Kadyrov, 33, was once a separatist but switched sides, recasting himself as an Islamic leader who is also loyal to Moscow.
At first, his injection of national pride along with lots of money from the central government in Moscow soothed war-weary Chechens.
And at first, the process of Islamization was voluntary. Any female student who wore a headscarf initially earned a prize of $1,000. Now all females, regardless of their religious convictions, must cover their heads in schools and government offices.
Kadyrov has banned the sale of European-style wedding dresses in the republic’s bridal salons. Polygamy is increasing. Members of the team around Kadyrov openly have several wives. Kadyrov has also supported honor killings.
Lipkhan Bazaeva, who runs a nongovernmental organization promoting women’s rights, says Chechnya is going back to the Middle Ages.
“Yes, we are a traditional, conservative society, with our own values, but the government has gone overboard, declaring unacceptable limits on women — that they should sit at home, they should obey their husbands,” she says. “As an individual, she has no rights even if her husband beats her, despite Russian laws to the contrary.”
-
johnpi
Dan 12:15 pm on November 3, 2009 Permalink |
Kadyrov will ruin Sufi Islam this way.
shams 12:56 pm on November 3, 2009 Permalink |
Nah.
Nothing has the power to ruin sufism.
ya-haqq FTW!
abunoor 3:27 pm on November 3, 2009 Permalink |
The Kremlin regards Sufism as an ideal alternative to Salafism because Sufism agitates for non-violent methods, does not interfere with politics and helps to divide Russian Muslims, especially in the North Caucasus, according to ethnic characteristics. The North Caucasian insurgency has the opposite goal: to unite Muslims living in the Caucasus with those living in all Russia under a banner of the holy war against infidels and for establishing a pure Islamic state. The rebels in the North Caucasus recently gained an important ally—the famous Russian Muslim preacher Said Buryatsky.
abunoor 3:35 pm on November 3, 2009 Permalink |
My point is not to insult Sufism as a whole, but the criminal tyrant agent of Putin Kadyrov and anyone who would support him.
Willow 4:06 pm on November 3, 2009 Permalink
Sufism is not inherently nonviolent in any case…there were armed Sufi uprisings against the French in Algeria and the British in Sudan in the 19th century. Neither are Sufis necessarily less conservative than salafis or anyone else. At their root, the differences between traditionalism and salafism are ontological and organizational (the nature of God, the role of madhahib and sheikhs, etc) rather than practical. There are plenty of ultraconservative Sufis.
I think the ‘Sufism’ advocated by RAND/the Kremlin etc is largely a product of wishful thinking and some internet research.
Dan 4:18 pm on November 3, 2009 Permalink
The difference between militant Sufism and militant Salafism is that Sufis do not engage in offensive wars, nor do they try to destroy the cultures of the people they oppose. Did Imam Shamil try to kill Russian civilians when he was opposing the Russian invasion? Obviously not. Even the most ultraconservative Sufi will not go as far to destroy shrines like Salafis have done in the past.
abunoor 4:29 pm on November 3, 2009 Permalink
Dan,
I don’t know what you mean here by offensive wars and I’m pretty sure that we would disagree on what it means to destroy ‘cultures’ of people they oppose, but I think you need to read up a little bit on your Islamic history.
Start with Usman dan Fodio, rahimuAllaah.
shams 7:45 am on November 4, 2009 Permalink
well….I think sufis can engage in offensive warfare…witness my personal meme jihad.
also, too— the sufis at Granada Blog.
Dan is quite wrong, according to the past Grand Imam of Al-Azhar…
At this blog at least, with Buzz and I as exemplars, people should abandon the stereotypes of Sufis as medlevi whirlers and pacifist aesthetes.
abunoor 4:19 pm on November 3, 2009 Permalink |
You make many good points Willow but the point here is that Kremlin Sufism is plenty violent, its just that the violence is directed at Muslims who dare challenge their agent.
bingregory 8:57 pm on November 3, 2009 Permalink |
Cry me a river, abunoor. Basayev and his goons undermined, disobeyed and repeatedly tried to kill the elected president of independent Chechnya, Aslan Maskhadov [as anti-Kremlin a sufi as you could ask for] during the interbellum, and when that didn’t work, provoked Russia by invading Daghestan, prompting the second war. Whatever violence wahhabis (and everyone else) have to endure now from that hideous monster is entirely the doing of the unmissed Basayev, Khattab, etc, whatever young jackal has taken their place, and their wahhabi bankrollers in the Gulf.
Dan 11:26 pm on November 3, 2009 Permalink |
Exactly. The piece of shit Salafis are entirely to blame for the situation in Chechnya. I have yet to see Salafis condemn Shamil Basayev and his cronies for what they have brought to Chechnya. That scumbag who proudly took children hostage in Beslan as well as engaging in ethnic cleansing in the Georgian town of Sumo is the one responsible for the situation in Chechnya. But hey, like the Taliban, you will never see Salafis condemn one of their own. I’m glad Basayev is dead and anyone who supports or defends that piece of shit can go to Hell for all I care!
abunoor 11:50 am on November 4, 2009 Permalink |
binGregory,
As salaamu ‘alaykum. I don’t really understand your comment, akhi. I was writing to criticize (very sharply indeed) Ramzan Kadyrov and the brand of “Sufi Islam” promoted as a joint project of he and the Kremlin.
I don’t think you are defending that so while I appreciate you contributing with critiques of other figures in Chechnya as well I don’t understand why you would be so hostile (cry me a river?) to my comments.
Aslan Maskahadov was killed by Russian agents who were given medals by Putin, who is the hero and close close ally of Kadyrov, so again I really don’t understand what there is in my comments that you disagree with.
Maybe you can clarify for me, I’m honestly confused.
Allaah knows best.
bingregory 7:45 pm on November 4, 2009 Permalink |
The war against Russia was a national struggle for independence. Upon achieving that, the salafis showed that what they really wanted was an eternal War on Kufr which like the War on Terror will never end.
The idea of an independent Chechnya died when the Salafis invaded Daghestan. The death of Maskhadov only confirmed it. From that point forward, Chechnya was going to return to the state of a Russian client. From that point forward, the only reasonable position was to settle. After three generations of rebuilding a civil society, if living with Russians is still intolerable, they can always try again. In the meantime, a Russian puppet state that endorses Islam, recognizes Islam and builds islamic institutions – masjids, madrassahs, radio stations – is the best possible settlement.
Now the only people still fighting are those same salafis, and the way they recruit for their struggle – besides cash money, that is – is by declaring the puppet state to be *islamically* illegitimate.
At this point, with imposing hijab etc Kadyrov is merely stealing salafi talking points. As soon as the salafi rebels quit using religious differences as a means to legitimize what is now a *civil war* against their Chechen brothers, Kadyrov can ease off the repressive islamic program. And that’s why I am hostile to an armchair critique of the islamicness of what Kadyrov is doing: that critique is the grounds for a pointless ongoing civil war in Chechnya. When salafis put their guns away, I will be less hostile to criticisms of Russia-sponsored state religion.
bingregory 11:35 pm on November 4, 2009 Permalink |
I can’t resist adding that Aslan Maskhadov came to the United States in 1998, between the wars, when hope still existed, as the head of state of Chechnya, as the victorious mujahid who had led his people to independence, to plead for recognition and cooperation with his country. Where were our Salafi brothers? If they had come, they might also have met and heard from a half-dozen muftis of predominantly muslim Russian states who told us that prospects were bright for the muslims of Russia who were enjoying the most religious and cultural freedom they had seen in at least a hundred years and were busy building masjids, religious schools and cultural institutions for their growing populations, while the ethnic Russians dwindle away. Take the long view! Little wonder Daghestan and other neighboring muslim regions decided they were not interested in the bloody anarchy Basayev and the boys were busy trying to unleash. It is difficult to appreciate the maxim that was old when Ibn Taymiyyah endorsed it, that tyranny is preferable to anarchy, until you see the terrible mayhem that Salafi insurgencies excel at creating in country after country after country. Islam, or sufi Islam if you must, is quietist when it needs to be and oppositional when it needs to be. After 20 years of devestating war when the only people left fighting are unhinged perma-jihadists, now is the time for quietism.
abunoor 11:59 am on November 4, 2009 Permalink |
Ok, I guess I’m reading know that there is some confusion about the actual circumstances of Maskhadov’s death and that some claim Kadyrov is directly responsible.
It still doesn’t help me to understand what you have a problem with in my comments, binGregory.
Dan 12:19 pm on November 4, 2009 Permalink |
I’m guessing that he thinks you are putting too much weight behind condemning Kadyrov and his cronies while staying silent on the Salafis who as bingregory said, brought the situation to what it is now.
abunoor 12:22 pm on November 4, 2009 Permalink |
But that’s unfair — Kadyrov is the topic of this thread not Salafis or even the history of the Chechen wars.
abunoor 12:30 pm on November 4, 2009 Permalink |
Ok, I guess Salafis are part of the topic in that this is stated explicitly as a counter to Salafi Islamism.
Are you or binGregory arguing that this is an appropriate response by Kadyrov?
Finally, if people think I’m somehow reflexively biased in favor of Salafis I can’t really blame them but I don’t think that is true. First it ignores the basic reality that intra-Salafi animosities are often more heated and emotional than Sufi/Salafi ones. I’m not sure if that is true amongst Sufis. For example my own teachers are often savagely criticized by the pro-Saudi government anti-interfaith or intrafaith Salafis as well as by the Jihadi Salafis.
But beyond those points, for me personally, I don’t deny that I’m not an equal opportunity criticizer. But I think my bias is less about Sufi/Salafi than about pro-government or anti-government. I wil admit that I am much harder and more emotional in my critiques of those who side with oppressive government power than those who fight against it, although I acknowledge that especially during wars, there is much wrong that is done on both sides.
Dan 12:32 pm on November 4, 2009 Permalink |
abunoor, what about critiquestowards so-called Islamic governments that are oppressive (i.e. the Taliban)? I noticed that the same people who are quick to condemn the brutality of secular (or in this case, ‘Islamic’ leaders backed by an imperialist power) but stay silent when it comes to people who profess to spread the message of the Almighty.
abunoor 12:39 pm on November 4, 2009 Permalink |
I think viewing the Taliban as an “Islamic government” is questionable Dan. They are a nationalist resistance movement at present and never really established complete control over the country even at their height.
I don’t think you’ll find many regimes of which I am more critical (maybe it doesn’t always come through in the topics discussed on TI, but I assure you it is correct for me, but I can only speak for myself I don’t know who exactly you are lumping me in with here) than ones like Saudi Arabia or Iran, which claim to be Islamic but are oppressive and tyranical.
Dan 12:53 pm on November 4, 2009 Permalink |
That’s good to hear abunoor. But I want to make it clear that I was not singling you out by any chance. I was just making a general observation when it comes to criticism of this nature.
I’d like to discuss whether the Taliban is nationalist or transnational (I believe the latter because they held a desire to export their movement to neighboring countries, including Iran), but I would venture to say that we would be straying from the original topic.
At least we can both agree that Kadyrov is a ruthless tyrant. It’s a shame that Anna Politkovskaya isn’t around anymore to expose his crimes even further.
abunoor 12:59 pm on November 4, 2009 Permalink |
Well, I guess it is actually more tribalist in one sense than even Nationalist, but the tribe extends at least into Pakistan so that makes it transnationalist. There are also indications that some elements have bought into a transnational Islamist type ideology but it is pretty clear that there are other elements who are more narrowly focused. And of course here we’re only talking about whatever element is explicitly ideological. The majority from the foot soldiers up to some of the chiefs are I’m sure actually driven by some perception of what is their self interest (including that of their family and those they care about of course) in what is in many ways a desperate and terrible situation.
Allaah Knows best.