This not only strengthens Pakistan’s foothold in Turkey’s strategic calculations but also aligns with Erdogan’s broader ambitions to lead the Muslim Ummah.

On August 15, 2019, a seemingly emotional piece appeared in a Turkish publication. Written by Ruwa Shah, the daughter of jailed Kashmiri separatist Altaf Ahmad Shah, the article lamented the “besieged” condition of Kashmir, portraying a picture of despair and victimhood. Shah, writing from Turkey, decried the “loss of childhood” among Kashmiri children—despite living thousands of miles away from the region.

While the article may appear at first glance to be a personal narrative, its deeper context and timing are far more consequential. The piece, and many others like it published in Turkish media, reflect an expanding ecosystem of information warfare aimed at maligning India’s global image, particularly in the Muslim world. The source and structure of this narrative appear increasingly tied to a broader project of political Islam, under the leadership of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

The Altaf Shah Connection: Terror and Propaganda

Ruwa Shah’s father, Altaf Ahmad Shah, was no ordinary man. He was a key operative in Kashmir’s separatist ecosystem and is currently facing charges in India related to terror financing. India’s National Investigation Agency (NIA) registered a case in 2017 implicating him in illegally raising funds, including through hawala channels, to fuel street violence, destroy schools, and provoke unrest in the Kashmir Valley. His actions, far from the realm of peaceful protest, allegedly contributed to organized violence and efforts to destabilize the region.

Thus, Ruwa Shah’s presence in Turkey and her article in its media cannot be viewed in isolation. It must be seen in conjunction with the growing pattern of Turkish platforms becoming hubs for Pakistani-backed and separatist-driven disinformation campaigns.

A New Axis: Ankara and Islamabad’s Media Alliance

Under President Erdogan’s rule, Turkey has undergone a dramatic transformation—from a relatively secular, pro-Western democracy to a country increasingly under the sway of Islamist populism. Central to this transformation has been Erdogan’s use of media as a strategic weapon—both domestically and internationally.

Analysts have raised concerns that Erdogan’s government has gone beyond domestic control of press freedom and has now adopted a deliberate strategy of international ideological export. Turkish state-run media outlets like Anadolu Agency and TRT, which once hired Western journalists, are now seeing an influx of Pakistani nationals with strong ideological leanings.

Currently, nearly half of the copy-editing staff in Anadolu Agency comprises Pakistani nationals. Many of these journalists have known affiliations with hardline ideologies, and some have shown clear sympathies with separatist movements in South Asia. Turkish media, particularly these two flagship outlets, are now actively providing platforms to voices that echo the narratives of Islamabad and anti-India actors.

ISI’s Invisible Hand?

Foreign policy observers argue that the placement of Pakistani journalists in Turkish media is not merely a reflection of Ankara-Islamabad camaraderie—it may very well be an orchestrated move by Pakistan’s intelligence agency, the ISI. The intent: to amplify Pakistani geopolitical interests, challenge Indian narratives, and use Turkish soft power as a megaphone for radical Islam.

This not only strengthens Pakistan’s foothold in Turkey’s strategic calculations but also aligns with Erdogan’s broader ambitions to lead the Muslim Ummah. It explains why separatists from Kashmir, like Ruwa Shah, are finding Turkish media an inviting space to propagate their agenda.

Erosion of Sufi Pluralism in Turkey

One of the most tragic consequences of this media radicalization is the cultural loss within Turkey itself. Historically rooted in Sufi traditions, Turkish Islam was celebrated for its pluralism and syncretism. However, with the increasing dominance of Pakistani-Deobandi interpretations of Islam—promoted by the new wave of Pakistani journalists and clerics—there is growing concern about an erosion of Turkey’s spiritual heritage.

This ideological shift is being fueled not only through newsrooms but also through Turkey’s expanding religious institutions. The Diyanet, Turkey’s powerful Directorate of Religious Affairs, has witnessed exponential growth in both influence and budget. It is actively promoting a curriculum increasingly aligned with political Islam.

One such example is Erdogan’s controversial move in 2020 to convert Heybeliada Sanatorium—originally a hospital on one of Istanbul’s Princes’ Islands—into a religious school under Diyanet’s control. This follows the pattern of converting key historical monuments like Hagia Sophia and Kariye Church into mosques, symbolic of Erdogan’s Islamization campaign.

Observers worry that Turkey’s religious education sector is now being weaponized to raise generations of youth loyal to a singular, rigid ideological framework—one that is uncritical, conformist, and detached from Turkey’s once-rich theological diversity.

Radicalization of the Marginalized

Erdogan’s strategy doesn’t target the elite. Instead, his focus is on Turkey’s marginalized and underprivileged communities. For academically weaker students who are unable to get into mainstream education systems, religious schools are increasingly becoming the only option. Many of these schools promote a curriculum that serves political interests rather than religious or moral development.

In the long term, this has the potential to create an entire generation susceptible to radical ideologies and blind allegiance to Erdogan’s leadership. The role of imported media ideologues—especially Pakistani journalists—in this radicalization project cannot be underestimated.

A Caution for Turkish Society

Ruwa Shah’s article may have been a drop in the ocean, but it is emblematic of a larger, more dangerous tide. Turkish media, under Erdogan, is being transformed into a global hub for political Islam. It is actively collaborating with Pakistan’s ideological machinery, offering space to separatists and radicals, while undermining secular, moderate narratives.

The Turkish people—once custodians of a rich, pluralistic Islamic tradition—must now reckon with the possibility that their society is being reengineered. If unchecked, the radicalization of Turkish media and religious institutions could lead to long-term domestic instability and international isolation.

As for the rest of the world, particularly nations grappling with terrorism and separatism, the emerging Ankara-Islamabad axis of ideological influence poses a new frontier in the battle against extremism. What appears on the editorial page may just be a soft echo of a harder, strategic plan being executed in real time.

The early Muslim conquerors did not attack the churches and temples of others before the emergence of the Ottomans and, later on, the rise of terrorist extremist groups.

When studying the root of what Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has done in turning the Hagia Sophia back into a mosque, we must not stop at the political insight into it. Rather, we should also highlight that what he did is not Islamic, even if his motive reflected despair due to his catastrophic failures in political diplomacy and even if the move was an attempt to create a publicity stunt through crafting and exporting crises. On the contrary, this behavior contradicts Islam’s tolerance, which was achieved throughout history by preserving the temples of other religions and maintaining a positive attitude toward monuments. Our pious predecessors and early Muslims preserved the cultural icons of other civilizations during their conquests.

Islam did not take a negative stance toward monuments. Conversely, they were considered lessons mentioned in the Holy Qur’an and the Prophet’s Sunnah (tradition). They were also at the disposal of the early Muslims, who preserved the cultural and heritage features of other religions. It can be said that the distinction between monuments, with their historical value and paganism, was evident in the Islamic perception of them. Idols were destroyed in the stage of establishing Islam for a great purpose, which is to worship God alone, but cultural relics were not worshipped. The latter carried the knowledge of others and conveyed many lessons, reflections and benefits, prompting the Prophet’s companions and those who followed them to preserve these monuments and relics. In addition, they made use of them in science, history and knowledge of the ancient arts of architecture and engineering.

On the other hand, leaving these monuments and relics of other, non-Islamic civilizations reflects the wisdom and good advice that does not prevent them from converting to Islam voluntarily, as “there is no compulsion in religion” (Al-Baqarah 256). Harming those monuments is a kind of compulsion, which God did not allow, as He made those monuments a proof for people and wanted them to stay. God said: “Have they never journeyed through the land and seen what was the end of those who have gone before them? They were stronger than themselves in might and left firmer traces upon the earth; yet, whatsoever they earned did not help them” (Ghafir 82).

Journeying through the land here means questioning, reasoning and searching for evidence and lessons in the monuments of those who preceded us. And both verses are related to what was stated in verse 80. The Almighty said: “And there are advantages for you in them, and that you may attain thereon a want which is in your breasts, and upon them and upon the ships you are borne” (Ghafir 80).

Preserving relics and historical monuments is part of the great Islamic purpose of presenting the merits of Islam that brought beneficence. God said: “And do not abuse those whom they call upon besides Allah, lest exceeding the limits they should abuse Allah out of ignorance” (Al-An’am 108). There is no doubt that destroying relics or transforming historical monuments in countries with many sects of different religions has a worse impact than mere insults, which is a passing stance. The destruction of monuments, converting churches or causing damage to them is a permanent, irreversible thing. God did not command us to eradicate the signs He created for people to learn of His existence. And this is an important part of the tolerance of Islam, which complements and also accepts the cultural specificities of others without prejudice or harm.

Nations’ monuments, including churches and non-Muslim places of worship, were respected, cared for and preserved throughout Islamic history, before the moderate concepts of Islam were hijacked in modern times in favor of extremist discourse. The book “Miftah Al-Saada” (The Key to Happiness), which is one of the most comprehensive references for the arts, said of archaeology: “It is a science in which one studies the religion and life-related words, actions, and stories of the established scholars, including the righteous companions, successors, and pious predecessors. This is the best degree of what is understood from the word monuments by the early Muslims and the late classifiers when archaeology is mentioned.”

The principle adopted by Muslim scholars and jurisprudence in preserving the monuments, churches and temples of other religions is by inferring the purposes of the Shariah mentioned in the Qur’an and through “practice.” The early Muslim conquerors did not attack the churches and temples of others before the emergence of the Ottomans and, later on, the rise of terrorist extremist groups.

Islam instructed its followers to leave people and their chosen religions alone. They were not forced to convert to Islam and were allowed to practice their religious rites in their places of worship. For this purpose, Islam ensured the safety of their places of worship, provided them with special care, and prohibited all forms of assault against them.

The Prophet’s Sunnah ensured that. Prophet Muhammad wrote to the bishop of Banu Al-Harith bin Kaab, the bishops of Najran, their priests, and their followers that “whatever they have is theirs, no matter how big or small — sales, prayers, and monasticism — and they have the pledges of God and His Prophet that no bishop, monk, or priest shall be removed from his position, nor will any of their rights, authority, or customs be altered. If any of them requests that any right of his should be given to him, justice shall be administered among them. They will not be burdened by injustice or oppressors.” This was narrated by Abu Ubayd Al-Qasim bin Sallam in the book “Al-Amwal.”

The fact is that Islamic Shariah law provided for the safety of the people of the book and ensured they could perform their worship safely. This requires that the churches and places of worship be preserved, not demolished or vandalized, in addition to allowing the followers of other religions to build churches and other places of worship whenever needed. Authorizing something is authorizing what is complementary to its means, as Imam Abul Fateh bin Daqiq Al-Eid wrote in “Ihkam Al-Ahkam: Sharh Umdat Al-Ahkam.”

We cannot reconcile converting churches with Islam’s recognition of dhimmi communities’ right to continue to follow their own religions and perform their rituals, and this includes building places of worship if they need to. As long as Muslims accept the citizenship of non-Muslims, live with them, let them practice their religions, and protect their holy places and places of worship, they should strive to provide them with places of worship and safety to perform their rituals.

In the Year of Delegations (9 AH), the Prophet allowed the delegation of Najran’s Christians to pray in his mosque. A mosque is a Muslim house of worship, so that is all the more reason to preserve other religions’ own places of worship, in which they can perform their rituals. Muslims approved their staying in their houses of worship if they needed to, and pledged to not attack or convert these places.

One of the most important means of understanding Islam’s position is “how Muslims performed their work,” especially in the early ages, during which actual practice took place. Since the early ages and the eras of the Prophet’s companions and successors, Muslims performed their work through their honorable history, pure civilization, and noble, tolerant ethics.

The trick Erdogan is now employing is not new. It occurred in Islamic history, and it is an attempt to pressure other nations through their civilizations, deliberately provoke them, and tamper with sentiments. This happened in the same manner in the Roman Empire. Historian Mohammed Kurd Ali wrote in “Khoutat Al-Sham:” “The reason for this was mostly the persecution of Muslims in Rome. Muslim kings did not find a way to alleviate the evil inflicted on their Muslim subjects, so they put pressure on the Christians on their territories and influenced Christian kings by hitting them in the heart in the churches they loved in Jerusalem. How similar tonight and yesterday are.”

Article first appeared on Arab News.

Youssef Deeni is a political science researcher. Twitter: @aldayni

Will Erdogan be satisfied if the Jews turn the Dome of the Rock mosque into a synagogue or convert mosques in Haifa, Jaffa, Acre, and Jerusalem in Palestine into churches or turn the Church of the Holy Sepulchre into a mosque?

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the anger and hostility of all the Christians of the world are directed against you. Perhaps you gain the sympathy of some of your people temporarily in elections for your malicious political goals, but you will ultimately lose because you are playing with fire. This is my message to you and to those watching the scene from near and far.

The timing of the announcement of the conversion of the Hagia Sophia Museum, which is known for its Christian shrines and murals and is considered as one of the most important Roman architectural masterpieces in the history of the Middle East, is stupid and provocative to the civilized world.

Hagia Sophia was an Orthodox Christian cathedral for 916 years, and a mosque for 481 years until it turned into a museum in 1934. The goals of converting it into a mosque today are obvious. If anybody notices the difference between the statements of the Turkish president in Arabic and the English language, he will see that Erdogan was playing games while addressing Arabs and the West!

In his statement to the Arabs, he said: “The conversion of Hagia Sophia is similar to that of Al-Aqsa Mosque, and now it is back to the Muslims and the Ottoman civilization.” However, in his statement to the West, he said that the mosque would remain open to Muslims and non-Muslims and that the decision is related to his country’s sovereign and legal rights.

But why did this happen now? This is because the decision is a purely political card that he plays in order to manage his popularity within the country after the economic downturn, the deterioration of law and order, the curtailment of freedoms, ideological splits within the current allies, internal political rift, the collapse of the lira, and the failure of diplomacy in the foreign domain that was manifest in his defeats in Syria, Iraq, and Libya!

But how can he rob a Roman world heritage that found a place in the list of the UNESCO’s Heritage Sites? Greece, the homeland of the Romans, commented that Turkey’s decision to convert Hagia Sophia is “an open provocation to the entire civilized world.”

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declared: “No one is trying to interfere in Turkey’s internal affairs. However, the Hagia Sophia, located in its territory in Istanbul, is an archaeological landmark for the entire mankind.” He added that the Turkish president is isolating Turkey culturally and pushing his country to six centuries back.

Of course, Erdogan would take advantage of these statements to pose himself as a leader and defender of the Islamic world, as well as a victim in the name of the Turkish people and the entire Muslims in addition to the one who is waiting his turn to fight the Western world. Turning a church into a mosque is the best card to play in front of his people to attack the rest of the Gulen movement and his new opponent Ahmet Davutoglu.

Here, there are some most important questions. What is the benefit to Muslims of the world if Hagia Sophia turns into a mosque? Will Erdogan be satisfied if the Jews turn the Dome of the Rock mosque into a synagogue or convert mosques in Haifa, Jaffa, Acre, and Jerusalem in Palestine into churches or turn the Church of the Holy Sepulchre into a mosque? Will he be okay if Europe turns our mosques into temples and churches? This is a serious issue if it escalates.

At present, Turkey does not recognize Islam in its constitution. It has an embassy with the Zionist entity and has strong relations with Tel Aviv! Erdogan’s Turkey is an ally of NATO (the Crusader), which destroyed mosques in Libya, Syria and Iraq through its continued bombings.

Suppose, we might have learned from the Brotherhood and the dirtiness of their lessons! Today we live in a civilized world that fights backwardness, barbarism, racism, and the exploitation of religions and peoples for achieving political gain.

Article first appeared on Saudi Gazette.

Dr. Wafa Abdullah Al-Rasheed is an Investor and Developer. She is a Columnist in Okaz Daily, and she holds PhD. in International relations and Diplomacy.

These are pure political gimmicks to keep the show running and satiating the thirst for power…

Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan announced on Friday, a court’s decision to annul the Hagia Sophia’s museum status, which will pave way to restore it as a mosque.

Hagia Sophia was originally a Greek church (Santa Sophia), which was made as a mosque in 1453 by Ottoman rulers. However, in 1934 after Turkey got international recognition it was made as a museum.

Now, Turkish court has paved a way to restore it as a mosque, but this decision has provoked Christian majority countries like Greece, and it may pose danger to Muslims living as minorities in Christian-dominant countries like that of Spain.

Muslims in Spain’s Córdoba have been struggling for years to get permission to pray in their former mosques. Sometimes they send requests to Vatican to help them get permission. Moreover, the far-right Christian groups in Spain object the proposals, citing the condition of Christian communities living in Muslim countries.

Don’t you think Turkey’s latest move will provoke Christians against Muslim minorities?

Interestingly, if you ask these people who support this move, if it’s permissible in Islam to convert any worship place into mosque? The obvious response will be “NO”. And they will come up with a lot of narrations from Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) and his companions about the prohibition of the act.

In fact, the famous incident of second caliph of Islam Umar al-Khattab is cited. When he conquered Jerusalem. He jumped out of a church when informed about the place, and prayed outside. When asked why he did that, he replied that he was afraid that future generations would make that as a practice to convert non-Muslim places of worship into mosques.

More interestingly, all of these rejoicers will cite how peaceful Islam is, and how it doesn’t allow converting other places of worship into mosques. And the logical reasons will be given that this will provoke the other communities to attack Muslims living in minorities.

Unfortunately, they fall for the Erdogan’s political gimmick. The way India’s ruling party used the Ayodhya’s disputed land case that is Ram Temple vs. Babri Mosque to appease the majority and grab the Hindu-vote bank, in order to hide the raising questions on demonetization, mob-lynching, and the run-away business typhoons. Majority of the people were on cloud nine with the court’s decision to restore Ram temple at the disputed place.

You would observe that Erdogan and his party following the same pattern to sell the Hagia Sophia case in 2023 elections to gain sympathy and appeasement of the Muslims, while brushing off the failures of falling Lira, deteriorating health care and education system, and Erdogan’s foreign policies.

Superficially, the conversion of Hagia Sophia to mosque will appeal and attract a lot of Muslims worldwide, who may see Erdogan as a future Muslim leader, but they fail to see and realize the ulterior motives Erdogan pose as a danger to the Muslim countries especially the Arab nations, which are trying to regain from the aftermath of the so-called “Arab Spring”.

These are pure political tactics to exude shallow machoism with the thirst for power, while jeopardizing the status of Muslims living as minorities outside Turkey.

Zahack Tanvir is a Computer Engineer based in Saudi Arabia. He holds Diploma in Journalism from London School of Journalism. He regularly writes for MilliChronicle on socio-political issues. He tweets under @ZahackTanvir.