approved doctrine of Islam. Such actions not only undermine Turkey’s own constitutional guarantees of freedom of belief and conscience but also violate its obligations under international law, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which Turkey is a signatory. Article 18 of the Declaration clearly states that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, including the freedom to manifest their religion or belief in teaching, practice, and observance. By criminalizing peaceful religious expression and forcibly removing those who hold differing interpretations, Turkey is not defending public peace, but rather eroding the foundational principles of religious freedom and pluralism.