Turkey’s propaganda media front, TRT World, has spearheaded anti-India narratives, peddling full-blown pro-Pakistani propaganda

Pakistan PM Shahbaz Sharif is meeting Turkey President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan TWICE in ONE month, post the Pahalgam terror attack and after #OperationSindoor.

This not only reveals the true nature of their alliance but also EXPOSES their transnational alliance against India!

What we’re seeing today is a reflection of years of planning and collaboration. From 2018’s coordinated social media campaigns to 2022’s RToK in Sarajevo, every major anti-India narrative has been amplified simultaneously from Islamabad and Istanbul!

The Erdoğan network isn’t just diplomatic — it’s operational. Through a web of NGOs spanning continents, the Erdoğan family has built an influence ecosystem that abets everything — from Hamas to Pakistan-sponsored anti-India campaigns, including terror attacks.

Two weeks ahead of the Pahalgam terror attack, a sequence of events transpired between Pakistan and Turkey:

a. A think tank linked to Turkey’s Erdoğan family hosted a propaganda event on Kashmir.
b. TRT World interviewed a white-collared terrorist, Muzzammil Thakur, for propaganda on Kashmir.

On 9th April, Pakistani think tank CISSAJK released a report whitewashing the Pulwama terror attack and blaming India’s ruling party for “pushing South Asia to the nuclear brink.”

On 6th April, Muzzammil Thakur was also the “chief guest” at TUGVA — an organization closely linked to the Erdoğan family. Bilal Erdoğan (Erdoğan’s son) sits on the advisory board of TUGVA. TUGVA pursues the political ambitions of Erdoğan’s AK Party via its programs.

Note: TUGVA is also known for corruption allegations, promoting extremist Islamist ideology through jihadist camps, and working with Insani Haq-o-Hurriyat (IHH), which supports Al-Qaeda and ISIS.

On one hand, TUGVA hosted Muzzammil Thakur; on the other hand, he was interviewed by Turkey’s state-affiliated media and propaganda arm, TRT World. Muzzammil also shared the stage with Hamas supporter Azzam Tamimi at Ummatics Istanbul — a network founded by a Pakistani-American.

This is not the first time Turkey has abetted this anti-India figure. In 2016, TRT was the first portal to interview Muzzammil and project him as the face of resistance in Kashmir globally. It was the first time Muzzammil Thakur began receiving an international platform.

This is not a one-off or isolated instance where Turkey has abetted the Pakistani agenda globally. In fact, it has even worked hand-in-hand with Pakistan against certain countries, including India. To put things in perspective, both Turkey and Pakistan are strategic partners.

Turkey not only provides military support to Pakistan, but their alliance is marked by various aspects, including:
a. Defence deals
b. Info-war coordination
c. Military exercises
d. Technology deals

Turkey’s propaganda media front, TRT World, has spearheaded anti-India narratives, peddling full-blown pro-Pakistani propaganda — including Pakistani fake news and giving space to Pakistani faces — weaving the narrative of an alliance between India and Israel as colonial settlers.

According to a 2021 report, TRT World employed at least 50 Pakistanis out of 300-odd staff, collectively comprising correspondents, producers, and editors based in Istanbul. TRT World and Anadolu Agency are tasked with carrying propaganda favourable to the Turkey-Pakistan alliance.

Turkey under Erdoğan positions itself as a Muslim world leader, using Islamic identity to counter Western influence, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. Pakistan has often aligned with Turkey’s narratives, including on Islamophobia, to resonate with global Muslim populations.

Targeting Muslim Brotherhood–targeted Countries:

Turkey and Pakistan jointly targeted countries that have also been targeted by the global radical Muslim Brotherhood — namely France, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and India.

In May 2020, #BoycottUAE trended in Pakistan after Turkish social media users promoted the hashtag. Turks were angered by the UAE’s support for Haftar’s forces in Libya (which opposed the Turkey-backed GNA) and the UAE’s ties with India.

In October 2020, Turkey and Pakistan united to push #BoycottFrenchProducts over France’s defence of free speech. Erdoğan urged Turks to shun French goods, while Pakistan’s parliament passed a resolution in 2020 backing Turkey’s call to boycott French products.

Similarly, this group also executed a slander campaign against Saudi Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS). A number of pictures of the Saudi Prince with the Indian PM were recycled to suggest he was not standing up for the cause of Muslims.

As noted, Turkey supports Pakistan in several ways: endorsing its stance on Kashmir, pushing anti-India narratives like “Islamophobia,” and using diplomatic channels and state tools — including TRT World and social media — to fuel global boycott campaigns against India.

This alliance gained more visibility after the Indian government abrogated Article 370 in J&K. Turkey and Pakistan intensified coordinated disinformation campaigns on Kashmir, weaponizing tropes like ‘Islamophobia’ to malign India’s image and hinder India’s economic interests.

On August 5, 2019, after India revoked Articles 370 and 35A, while Pakistani media pushed aggressive propaganda, Turkish outlets like TRT World and Anadolu Agency were among the first international platforms to echo Pakistan’s Kashmir narrative against India.

TRT World published over 30 long stories related to Jammu and Kashmir, and interestingly, 14 of them were also recommended by the Pakistani Foreign Ministry. A word cloud and timeline of TRT World’s coverage on Kashmir is shown below.

Turkey’s state-funded Anadolu Agency amplified fake news claiming India issued 3.4 million bogus domiciles in Kashmir to alter its demography post-Article 370. The false report was widely shared by Pakistani media — later proven fake.

The first BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) call against India appeared on Facebook on August 8, 2019 — just 3 days after the abrogation of Article 370. By August 13, 2019, the Palestinian BDS Committee had released a statement amplified via Pakistani- and Turkish-aligned platforms.

Pakistan-backed accounts launched a coordinated BDS campaign targeting India using #BoycottIndia and #BoycottIndianProducts, with over 162K tweets on X — mostly from fake or new Pakistan-based handles.

In September 2019, then-Pakistan PM Imran Khan used the UN General Assembly to accuse India of “Islamophobia” post-Article 370 abrogation. That same year, Pak sympathizer CJ Werleman pushed the Islamophobia trope against India, amplified by Turkish and Pakistani networks.

Weaponizing the OIC

Pakistan and Turkey also weaponized the OIC to amplify anti-India narratives in 2020 — citing CAA/NRC and Kashmir to push claims of ‘Islamophobia’. Turkey’s Anadolu Agency, TRT World, and Erdoğan backed the line.

OIC Statement & Fake Arab Handles Campaign

In April 2020, after OIC criticized India over Islamophobia, Pakistan launched a fake social media campaign. Pak accounts posing as Arab royals unleashed a disinformation campaign (later exposed) to target India with Islamophobia.

Soft Calls for BDS Against India

In collusion, Turkey and Pakistan organized several events equating Kashmir with Palestine and called for the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement against India. Seminars and events were organized jointly by this alliance.

In May 2020, an event was jointly hosted by Kashmir Civitas (based in Pakistan, Istanbul, Shanghai, and Qatar), along with Turkey-based Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA), to draw a parallel between Kashmir and Palestine and seek BDS against India.

Similarly, on June 29–30, 2020, Istanbul University organized an event on Kashmir attended by Pakistani ministers and convicted ISI agent Ghulam Nabi Fai among others. Masood Khan urged Turkey’s intervention in the Kashmir issue while seeking BDS against India.

To lend legitimacy to the BDS campaign against India, pro-Pakistan networks enlisted CJ Werleman to write an article on TRT World (July 2020) framing the Kashmir issue within the global BDS movement and internationalizing anti-India narratives.

A few months later, to test the waters, in September 2021, the #BoycottIndianProducts campaign trended on X — this time spearheaded by the global Muslim Brotherhood along with the nexus of Qatar-Turkey-Pakistan (QTPi).

Two months later, in December 2021, the Turkey-Pakistan nexus — including Pakistan’s Jamaat and Erdoğan-linked entities — backed by the Muslim Brotherhood nexus linked to Hamas, organized a hush-hush ‘Russell Tribunal on Kashmir (RToK)’ against India.

Major takeaway of the 3-day Tribunal: BDS Movement against India!

RToK & Erdoğan Link

Among the organizers of the RToK tribunal was the International University of Sarajevo (IUS). The president of IUS is Professor Dr. Sevgi Kurtulmuş, professor of Economics at Ankara University. Dr. Sevgi is the wife of Numan Kurtulmuş, who was Deputy PM of Turkey (2014–17), from the AKP.

IUS was founded by the Foundation for Education Development Sarajevo (SEDEF) in 2003. SEDEF is a pro-government Turkish businessmen and Islamist foundation backed by Erdoğan.

SEDEF’s constituent organization is ILIM YAYMA VAKFI, founded by Erdoğan on March 31, 1973. Bilal Erdoğan is its president.

Prior to the RToK event, IUS had never engaged with Kashmir. Yet, this Erdoğan-linked university co-organized the RToK — after months of seminars and online boycott campaigns against India. Erdoğan’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and Turkish state media’s role in the MB-led boycott are well known.

Another key organizer of the RToK was Kashmir Civitas (KC), established in 2019 with bases in Istanbul, London, Beijing, Rome, and Toronto. Farhan Mujahid Chak is the face of KC. He is of Pakistani origin, Qatar-resident, and currently based in Canada.

A few days after RToK, UK-based firm Stoke White — whose founder Hakan Camuz is a Turkish citizen and close to the Erdoğan family — ran a smear arrest campaign against the Indian Army and India’s Home Minister, accusing India of human rights violations in J&K.

Hakan Camuz headed the UK-based Turken Foundation (2015–19), which has deep links with the Erdoğan family.

The Turken Foundation was established by two Turkish organizations: Ensar Foundation (est. 1979) and TURGEV (est. 1996 by Recep Tayyip Erdoğan). Bilal Erdoğan was once a board member of the Turken Foundation UK.

Ensar Foundation

In 2016, Ensar Foundation was involved in a child abuse scandal in Karaman, a central Anatolian town in Turkey, in a guest house run by Ensar Foundation. The foundation is known to be run by close associates of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan!

The Relationship Goes Deeper

In 2014, Camuz represented Bilal Erdoğan in a case against CNBC and David L. Philips after they exposed alleged links between Bilal and Turkey’s Humanitarian Relief Foundation (IHH) in funding terror group ISIS. IHH is a known tool of Turkey’s intelligence agency Millî İstihbarat Teşkilatı (MİT).

Camuz’s Stoke White has run legal and smear campaigns targeting countries — UAE, Saudi Arabia, India, and France — all targeted by the Muslim Brotherhood and Turkey. Its cases also echo Ankara’s narrative, even demanding action against Erdoğan’s rival, Mohammed Dahlan.

On Jan 19, 2022, Stoke White launched a hit job against the Indian Home Minister and Army Chief (from Jan 2021), accusing India of genocide in Kashmir.

This was based on an “investigation” with Pakistan-based Legal Forum for Oppressed Voices of Kashmir (LFOVK). The campaign was strategically made to trend in Turkey.

LFOVK is headed by Pakistani Judge Justice Ali Nawaz Chawhan (late) and Advocate Nasir Qadri. It is pertinent to note that while SW launched a hit job against the Indian HM and then-Indian Army Chief, it was LFOVK that started the #arrestindianarmychief trend and peddled the narrative of ‘war crimes in Kashmir’ with SW.

LFK collaborates with think tanks like IPRI and IPS — both deeply tied to the Pakistan Army and ISI. Asad Durrani, ex-IPS member, was the general of Military Intelligence (MI) and ISI. These institutions were tasked by Pakistan’s Senate in 2016 to identify and exploit India’s “fault lines.”

Just two weeks ahead of the RToK in Sarajevo, LFOVK head Nasir Qadri and primary organizer Farhan Mujahid Chak (Kashmir Civitas) attended the 17th IPS Working Group on Kashmir in 2021 — joined by others including Irshad Mahmood, Tajammul Altaf, and APHC officials.

The New Narrative

As noted, there have been strong efforts to seek BDS against India, just like the BDS movement against Israel. Through boycott campaigns, hit job campaigns, and RToK, this alliance has been forging a narrative linking India and Israel.

Hence, this transnational alliance — driven by Turkey’s vision of becoming the poster boy of the Islamic world — uses Turkish propaganda fronts along with Pakistani allies to craft the India-Israel narrative. Turkey actively abets and drives these efforts alongside Pakistan through state machinery and media.

Most recently, TRT World gave a platform to Nasir Qadri, who accused India of adopting Israel’s settler-colonial tactics. During the India-Pakistan conflict in May 2025, a number of Pakistani handles also peddled the same narrative as Nasir Qadri on TRT World.

Turkey is fast emerging as a new hub for anti-India radical Islamists.

This investigative article draws exclusively from verified research conducted by DisInfoLab, a leading organization renowned for uncovering global disinformation campaigns, propaganda networks, and hybrid warfare strategies. Every event, connection, and claim outlined in this exposé is rooted in meticulously documented findings from DisInfoLab’s reports.

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.

Once again there are people in the shadows coming out to talk about the painting.

The story has taken a new turn and it leads to questions about why “intelligence” officials had accused MBS of buying a painting that may have been tainted by disputed authenticity.

Back in 2017, Saudi Arabia’s Crown prince was criticized in the West for a crackdown on corruption that targeted many leading Saudis who had close connections to friends in New York, Washington, Paris, London and elsewhere. The narrative media presented at the time was that Mohammed Bin Salman, often called “MBS,” was cracking down on corruption at home but spending lavishly abroad.

Many of the articles were based on conjecture, rumors and innuendo, and some of them were pushed by Saudi’s critics in Qatar, Turkey and elsewhere. But others were written up as fact by leading publications.

For instance, The New Yorker claimed that MBS had bought a chateau near Paris and also “spent four hundred and fifty million dollars on ‘Salvator Mundi,’ the Leonardo da Vinci portrait of Jesus Christ, which he donated to the new branch of the Louvre in Abu Dhabi.” The New York Times reported in December 2017 that “last month, Leonardo da Vinci’s painting ‘Salvator Mundi’ sold.” A December 7 article at the Wall Street Journal had claimed that MBS was “identified as the buyer of da Vinci’s ‘Salvator Mundi.’”  

The articles depicted the purchase as somehow controversial. One linked it to a “bauble” for the leading Saudi. Usually the story of wealthy Saudis or people buying expensive paintings is not an issue of national security or foreign policy.

But for some reason, because there were many people seeking to target the crown prince, the stories became saturated by quotes from former “intelligence” officers and others. Middle East reported that “Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman used a proxy to buy the $450m Leonardo da Vinci painting the Salvator Mundi, the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday, citing sources, including unidentified US intelligence officials.”

Now the story has taken a new turn, leading to questions about why “intelligence” officials had accused MBS of buying a painting that may have been tainted by disputed authenticity.

“The mystery of why the Salvator Mundi, the world’s most expensive painting, didn’t appear at the blockbuster 2019 Leonardo da Vinci show at the Louvre in Paris is unraveled in a new documentary, set to premiere on French television on April 13,” says the Art Net website.

Now a new documentary called Savior for Sale, “speaks with anonymous sources who claim that the plan to exhibit the work fell through because the Louvre refused to bow to demands from Saudi Arabia to show the painting as an autograph Leonardo, reports the Art Newspaper.”

According to the article, the museum is said to have conducted its own scientific analysis of the $450 million work, which smashed every auction record in history with its 2017 sale at Christie’s New York. The Louvre disagreed with the auction house’s billing of the work as ‘the male Mona Lisa,’ and the last painting by the Renaissance master to exist in private hands.” 

Now the story is made more complex by the claims that Da Vinci “only made a contribution to the painting.” Once again there are people in the shadows coming out to talk about the painting. A man with a “code name Jacques” is interviewed in the film.

Once again this is a story that seems to go far beyond a painting; it looks like it is about international relations and the attempts of some countries to use national media to embarrass Saudi Arabia and its crown prince.

Iran’s Press TV put the story about the painting on its homepage. The Iranian report claims that MBS pressured the French to display the painting. “The Saudi crown prince did so to escape the public humiliation of having spent hundreds of millions of dollars to buy the painting credited to Italian Renaissance artist Leonardo da Vinci.”

According to this account, the painting failed to appear in Abu Dhabi or in Paris in 2019. Suddenly a story that was used to target MBS over contradictions regarding spending and corruption has become about trying to authenticate an expensive painting. Isn’t that a bit strange? The original reason we were told that this was a scandal was because of the appearance of wasteful spending.

But the painting had been purchased quietly and donated to Abu Dhabi’s Louvre, so what was the problem? Isn’t that philanthropy? Why did the crown prince’s name even appear since he hadn’t shown off the painting? Now the story shifts to claims that the Saudis tried to pressure France. 

“The documentary showed that some members of the French government, including Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian, had lobbied on behalf of bin Salman’s request as they had been concerned about the impact on France’s wide-ranging strategic and economic relationship with Riyadh,” says Press TV.

According to reports, Le Drian “lobbied on behalf of the Saudi prince’s request, according to the documentary… [French President Emanuel] Macron decided to reject the prince’s request, leaving it to the Louvre to negotiate with the Saudis on how the painting should be presented,” The New York Post notes. 

Another enemy of Saudi Arabia has jumped into the painting controversy again. Turkey’s TRT, which is run by the government and reflects the views of the ruling AK Party, has an article slamming the kingdom. “A French documentary has claimed that ‘Salvator Mundi,’ the world’s most expensive painting, was not exhibited at the Louvre in 2019 because experts doubted its authenticity. #WhereIsSalvatorMundi #LeonardoDaVinci #MBS,” says TRT.

So now the story has shifted from the lavish spending to wondering where the painting is. It’s almost like the narrative has gone from attacking Saudi Arabia for buying and donating the painting, to not showing the painting off enough. 

What’s really going on here? Turkey’s President wasted massively on a new presidential palace with 1,000 rooms that cost some $600 million in 2014. Middle East regimes also have had expensive art in the past. Iran once had the Dutch expressionist Willem de Kooning painting named “Woman III” but hid it after it was deemed offensive following the Islamic Revolution in 1979. It was sold by David Geffen to Steven A. Cohen in 2006, according to Willem-de-Kooning.org.

So why does it matter which painting MBS purchased if he then donated it quietly? What is interesting is that a story that was supposedly about lavish spending is now once again coming to light in international relations, and now related to supposed pressure on France. Enemies of Saudi Arabia have shifted from complaining that a central figure in the kingdom quietly acquired and donated the painting to demanding to see the painting and claiming it may not be as authentic as originally thought.

If that’s the case, then it might be that someone had an interest in passing this off to the Saudis. If so, why? How did the painting sell for so much money only to have its authenticity questioned several years later? Why was the painting described as a da Vinci in 2017 without any questions?

The New York Post now reports that “the world’s most expensive painting was only partly made by Leonardo da Vinci – a revelation that allegedly sparked a cover-up and an international political scandal, according to a new documentary.”

The same article includes the following quote: “The Saudis are afraid of this debate on the authenticity,” said Chris Dercon, who heads one of France’s top museum groups and advises the Saudi government on art. “They are afraid that people will say, both at home and abroad, ‘You spent all this money for something that is not a da Vinci.’”

So the story went from 2017 when it was about spending too much amid anti-corruption arrests to simply spending too much on something that wasn’t what it was claimed to be? That should raise questions about what happened back in 2017, but instead it is yet again another story that appears to be targeting MBS, as opposed to dealings in the art world. 

It seems perplexing that a painting would have been sold for so much money in 2017. The Art Newspaper noted in April 2019 that “The National Gallery is justifying its display of the controversial Salvator Mundi painting in its 2011-12 Leonardo exhibition, following critical comments in a new book by Ben Lewis. In The Last Leonardo, Lewis questions the attributional process and says that some specialists believe that it was partly painted by the master’s assistants. He also points out that the National Gallery’s presentation of it as a full Leonardo was used by Christie’s, when in 2017 the auction house sold the painting for $450m.”

In fact, this article notes that scholars cast doubt on the painting in 2008 and that some felt the whole painting had not been done by da Vinci. When Christi’s listed the painting in 2017, it was described as an autograph work by da Vinci, the article notes. “This judgement meant that Christie’s was able to sell the work as a full Leonardo, dating to around 1500. Without this firm attribution, it would have been impossible to achieve anything like the eventual price of $450m – making it by far the most expensive artwork ever sold.”

That sounds like a story that is more a scandal for the art world than Riyadh. It remains to be fully understood why and how the story has then been spun into something about MBS, involving anonymous sources, code names and intelligence officers. Unless, of course, the real story is about using a painting to somehow target the prince because he has many critics abroad.

In 2018 MBS was accused of being involved in ordering the killing of former Saudi dissident Jamal Khashoggi in Turkey. That was after the story about the painting in 2017, illustrating that pressure was already being brought on MBS about the painting. We may never know how and why this painting became such a lightning rod.   

Article first published on Jerusalem Post. 

Seth J Frantzman. Frantzman is Middle-East Security Analyst, and Director of the Middle East Center for Reporting and Analysis. He tweets under @sfrantzman.

He is a vile and evil shaykh who says that the world is eternal and does not see anything haraam in any sexual relationship.

The Turkish drama series Ertugrul about the father of Ottoman Empire’s founder Osman I, has taken great audience from especially India and Pakistan into a dark world of deception and heretic beliefs which contradict the fundamental beliefs of Islam.

In this article, we’ll talk about who Ibn Arabi was and what were his beliefs, and what did the contemporary scholars of his time and later said about his heretic beliefs.

His name was Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn Muhammad al-Taa’i al-Andalusi. He was an extremist Sufi.

A question that compiles all the beliefs of Ibn Arabi was posed to the author of “Aqeedah Ibn ‘Arabi wa Hayaatuhu by Taqiy al-Deen al-Faasi, which is as follows:

Question

What do the imaams of the religion and the guides of the Muslims say about a book which has been circulating among the people, the author of which claims that he wrote it and distributed it to people by permission of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) which was given to him in a dream which he claims to have seen? Most of this book contradicts what Allaah revealed in His Books and is opposed to what His Prophets said.

Among the things that he says in this book are: Adam was called insaan because in relation to the truth (Al-Haqq), he was like the pupil [insaan]of the eye, the part that can see.

Elsewhere he said: Al-Haqq which is transcendent is the physical creation which you can see.

Concerning the people of Nooh he said: if they had turned away from their worship of [their idols] Wudd, Siwaa’, Yaghooth and Ya’ooq, they would have lost more of Al-Haqq.

Then he said: Every object of worship is a manifestation of Al-Haqq. Those who know it, know it, and those who do not know it, do not know it. The one who has knowledge knows what he is worshipping and in what image the object of his worship is manifested. These many and varied manifestations are like the limbs of a physical image.

Then he said concerning the people of Hood: They reached a true state of closeness (to Allaah) and were no longer remote. The heat of Hell no longer affected them and they gained the blessing of closeness to Allaah because they deserved it. They were not given this delicious experience as a favour, but because they deserved it as a result of the essence of their deeds, for they were on a straight path.

Then he denied the idea of the warning against those of mankind against whom the word of punishment is justified.

Should the one who believes in what he says be denounced as a kaafir, or should we accept what he says, or what? If the person who listens to him is an adult of sound mind, and does not denounce him by speaking or in his heart, is he a sinner, or what?

Please explain to us clearly and with proof, as Allaah has taken the covenant from the scholars on that basis, for negligence [on the part of the scholars] causes a great deal of confusion to the ignorant.

The author quoted some of the Muslim scholars of the past as a response to the above question. The responses are as below.

What Al-Qaadi Badr al-Deen ibn Jamaa’ah said?

The passages quoted, and other similar parts of this book, are bid’ah and misguidance, evil and ignorance. The religiously-committed Muslim would not pay any heed to them or bother to read the book to find out more.

Then he said, “The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) could never give permission in a dream for something which goes against and contradicts Islam; on the contrary, this is from the evil insinuations or whispers of the Shaytaan and a trap whereby the Shaytaan is playing with him and tempting him.

His words about Adam, that he is the pupil of the eye, and his likening Allaah to His creation, and his remark that ‘Al-Haqq which is transcendent is the physical creation which you can see’ – if by ‘Al-Haqq’ he is referring to the Lord of the Worlds – is a clear statement of anthropomorphism [likening Allaah to His creation] and he has taken this notion to extremes.

With regard to his denial of what has been narrated in the Qur’aan and Sunnah concerning the warning: this makes him a kaafir in the view of the scholars of the followers of Tawheed.

His comments about the people of Nooh and of Hood is vain and false talk which deserves to be rejected. The best way of dealing with that is to destroy this and all other similar passages of his book, for it is no more than fancy words, an expression of baseless ideas and an attempt to introduce into the religion ideas that do not belong to it. The ruling on this is that it should be rejected and ignored.”

What Shaykh Shams al-Deen al-Jazari al-Shaafa’i said?

Praise be to Allaah. His comment about Adam being called insaan is anthropomorphism [likening Allaah to His creation] and is a lie and falsehood. His belief that the idol-worship of the people of Nooh was valid is kufr. Anyone who says such a thing cannot be approved of.

His comment that ‘Al-Haqq which is transcendent is the physical creation which you can see’ is false and contradictory, and it is also kufr. His comment that the people of Hood had reached a true state of closeness (to Allaah) is a lie against Allaah, and by saying this, he has rejected what Allaah said about them. His remark that they were no longer remote and that Hell became a blessing and a joy for them is a lie and a rejection of everything that was revealed to the Prophets; the truth of the matter is what Allaah said about that, that they (the people of Hood) will abide in the torment forever.

Concerning those who believe what he says – and he knows what he said – the same ruling applies to them as to him: that they are misguided kaafirs, if they have knowledge. If they do not have knowledge, then the person who says that out of ignorance should be told the truth and taught about it, and should be stopped if possible.

His denial of the warning to all people is a lie and a rejection of the consensus (ijmaa’) of the Muslims. No doubt Allaah will bring about the punishment. Islam offers definitive evidence that a group of sinners from among the believers will be punished, and the one who denies that is regarded as a kaafir.

May Allaah protect us from wrong belief and denying the Resurrection.

What Ibn Taymiyah said?

The Muslims, Christians and Jews all know something which is a basic principle of the Muslims’ religion: that whoever says of any human being that he is a part of God is a kaafir, he is regarded as a disbeliever by all these religions. Even the Christians do not say this, although their belief is a major form of kufr; no one says that the essence of creation is part of the Creator, or that the Creator is the creation, or that Al-Haqq which is transcendent is the physical creation which you can see.

Similarly, his remark that if the Mushrikeen turn away from idol-worship, they will have turned away from Al-Haqq to the extent that they have abandoned idol-worship, is obviously kufr according to the basic principle that is common to all the religions.

For the religions have agreed that all the Prophets forbade idol-worship and regarded as disbelievers those who did that; the believer cannot be a believer unless he disavows himself of worshipping idols and of everything that is worshipped instead of Allaah.

As Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “Indeed there has been an excellent example for you in Ibraaheem (Abraham) and those with him, when they said to their people: ‘Verily, we are free from you and whatever you worship besides Allaah, we have rejected you, and there has started between us and you, hostility and hatred for ever until you believe in Allaah Alone’” [al-Mumtahanah 60:4]

— and he quoted other aayaat as proof — then he said:

Whoever says that if the idol-worshippers give up their idols, they will have turned away from Al-Haqq to the extent that they have abandoned idol-worship, is an even worse kaafir than the Jews and Christians, and the one who does not regard them as kaafirs is an even worse kaafir than the Jews and Christians, for the Jews and Christians regard idol-worshippers as disbelievers, so how about one who says that the one who gives up idol-worship has turned away from Al-Haqq to the extent that he has abandoned idol-worship?!

Let alone the fact that he says, The one who has knowledge knows what he is worshipping and in what image the object of his worship is manifested. These many and varied forms are like the limbs of a physical image and the energy in a spiritual image; nothing but Allaah is being worshipped in everything that is worshipped. He is an even greater kaafir than the worshippers of idols, for they only take them as intercessors and mediators, as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “ [The Mushrikeen say] ‘We worship them only that they may bring us near to Allaah’” [al-Zumar 39:3]

“Have they taken (others) as intercessors besides Allaah? Say: “Even if they have power over nothing whatever and have no intelligence?” [al-Zumar 39:43]

They acknowledged that Allaah is the Creator of the heavens and the earth, and the Creator of the idols, as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “And verily, if you ask them: ‘Who created the heavens and the earth?’ Surely, they will say: ‘Allaah (has created them)’” [al-Zumar 39:38] (Ibid., 21-23)

Shaykh al-Islam also said:

When the faqeeh Abu Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Salaam came to Cairo and they asked him about Ibn ‘Arabi, he said:

He is a vile and evil shaykh who says that the world is eternal and does not see anything haraam in any sexual relationship.

He mentioned the belief that the world is eternal because this is what [Ibn ‘Arabi] believed, but this is well-known form of kufr and the faqeeh Abu Muhammad denounced him as a kaafir because of this. At that time Ibn ‘Arabi had not yet said that the universe was God or the universe was the image and essence of God.

This is a greater form of kufr because those who say that the universe is eternal still believe that there had to be Someone Who brought it into existence, that from the One Who must exist comes that which may exist. Those shaykhs who met him [Ibn ‘Arabi] said that he was a liar and a fabricator, and that in his books such as al-Futoohaat al-Makkiyyah etc. there were lies which could not be concealed from any intelligent person.

Then he said: 

I have not even mentioned one-tenth of what they mentioned about kufr, but people who do not know about them have been deceived by these ideas, just as they were deceived by the Baatini Qaraamitah when they claimed to be descendents of Faatimah and said that they belonged to the Shee’ah, so the Shee’ah began to like them without knowing of their hidden kufr.

So the person who is attracted to them is one of two things: either he is a heretic and hypocrite, or he is misguided and ignorant.

With regard to these pantheists (ittihaadiyoon), their leaders are the leaders of kufr and must be executed, and their repentance cannot be accepted if they are seized before they repent, for they are among the greatest heretics, those who make an outward display of being Muslim whilst concealing kufr in their hearts, those who conceal their beliefs and their opposition to Islam. Everyone who follows them, who defends them, who praises them, who admires their books, who is known to help them, who does not like to speak against them or who makes excuses for them by saying that we do not know exactly what these statements mean, who says ‘How can we be sure that he wrote this book?’ and other excuses which no one but an ignorant person or a hypocrite would come up with, must be punished.

Indeed, it is obligatory to punish everyone who knows about them but does not help to resist them, because campaigning against these people is one of the most serious duties, for they have corrupted the minds and religious belief of many shaykhs, scholars, kings and princes, and they are spreading corruption throughout the world, preventing people from following the path of Allaah.

The harm that they cause to the religion is greater than that done by those who damage the worldly interests of the Muslims but leave their religion alone, such as bandits on the highways and the Tatars (Mongols) who took their wealth but left their religion alone. Those who do not know them should not underestimate the danger they pose. Their own misguidance and the extent to which they misguide others defies description.

Then he said:

Whoever thinks well of them and claims not to know how they really are should be informed about them. If he does not then turn his back on them and denounce them, then he should be classed as one of them.

Whoever says that their words could be interpreted in such a way that it does not contradict sharee’ah is one of their leaders and imaams. If he is intelligent, he should know what they really are. But if he believes in it and behaves like this openly and in secret, then he is a worse kaafir than the Christians.

What Ibn Hajar said?

Some confusing words of Ibn ‘Arabi were mentioned to our master Shaykh al-Islam Siraaj al-Deen al-Balqeeni, and he was asked about Ibn ‘Arabi. Our Shaykh al-Balqeeni said: he is a kaafir.

Ibn Khaldoon said: “Among these Sufis are: Ibn ‘Arabi, Ibn Saba’een, Ibn Barrajaan and their followers who follow their path and their religion. They have many books in circulation that are filled with blatant kufr and repugnant bid’ahs, trying to interpret clear texts in very far-fetched and repugnant ways, such that the reader is astounded that anyone could attribute such things to Islam.”

What Al-Subki said?

These later Sufis, such as Ibn ‘Arabi and his followers, are misguided and ignorant and beyond the pale of Islam; those among them who have knowledge are even worse.

What Abu Zar’ah ibn al-Haafiz al-‘Iraaqi said?

Undoubtedly the famous book Al-Fusoos contains blatant kufr, as does al-Futoohaat al-Makkiyyah. If it is true that he wrote this and continued to believe in it until he died, then he is a kaafir who is doomed to eternity in Hell, no doubt about it.

So how can any sane person say that these brilliant scholars did not understand Ibn ‘Arabi? If they did not understand him, who can?

A follower of Ibn Arabi who became blind after debating Ibn Hajar

Al-Faasi said: I heard our companion al-Haafiz al-Hujjah al-Qaadi Shihaab al-Deen Ahmad ibn ‘Ali ibn Hajar al-Shaafa’i say: there were many disputes about Ibn ‘Arabi between me and one of those who like Ibn ‘Arabi, until I insulted him because of the bad things that he had said, but that did not make the man change his mind.

He threatened to complain about me to the Sultaan in Egypt with regard to a matter that was different from that which we were arguing about, just to cause trouble for me. I said to him: the Sultaan has nothing to do with this! Come, let us make Mubaahalah [call our sons, our wives and ourselves and pray and invoke the Curse of Allaah upon those who lie – cf. Aal ‘Imraan 3:61].

It is very rare, when people make Mubaahalah and one of them is lying, for that one to go unpunished. So he said to me, ‘Bismillaah’ [i.e, he agreed]. And I said to him: ‘Say: O Allaah, if Ibn ‘Arabi is misguided, then curse me with Your Curse’ – so he said that. Then I said, O Allaah, if Ibn ‘Arabi is rightly-guided, then curse me with Your Curse. Then we parted.

Then we met in a park in Egypt on a moonlit night, and he said to us, Something soft touched my leg, look! So we looked but we did not see anything. Then he checked his eyes and he could not see anything (i.e., Allaah had afflicted him with blindness).

This is the meaning of what Al-Haafiz Shihaab al-Deen ibn Hajar al-‘Asqallaani told me.

Conclusion

This is how this man has misguided and deceived those who are seeking the truth and who want to follow the path of right guidance. He is a heretic who was not ahead of his time in any way except in misguidance and kufr. He does not possess any light or wisdom; on the contrary he is in the depths of darkness and ignorance.

We have quoted to you the words of scholars other than Ibn Taymiyah, to point out the kufr of Ibn ‘Arabi, so that you will not think that Ibn Taymiyah was the only one who denounced him as a kaafir, while there were numerous other scholars who called him kaafir.

It’s a humble message to the youth and the elders who are blindly following the Ertugrul series and corrupting their beliefs, the beliefs which are purely based on Kufr.

Source of the Article: IslamQa.