Mon., 06.11.1435 Hjr / 01.09.2014, 10:29 Emirate time РусскийEnglishtürkçeعربي

main

mirrors

add. formats
Google
Kavkaz-Center
WWW
Our button

News feeds
 
CaucasusAnalysis-Tribune Also in this section

Movladi Udugov: ''It is war for the way of life…''

Publication time: 27 June 2008, 23:30

Brief reference:

Movladi Udugov (b. Feb. 9, 1962) is a native of the village of Germenchuk. Mr. Udugov comes from the Shirdi Clan (Teip). He started his work in politics in 1986. Active member and organizer of first Chechen national political groups and organizations (1987-1990). Member of organizational committee and chief of secretariat on organization of the Nationwide Council of the Chechen People (1990). Head of secretariat of all sessions of the Nationwide Council of the Chechen People (NCCP). Chief of Informational Council of NCCP. Envoy and companion-in-arms of Chairman of NCCP, and then President of CRI (Chechen Republic of Ichkeria) Jokhar Dudayev. Along with President Dudayev, Yandaribiyev, S.-H. Abumuslimov, one of the founders and ideologists of the Chechen State, CRI.

Minister of Information and Press in the government of J. Dudayev. Upon the order by President Dudayev (February 1994) was promoted to the rank of Brigadier General. First Vice Premier on issues of state policies in the administration of Z. Yandarbiyev and Aslan Maskhadov. Minister of Foreign Affairs of CRI in administration of A. Maskhadov. One of the organizers of the Congress of Nations of Ichkeria and Dagestan (reorganized into Majlis of Muslims of Ichkeria and Dagestan in 1998-1999). Head of CRI state commission on negotiations with the Russian Federation. It was under the leadership of M. Udugov that "Peace Agreement" was signed by CRI President Aslan Maskhadov and Russian President Boris Yeltsin in 1998. Chief of External Subcommittee of the Information Committee of State Defense Council (Majlis al-Shura) of CRI (2002-2005). Minister of Information and Press of CRI (2005-2006), Director of National Information Service of CRI (2006-2007).

 

This interview Mr. Movladi Udugov gave right after the proclamation of The Caucasus Emirate by Commander-In-Chief Dokka Umarov. Kavkaz Center's editorial staff asked Director of National Information Service Movladi Udugov several questions and asked him to comment on the latest events in the Caucasus. KC would like to offer the readers the English translation of Mr. Udugov's interview.


Movladi Udugov: ''It is war for the way of life...''

KC: The report that Amir Dokka Umarov proclaimed the Caucasus Emirate caused a conflicting reaction among certain part of the Chechen refugees in Europe, who position themselves as supporters of independence of the Chechen State.

For instance, former Foreign Minister of CRI and his circle have made a whole series of accusations against Dokka Umarov and you personally. Besides, these statements also claimed that you are the one behind the proclamation of the Caucasus Emirate, who ''conspired with the enemies of the Chechen people in order to eliminate Chechen statehood''?

 

M.Udugov: In the name of Allah, The Most Merciful, The Most Benevolent. Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the worlds, who created us Muslims and brought us to the right path, and I testify that Muhammad is his servant and his trusted Messenger.

 

Whomever Allah led on the straight path, him he will not lead astray, and whomever He led astray, no one will bring him onto the straight path.

And then:

 

All that has been said or will be said (or done) by the former CRI foreign minister and his circle has no importance whatsoever. That man is not independent, he is in a foreign country in a position of a de facto hostage and he is dependent on certain people as well as specific circumstances. He actually is not making it a secret either. So, his words and deeds have no importance whatsoever.

 

But there is the flipside of the issue. Even if you take into an account that someone really does have a thick dossier with defaming materials on the former CRI foreign minister and he is being blackmailed, or the ex-minister really is a faithful democrat, as he claims to be, it still does not justify the fact of treason and betrayal of the oath, and no one has abolished the responsibility for it.

 

And the so-called "accusations" on the part of the opponents of the Caucasus Emirate are nothing but conglomeration of absurd and shameless lies. When there are no arguments, the person himself gets attacked. When there are no facts, mud is being thrown.

 

It is deplorable that the level of some of our officials sputtering insults and resorting to vulgar attacks on the command of the Mujahideen, plus getting the persons who have nothing to do with Chechnya, Chechens or Muslims involved in these attacks, turned out to be this low.

 

On the other hand, the hysterics initiated by the former CRI foreign minister has undoubted positive elements as well. The elements alien to the Mujahideen have finally broken off.  The persons, who up until this day have been concealing their true intentions, their dislike for Islam and the Sharia, and their enmity towards the Mujahideen and their Commanders under the guise of helpers in Jihad, have finally become disclosed.

 

Everything has fallen into place, everyone has discovered his real position, and the merit on many aspects belongs to the former CRI foreign minister, who by his actions has made these people manifest by opening their true faces and showing who is who. As the saying goes in such cases, "every cloud has a silver lining".

 

As far as the very statement of Dokka Umarov on the proclamation of the Caucasus Emirate goes, I sincerely regret that I am not the author of this most important historical document. I would view it as an honor to be the author of such a statement.

 

And even though my proposals were of a little different level and sort, their final objective was the movement towards the all-Caucasus state. Therefore I fully share the opinion of our Amir.

 

I am glad that I've done what I could to be a part in the cause of restoration of the Sharia legitimacy and revival of the united Islamic State of Muslims of Chechnya and the Caucasus, which our ancestors were striving for throughout all times.

 

The Chechen State was not only never liquidated, as opponents of the Sharia are falsely claiming, but just the other way around - it has resumed the high status that it had in the past, during Sheikh Mansur, Imam Shamil, and Sheikh Uzun-Haji.

 

KC: Apparently, a split has happened in the camp of supporters of Chechen independence. Russian media reported that former CRI foreign minister Zakayev even declared himself to be "prime minister" of Ichkeria?

 

M.Udugov: You can declare yourself the Pope if you want to, but that doesn't change the point of the matter. But it would not be true to be talking about a split. It is a wrong evaluation.

 

There is no split at all. The cleansing of fighting Muslims of Chechnya and the Caucasus from the harmful anti-Islamic element has happened, the element that has been infecting with its presence the healthy body of the reviving Islamic statehood and that was parasitizing on the blood of the Mujahideen.

 

This is not a split, but rather a tearing away of a foreign substance. This is the final liberation of the minds of the Muslims and release from the chimeras and false fears.

 

There can be no split where there has never been any ideological unity in the first place. And there can never be any kind of ideological unity of the Mujahideen with the anti-Islamic London group, which has been using the same "accusatory arguments" against the fighting Mujahideen that the enemies are using.

 

Euro-Chechens per se (the London group of Chechen national democrats) and pro-Moscow group of Chechen Murtadin (apostates/pro-Russian collaborators) are ideological relatives. There are no ideological disagreements between them. They have different "benefactors" (this is where the mutual dislike of their leaders comes from), but the ideology is all the same: animosity towards Islam and non-acceptance of the Sharia.

 

Whether in London, Moscow, or in occupied Jokhar these people are talking about the same thing over and over ("Wahabism", "Al-Qaeda", "international terrorism", etc.) in the same lingo and with the same words. Sooner or later they will be merged. It doesn't matter under what pretext, but they will come to an agreement because they have one single enemy (just as their masters) - the Mujahideen and the Islamic State.

 

This is why the well-known messages about Kadyrov's Murtadin (apostates) being "decolonizers" and "rescuing buffer" between the Russian invaders and the Chechen people was far from being coincidental. These signals from London are being read well in occupied Chechnya. Both the recipients and the senders understand each other perfectly well.

 

KC: Most likely, the London opponents of the Caucasus Emirate will not be sitting around, will they?

 

M.Udugov: I have already said that they are dependent people. So, their words have no importance whatsoever. Let them do what they can. We too will be doing what we can, and the result is with Allah, Insha Allah.

 

KC: What, in your point of view, are the reasons for such a daring step on behalf of the Chechen leadership, which proclaimed the Caucasus Emirate? Though, Chechen Republic of Ichkeria had already existed, regardless of the invasion. The political brand of CRI was recognizable on the international arena and projects were being drawn in accordance to it. After all, CRI was understandable for the West.

 

M.Udugov: The name remained yet the content changed fully. A colossal breakup between the outward form and the real content of the political entity under the name of Chechen Republic of Ichkeria has occurred.

 

The new generation of the Islamic youth has assumed the governmental workload. To them the terms Aqidah, Sharia, Islam are not tools of political games, but the central part of life. The life that they sacrifice each day for the sake of making it a reality.

 

Those living in a totally different environment, who are out of touch with the events and the real life of the fighting Caucasus, do not understand it.

 

Euro-Chechen democrats got awfully offended since after the proclamation of the Caucasus Emirate the Mujahideen disturbed their quiet and peaceful life and put their ‘legitimacy' under threat. This is why they are willing to go for any step, however awkward it may be, (what about one single ‘telephone voting for premier of Ichkeria'?) in order to restore their status quo.

 

As far as the second part of your question goes, this subject is too broad to be answered with just a few words. So, I will try to give a more expanded commentary on the subject. So:

On Statehood

 

The Hadith of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) says (translation of meaning):

"After the righteous Caliphate there will come a period of hereditary monarchy, which will be replaced with tyranny and fitnah (conflicts), and then again a period of righteous Caliphate will come".

(Ahmad)

 

This Hadith is quoted to remind that all modern forms of state government, from elected democracies to totalitarian regimes are de facto Tyrannies: whether communist, democratic, monarchical, totalitarian, authoritarian or other.

 

A state is not just a socio-political entity on a certain territory, but first of all it is an ideological structure.

 

The foundational beginning of any state is religion. It is the religion (ideology) that is a cementing foundation of a state.

 

The Sharia principle claims: there is no multitude of religions, but there are only two faiths: Islam and heathenism. Just as there are no multiple types of state systems, but there are only two systems: a state based on the power of God, and a state based on the power of Taghut (manifesting in various forms, from dictatorship to democracy).

 

All other names are used for concealing this simple truth.

 

Concerning policies

 

Before examining what our policies are supposed to be like, we must determine one single issue: what is the foundation of policies?

 

Ideology is what lies in the foundation of any policy, as well as in foundation of any state. What kind of ideology must lie in our policies?

 

If this is Islam, then it is one position and one policy. If it is something else, the position and policy could be anything but Islam.

 

The difference in these two approaches is shown in whose help, whose approval and whose favor we are counting on, or whose enmity, condemnation and wrath we are trying to avoid.

 

Answers to these questions determine the essence of the political doctrine.

 

War is a ruse. This is a true statement. But this principle has nothing to do with ideology. Ruse in ideology is either an absurd or a pre-planned treason.

 

Using ruses in ideology means undermining its foundation. Ruses in ideology means replacing its meaning. You can't be comparing apples and oranges.

 

The thesis applied to the ideology that "war is a ruse" is absolutely illogical and moreover, detrimental and extremely harmful.

 

The confirmation is a Hadith about how the Quraish tribe after a series of proposals made to Prophet (peace be upon him) offered him an extremely alluring decision, very beneficial according to the logic of today's activists, -- to make Muhammad (peace be upon him) the king of all Arabs and worship Allah 364 days a year and only 1 day worship the heathen gods.

 

I'm sure that had one of our democrats been in Prophet's (pbuh) place, he would have surely accepted that proposal and explained the benefits of that decision with the most eloquent words and arguments. Like, once he becomes king and goes for such a profitable deal, he could eliminate that 1 day of heathen worship.

 

But Prophet (peace be upon him), praise Allah, was not a democrat, he did not go for such a "profitable" deal and showed that in ideology there is no room for compromise and playing games, and that this is a false path that disagrees with Islam and that will inevitably lead to defeat.

 

As an argument of permissible "ruse", some of our opponents quote the agreement between Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and the heathens from Hudaybiya, which Messenger of Allah (pbuh) signed only as Muhammad son of Abdallah, without mentioning his prophetic status.

 

This, however, is a false argument as well, because Prophet (peace be upon him) did not announce the annulment of the Sharia in Medina and did not accept the "international Arab law" as a "ruse".

 

Ideology is the core of any group, organization and state. Everything else is built around this core: from policies to relations between people.

 

Surprisingly enough, after the lapse of 16 years of our ineffectual policies, which proved to be an absolute failure, today we are still trying to come up with some logical explanation for it, while using intricate words and expressions. Stepping on the same shovel a thousandth time, we are again and again scaring each other that it will hurt even more if we take another way.

 

After the lapse of 16 unsuccessful years of Chechen "diplomacy" they still keep suggesting to us that there are allegedly some diplomatic niches that cannot be abandoned, otherwise Russia will take them immediately and it will be even worse for us.

 

What are the niches where we allegedly are? Presence of Chechen diplomacy in international organizations? Lobbying the US State Senate or the UN? Or maybe we have our voice or at least a squeak in some other structures or organizations?

 

The highest achievement of diplomacy was that a Chechen minister was received in a PACE smoking room.

 

What we don't have cannot be taken (or borrowed) from us. But by constantly imitating the activities we are plunging ourselves into the state of false expectation that will lead to a deadlock and a total defeat. (Speaking of defeat, I mean Muslims, Mujahideen, but not our democrats. To them imitation is the essence of politics).

 

Besides, some activists, who lost their "legitimate protection", are afraid of suffering. Maybe this is where one has to look for the root of concern with Chechen "legitimacy", which can allegedly be lost if you don't resort to "ruses" in politics?

 

And actually, where is the very legitimacy (a sort of the "holy cow") is supposed to be manifested? Who is supposed to be awarding this status/label?

 

For 9 years we were demanding that Russia recognizes us as legitimate and independent. We did not understand that this very demand was showing our failure and malfunction. Since we are the ones who voluntarily give the right to others to determine whether we are free or not, legitimate or not, what kind of independent state we can be talking about?

 

A strange position: we are demanding the confirmation of our legitimacy from our enemies. Absurd. We are insisting and demanding that our enemies recognize us, thus putting ourselves into the position of an inferior subject from the outset and making ourselves dependent.

 

We are the ones who declare ourselves failures yet at the same time we get offended that others consider us failures. Not only do we voluntarily give up our right to independence and freedom and hand it to others, but we literally ask to take away our right by demanding recognition.

 

It is even more absurd to be complaining to kuffar (infidels) about other kuffar and demand their condemnation. It's another story that there are many problems and antagonisms between kuffar, which of course must be taken into consideration in our policies.

 

However, the approaches must be totally different: instead of complaints and useless calls for justice and help, while in exchange promising to be "holier than the Pope" (or more democratic than Bush or Brown combined), we must have the real account of interests in accordance with time, location and political alignment of forces, which do not stand still, but are changing constantly.

 

Muslims (as a group, organization and state), however small in number and financial capabilities, are the possessors of power. This power is the religion of Allah (s.t.), Islam. Clear realization and understanding of this factor is what determines the political principles. Using the principle of force and flexibility would be the most adequate solution in our situation. The force is backed up by ideology (Islam). Flexibility is backed by the willingness to consider fair interests of others.

 

We do not need any allies in Europe, in the West or in the East. We must seek and discover our own interests.

 

On underground Jihad

 

In politics, our national democrats, the pro-Westerners, are calling to stick to the thesis of fighting for independence and operate with the arguments understandable to the public, while removing the mentions of the Islamic State.

 

On the one hand, we are calling on the Muslims of Chechnya and the Caucasus to Jihad, and on the other hand we are "exercising care" and conducting "astute politics" in the West in order to gain allies.

 

This astute politics apparently implies that the West consists of nothing but retards and idiots. Or vice versa, that the Mujahideen cannot see any further than the sights of their machineguns.

 

However, the statement of Amir Dokka Umarov has shown that the Mujahideen can do more than just shooting.

 

Our pro-Western national democrats are saying that first is independence, and then the Islamic State. Like, independence is the foundation.

 

But Uzbekistan too is an independent state. And so is Jordan with its King and its "Royal Sharia", who banned preaching Islam and opened night clubs during Ramadan, and so are dozens of other so-called "Islamic countries".

 

Ordinary worldly wisdom says: as you make your bed so you will lie on it. You reap what you sow.

 

Gamal Abdel Nasser was relying on Islam and Islamic allies represented by Muslim Brotherhood in the war for independence of Egypt, when he was promising, "as soon as we win, we will establish the Sharia immediately". And now, it's not time to talk about it, so that we don't scare our allies away ("we need unity", as Muslim Brothers were repeating after him and convincing one another).

 

But after winning the victory and coming to power, instead of establishing the Sharia, he arrested 17 thousand Muslim activists in just one night. 50 years have gone by. The situation has not changed. Muslim Brothers are still being arrested in Egypt by thousands, even those who "passed into the parliament" and agreed to play the democratic games.

 

But oddly enough, the Muslim Brotherhood keep insisting that they are conducting very "correct" and "wise" politics. That would have been half the trouble. The problem is that they are trying to impose their "wisdom" on the Muslims all around the world, including to the ones in Chechnya and the Caucasus.

 

When hundreds of thousands of Turks got disappointed with the collapse of the Caliphate and laid down their arms and went home, the Young Turks (the Kemalists) were calling out holding up the Koran in their hands, "Muslims! If the enemies win, they will take this Holy Book of Allah away from us!"

 

Only the address to the Islamic feeling of the ordinary Muslims saved the situation. The entire Turkey seemed to wake up. People's passionate desire to revive the Sharia and defend Islam made hundreds of thousands of Turks come out to war half-naked, barefooted, literally with pitchforks and hatchets. These hundreds of thousands fell in battle in Canakkale with the name of Allah and the dream about the Sharia.

 

The first thing that Ataturk did when he won the victory and came to power was eliminating the Sharia, taking the Koran away from the Turks and banning Azan.

 

And there are dozens of similar cases in the modern-day history of the Muslim nations.

 

Today our democrats are telling Chechens the same exact thing: "You must be astute. Right now it's not time to be talking about an Islamic State or Sharia, it's harmful, it scares the allies away, we will become isolated. Of course we are for Islam and the Sharia, but only after we get independence, liberate our lands from the invaders with the help of our allies, whom we are supposed to draw to our side," and so on and so forth. These are lies.

 

Searching for allies in the cause of fight for our independence, and then dumping these allies and proclaim the Islamic State is an absurd designed for the fools.

 

Alliance implies quite specific obligations and very specific actions. So, thinking that the Western allies will get involved in our fight for our independence and then will be watching us "build" an Islamic State is at least naïve, and overall it is hypocrisy and preplanned treachery.

 

Today, in our current situation it would be extremely important to "properly harness and properly align". Today the foundation must be laid. And this foundation can only be the Sharia, since this is the only foundation which a really independent state without an external ruler represented by Moscow, Strasbourg or Washington can be built upon, because with these rulers we will never build an Islamic State.

 

With our astuteness we did not deceive anyone but our own selves. By showing duplicity and indecision in ideology, we were creating the conditions for an inevitable internal mess and confusion (among the fighting part of the Muslims).

 

We shouldn't have been sitting on the ideological perch for a long time.

 

We are counting on the Muslim youth of Chechnya and the Caucasus. This is the key priority in the politics, because this is our only foundation of resistance today, due to which we are actually holding our ground.

 

Only Islam, only Jihad is still keeping us on our feet, and if we started playing the "astute politics", we would have merely cut off the tree branch that we are sitting on.

 

We need the people who are ready to fight today and now, instead of chatter in Europe and abstruse discussions about the "language of diplomacy" and necessity to take into consideration the cynical world that we are living in.

 

Let the world be cynical. This is the problem of the world itself. We cannot be cynics, or especially we cannot have our head up in the clouds.

 

It has now become more obvious that the political structure of the Chechen State was already not responding to the changed situation in the Caucasus: neither structurally, nor ideologically. What's more, this structure was in contradiction with Islam and did not correspond to the authentic Sharia legitimacy. Such situation was posing a real threat to the unity of not only the Mujahideen of the Caucasus as a whole, but also to the Chechen State itself.

 

This is where the urgent demand to finally determine the positions with our state and our policies came from.

 

We had to finally choose towards which direction we will be worshipping: Strasbourg or Mecca.

 

Opponents of the Sharia (The Caucasus Emirate), who got carried away with the virtual reality game of politics and who got satisfied with the outward appearance of the usual structures, fail to understand it. They started believing that Muslims of Chechnya and the Caucasus have to be dying for the "democratic future of Ichkeria" in the "national liberation fight", and the desire of the Mujahideen to die on the path of Allah they view as a provocation and conspiracy by the [Russian] FSB.

 

Claim and argument

 

Many or our well-read and politically packed activists often quote an example of the Jews (about how "little Israel" turned the entire world upside down) and recommend us to follow their example. Or the example of Western countries and nations, who "achieved a success". And oftentimes the ones who say this are claiming to be Muslims, who during the recitation of Al-Fatiha Sura (The Opening Chapter of the Koran) ask Allah as many as 17 times a day:

 

"Thou art the One we worship and obey

Thou art the One we ask for help and pray

And ask to guide us on the righteous path

Of those whom Thou endowed with mercy, blessed way

But not the way of those who have experienced Thy wrath (the Jews)

And who have wandered off and gone astray (the Christians).

Amen (So be it)!"

 

They are offering us to follow the example of those who are under the wrath of Allah and the ones who went astray, to be guided by them and to build our policies to satisfy their notions about us in order to get help and support in the fight against Moscow.

 

The question is not in severing all relations with the West ("to tell them to go to hell", as one of our activists put it), and not in declaring the war on the entire world (as some of our democrats believe). The question is in radically changing the vicious practices of constant deception of the people, while artificially maintaining the sentiments of some kind of expectation ("now they are going to notice us and finally feel sorry for us and protect us").

 

This is vicious and extremely harmful politics, which does not only humiliate (that would have been half the trouble), but kills the very spirit of resistance and faith in your own power, and makes people permanent refugees who are only counting on humanitarian aid.

 

We are not calling for declaring a war (the war against us is already in full swing and it's been going on for quite a while now). We are calling for determining the place in this world, which is required from us by the Sharia, and acting towards this world in compliance with the Sharia, instead of the fantasies of the activists who broke away from their Islamic roots.

 

While getting accommodated to the ideological niche of the countries waging the war against Islam, we are willy-nilly assuming quite definite position. Rather, without having our own position, we are assuming someone else's and trying to present that someone else's (anti-Islamic) position as beneficial and mandatory for Chechnya (for Muslims of Chechnya and the Caucasus).

 

Without any criticism or thought we are taking up anti-Islamic ideological arguments as our own and adopting their argumentation. At the same time we are assuring everybody else that this is what our "smart politics" is.

 

Everything that the anti-Islamic propaganda is calling or defining as "terrorism", we accept and then transmit and impose among ourselves, while repeating like parrots the same arguments yet at the same time managing to shyly justify ourselves saying that "Islam is a religion of peace".

 

However, the religion of Islam testifies about its own self and proves its own validity. It is both the claim and the argument.

 

Islam really is a religion of peace, but only when it is in power.

 

Problem of Islamic leaders

 

The government, the leaders and politicians are supposed to give interpretations to any events and to evaluate them since evaluation as well as interpretation are sort of beacons that the majority of people are guided by.

 

This is why the words of the heads of states, representatives of power, and politicians (not to mention the deeds) never remain without consequences, and those who speak those words know full well that public activity is one of the key forms of crystallization of the public opinion, political views and actually politics.

 

In this connection the claims that we will be speaking one thing but really implying the other are in fact unsound, harmful, false and dangerous.

 

Political wording never remains without consequences.

 

In practice, most of the Islamic movements, countries, leaders and politicians are thinking within the framework imposed by kuffar (infidels). Within that framework the kuffar are controlling even the smartest out-and-out "terrorists". Within that framework Muslims represent no force whatsoever. Only after getting out of that framework can one break the chains binding the freedom of the Muslims. Only outside of that framework you can offer your own system, the Sharia system, and be acting by the Sharia rules while relying not on the public opinion or goodwill of the kuffar, but on Allah.

 

For example, the "radical" organization HAMAS views it as a considerable achievement that the Palestinian resistance "forced Israeli defense minister to resign".

 

How would the Muslims perceive such an absurd statement? As misunderstanding or as self-delusion? Both.

 

Muslims (or rather, most of the Muslim leaders) got carried away in the game of the politics, which is alien to the Islamic Aqidah (religious belief) and worldview, instead of relying on the Sharia and returning the real Islamic content to the politics.

 

Instead of getting excited about a Zionist leader being replaced by another one, this time more crafty and cruel, one should think why an ordinary replacement of a Zionist who could not handle his job properly is being perceived by the Muslims as some sort of an achievement, while the real state of affairs in occupied Palestine is remaining unchanged.

 

The latest example is Somalia. Instead of securing the achievement of the real people's Islamic revolution and nip in the bud the infringements by defeated and demoralized criminal gangs that all of a sudden got under the US protection as a "transitional legitimate government", the leaders of the Union of Islamic Courts decided to get into politics. They started negotiating with that gang (without even objecting that this gang is called a "transitional government"), they started talking about some "government of national unity" and thinking that they could thus please the West and Ethiopia and avoid a war.

 

The Union of Islamic Courts got ashamed and started making shy excuses for the commonplace US "accusation" of links to Al-Qaeda, instead of shut up these "accusations" by making a simple statement that the Islamic authorities of Somalia work closely with any Muslim anywhere in the world, who supports the Sharia.

 

It is very unfortunate that we keep witnessing how the huge amount of energy that the Muslims have and the achievements of ordinary people who sacrifice their lives in the name of Islam are being wasted by political timidity of most of the Islamic leaders (or the ones claiming to be as such), who are under the influence of imposed stereotypes and false fears.

 

The problem of the Muslim leaders (as well as many Jamaats) is that they are playing politics and trying to imitate their enemies. Instead of following the Sunnah and the requirements of the Sharia, which imply mutual help among the Muslims, all sorts of excuses are being made up in the issues of alliance with the countries or forces that are at enmity with Muslims.

 

Thus, Islamic leaders of Palestine are establishing brotherly buddy-buddy relationship with Russia and are never even mentioning Chechnya, despite the fact that Moscow is exterminating Chechen Muslims and explaining that this is the position needed to counterbalance the US.

 

Many Muslims activists are strongly against the US aggression in Iraq. They are slamming the American invasion and defending the rights of Iraqis and Palestinians to put up resistance. Yet they prefer to remain silent about Chechnya. And here again, the same explanation: Russia is allegedly a counterpoise to the US.

 

Some of our "real politicians" are using similar arguments: like, you can't be supporting Iraqi Mujahideen or showing any loyalty to the Taliban because the West allegedly opposes Russia, and we need the loyalty of the West.

 

We are constantly being offered to follow the "common rules" and intimidated by all sorts of consequences, or else we will suffer damage. This, however, is a false threat.

 

''And whosoever relieth upon Allah, He will be enough for him.''
(The Divorce, 3)

 

This verse (ayat) from the Koran clearly confirms it. It is not the people whom we should fear, but it is Allah (s.t.). And it is not the opinion of men, frightened by visible force and power that we should follow, but it is the order of Allah (s.t.), Who obligates us to obey the Sharia and follow the way shown in His command.

 

This is the argument for a Muslim, who believes and thinks with Islamic categories, for whom the Sunnah, the Koran and the Sharia is the truth. But not for those whose categories of worldview are formed based on "tangible" arguments of "real politics" and for whom God is separated from life. In their understanding such a position will sound like "stupidity", "ignorance", or "provocation" "to help Putin exterminate the gene pool of the Chechen nation".

 

To these people it is Putin, and not Allah (s.t.) who runs this assumed "gene pool".

 

Every time Prophet (peace be upon him) was being intimidated by the power of enemies, he would reply,

"And Allah is enough for us, for He is the best of the protectors..."

 

In another Hadith Prophet (pbuh) says (translation of meaning),

"If all of the people and genies (first ones and last ones) gather together to do you harm, they will not be able to do anything that is not prescribed by Allah. And if all of the people and jinn (first and last ones) gather together to do you good, they will do nothing except what was prescribed to you by Allah (s.t.)."

 

On international support

 

Western propaganda and pro-Western activists from among the Chechens like to say that because of the acts of the Shuhada (Martyrs) we have lost the support of the West and the international community. And it allegedly became obvious during the time when Basayev was appointed First Vice-Premier during Sheikh Abdul-Halim (both are Shuhada/Martyrs, Insha Allah). The topic of Beslan and Nord-Ost (seizure of Moscow theater) is being brought up most of the time.

 

Our democrats, who have been representing the Mujahideen throughout all these years, have been talking and are still talking about "acts of extremism" on behalf of those whom they have actually been representing, i.e. the Mujahideen.

 

And after the proclamation an Islamic State on the top of all that, then we will fit right into the "pattern of international terrorism".

 

This, however, is absolute hypocrisy. The West and the so-called "international community" have been singing this song since 1991, ever since the moment when Chechnya restored its statehood.

 

Who was getting in the way of the West and the "international community" to recognize independence of Chechnya before 1994?

 

Who was getting in the way of that community not to finance the war of 1994-1996?

 

Who was getting in the way of that community, under whose control presidential and parliamentary elections in CRI [Chechen Republic of Ichkeria] were held, to recognize the right of the Chechen people to sovereignty?

 

Who was getting in the way of that community to stop the genocide in Chechnya before 2001, until the official lame excuse came up, that now the US fights against "international terrorism" and needs the Kremlin's support?

 

Who was getting in the way of stopping the genocide before the Nord-Ost, before the Beslan events?

 

Who was preventing them from giving financial, political and military assistance to the democratically-elected government of Chechnya, which was formed with immediate involvement of the West?

 

Today it would be at least unfair to be demanding that the people, betrayed and deceived by the West and the "international community", keep dying under Russian missiles for the ideals that provide neither protection nor hope.

 

This is why the Nord-Ost and Beslan events were the last desperate attempt of the departing generation of Chechen fighters for independence to invite Moscow to negotiations and give the West the opportunity to interfere into the situation.

 

The West condemned the Mujahideen to please Russia, and the Kremlin preferred demonstrative killing of its fellow citizens, including hundreds of children, rather than negotiations. The worse it is for the Kremlin.

 

The so-called "international community" is on Russia's side, and the notorious "international law" has given Moscow the license to kill the Chechen people. This is too obvious to be overlooked.

 

And after this our democrats dare insist that we are supposed to stick to the "international law"?!

 

OSCE, the UN, the Council of Europe and other organizations are de facto and de jure involved in the legalization of the invaders' regime in Chechnya (assisting in the formation of juridical/legal basis for the puppet government).

 

These organizations have been and still are permanently condemning the actions of Chechen Armed Forces and the Caucasus Front.

 

They were diplomatically quiet after the murder of President Maskhadov (and made only a couple of common statements), whom the Chechen people elected under their (the West's) guarantees and under their observation.

 

They (along with the human rights activists whom we love so much) publicly expressed satisfaction and joy with the death of Military Commander and Vice President of CRI Shamil Basayev.

 

They gave Putin a friendly pat on the shoulder after the terrorist act against [ex-President] Yandarbiyev and his 13-year-old son.

 

They totally refused to condemn Russia for the genocide in Chechnya in any way.

 

They are helping Russia financially and politically in the aggression and occupation of CRI (Chechen Republic of Ichkeria).

 

For 16 years in a row these organizations have been discussing not the genocide of the Chechen people, but the issues of "terrorism" in Chechnya during their regular meetings.

 

Along with the bloodstained Putin regime, they are organizing the Olympic orgy in Sochi on the bones of millions of Caucasus Muslims killed.

 

What else are they supposed to say so we can finally become real realists?

 

Chechen people cannot renounce Islam and the Sharia just because some may feel uncomfortable when meeting with Western politicians in cozy hotels and PACE smoking rooms.

 

It would have been the highest degree of stupidity to renounce the only protection that gives strength to resistance and survival - Islam-after going through deceit and betrayal by the West ("international community") in their own tragic experience.

 

Strong one dictates his will, weak one calls for justice

 

There is yet another kind of delusion that it's about time to get rid of. Many believe that the problem is in Putin (Yeltsin, etc.), in his policies and in the goals pursued by the group that he relies on.

 

While relying on Islamic principles of worldview and methodology, we must clarify to ourselves that it does not matter who runs the Kremlin - whether it be Putin or Pupkin.

 

The problem is not in Russia or Putin. The problem is within our own selves, in our correct (from the Sharia standpoint) evaluation of the situation, and in our actions. The problem is in our Aqidah (religious belief).

 

The Kremlin can be run by 10 Putins and 20 Stalins, and Russia can be the most powerful state in the world, yet Moscow can never inflict any harm on us (except what was predetermined by the Most High), as long as we tenaciously stick to the Sharia in the warfare and in politics.

 

And on the contrary, if the Kremlin is run by the weakest and not very bright man, and Russia is the weakest country in the world, yet we (the Muslims) will inevitably lose if we deviate from the Sharia, even if we win the war and take the Kremlin.

 

Putins, Budanovs, Kadyrovs, et al. will always be there. They are just mad dogs of Allah, whom the Most High in his wisdom sets on whomever He wishes, thus testing men by other men. But the way these dogs act depends on the way we act.

 

Disciples of Prophet (peace be upon him) never looked at the enemy in search for reasons of their defeats and failures. They were always uncovering the reasons within themselves and their actions. It would be sufficient to remind the famous story of the times of the Disciples, when one of them offered to test whether they observe the entire Sunnah (practice of the Prophet, pbuh).

 

It turned out that in the heat of the battle the Disciples forgot to brush their teeth in the morning (which is one of the most important Sunnahs of the Prophet, pbuh). Early in the morning, before another storm, the Disciples started brushing their teeth by using a Sivak (branches of a certain tree). The enemy saw something strange happening from the walls of their fortress, and Allah induced fear in their hearts. The defenders of the fortress thought that the Muslims were so enraged that they were ready to eat them alive and this is why they were sharpening their teeth.

 

Without even starting a battle, the enemy opened the walls of the fortress and surrendered to the victor's mercy.

 

This historical fact (and there are many similar facts as well) was recorded and documented. If such a small thing as a Sivak caused the enemy to fail, what kind of success are we counting on when relying on false arguments of anti-Islamic worldviews in our policies?

 

We do not have many millions of cannon fodder, we have no nuclear weapons, and when appraising the situation from the position of "real politics" (earthly arguments), our war with Russia is a total absurd. But those who took up arms and have been fighting Russia for 8 years are relying not on the "real politics" or stories about "Chechen supermen". The Mujahideen are relying on Allah and showing day after day that the "absurd" in the understanding of the "realists" is actually more real than their own existence in this frail world.

 

If in a battle we rely on Allah, then why should we rely on something else but Him in politics?

 

If our only power in a battle with Russian kuffar is hope for Allah's help, why are we turning down this help in our policies?

 

And based on what are we counting on success in that case?

 

Briefly on democracy

 

Democracy has appropriated the monopoly to legitimate use of force. Everybody else is denied that right.

 

Lyndon Johnson during his US presidency said that first you have to conquer them and then conquer their hearts and minds.

 

This is the essence and the goal - to win the hearts and minds of Muslims, to eliminate the Islamic way of life and Islamic values, and to impose their own laws and their own morals by force.

 

Whoever would like to know about that side of democracy a little more than what was said by Lyndon Johnson, you can read other books by the apologists of democracy, such as "Exporting Democracy, Fulfilling America's Destiny" by one of the ideologists of Western democracy, Joshua Muravchik, scholar from American Enterprise Institute in Washington, DC, or other authors who determine and corroborate the ideological and military expansion against Islam.

 

This apologist justifies the "export of democracy" far beyond the American interests. Followed by today's leaders of the international anti-Islamic alliance, he believes that America, and hence other states that share its values as well, have the "moral and humanitarian obligation to turn their ideas and ideals into faith". In other words, making a religion out of democracy.

 

This ideological setting of the apologists of democratic religion brings us back to the thesis that was propounded in the beginning of this commentary and confirms it.

 

So, let us repeat this thesis:

 

The foundational beginning of any state is religion. It is the religion (ideology) that is a cementing foundation of a state.

 

The Sharia principle claims: there is no multitude of religions, but there are only two faiths: Islam and heathenism. Just as there are no multiple types of state systems, but there are only two systems: a state based on the power of God, and a state based on the power of Taghut (manifesting in various forms, from dictatorship to democracy).

 

All other names are used for concealing this simple truth.

 

Interview and commentary prepared for publication by editorial staff of Kavkaz Center


Abdul Qadir Awdah: Islam. Between ignorant followers and incapable scholars
Sheikh Awlaki: ''The Battle of Hearts and Minds''
The basis of defeatists' movement
Abu Umar as-Sayf: ''You will not see scholars teaching Muslims in the field of Jihad''
The NYT claims responsibility for the murder of Israilov
Bush's big impact on Georgia
Anwar al Awlaki: a question about the method of establishing Caliphate
There are alternatives to free market capitalism!
The next battlefront
The great game in the Caucasus: bad moves by Uncle Sam
Tensions simmer in southern Yemen
Army deploys combat unit in U.S. for possible civil unrest
Better not to tease 'Philatelists'
Movladi Udugov: ''It is war for the way of life…''
Red Square bash masks military ills