The sound standpoint regarding the rulers who rule by other than Islam is calling them to rule by what Allah has revealed. As for the standpoint regarding their actions, it is linked to their conformity or contradiction to what Shari’ah has brought.
It is the Muslims’ duty to scathingly attack the actions of the rulers which do not conform to what revelation has brought, explain in detail the rule of Allah the Almighty pertinent to these actions, urge society to call the rulers to account in respect of managing people’s affairs and support every action agreeing with the objectives approved by Shari’ah even if they were initiated by a ruler who does not adhere to Islam. This is because politics is but a host of undertakings that express themselves through their outward appearance and derive their legitimacy from their conformity to what Shari’ah has brought, i.e. from their emanation from revelation rather than the motives and intentions of the ruler.
Hence, even if Erdoğan’s motives towards the Hagia Sophia issue were nationalistic or propagandist, the event could not be detached from its religious symbolism because transforming Hagia Sophia from a mosque to a museum at the hands of the criminal Mustafa Kemal took place within the context of secularising Turkey and detaching her from her depth, history and Aqeedah and integrating her into the secularist West. Moreover, the issue is pertinent to a critical point in history in the struggle between the Muslims and the Kuffar and to the sovereignty and independence of the Muslims.
As for the political plane, the event has a significant denotation. It indicates the independence of the Turkish political decision-making, the progression of public opinion for Islam and the erosion of the radical secularist movement in Turkey; and this is advantageous to the Muslims with the leave of Allah the Almighty.
Observers of the Turkish affairs are aware that Turkey had been, until a while back, unable to take any political decision without taking into account the standard question known to everyone in the Turkish political milieu, namely “what would the reaction of America and the West about this be?” However, the decision that Turkey has made without taking into account the expected reactions of the malicious states, especially her ally Russia to whom Hagia Sophia represents a symbol to her orthodox church, reflects a departure from the conventional standpoint and expresses an independent volition and decision-making, especially that the abolishment of the treacherous 1934 decision of Ataturk’s government pertinent to Hagia Sophia is considered an infringement, if not a violation, of the conditions imposed by Russia, Britain and France on Turkey after the collapse of the Khilafah State.
Irrespective of Erdoğan’s motives, this step, together with his participation in the commemoration of the Srebrenica genocide towards which the coward Muslim rulers kept as silent as the grave, has had an impact on the emotions and thoughts of the Ummah. This step, which in fact represents an emotional setback for the secularists and the enemies of Islam, shall rekindle the concepts of grandeur the Muslims have been lacking for more than a century and which they have been yearning to regain. Hence, every undertaking that Shari’ah approves and that evokes in the Ummah the yearning for her religion and glorious past is accepted and praiseworthy, while reminding ourselves that its completion would be by making it part of the work towards resuming the Islamic way of life.