|
SNA CHECHENPRESS, Official Information Department, December, 29th 2005.
Some of our political analysts publish ideas on the founding principles of our society which suggest a radical revision of the goals and objectives of the Chechen fight for national liberation. As these ideas are mainly addressed to the government of the ChRI, I consider it my duty to respond to them in detail and present the official viewpoint of the Chechen government on the matter.
I. The Consequences of Ignoring International Law
On one of our sites I read such a statement: „We keep silence, whereas active „Jahilis“ among us insist we abide by international law and justice, they appeal to the international society, refer to the UNO Charter, talk about human rights and accuse the western countries of the policy of double standards. And it looks like those lamentations of Jahilis are, indeed, the true views of Mojaheds…”
So, as we see here, the author thinks that the Chechen Resistance should be given freedom to act without any regard to international law and the Declaration of Human Rights. To understand the viciousness of such an assumption, we should ask ourselves the following question: is it at all possible for the Chechen state to enjoy sovereignty, i.e., to be internationally recognised as an independent state, if it ignores international law? Any reasonable person will say – no, of course, not. All nations of this planet should be living by the rules common for all mankind, known as international law, and this law should be binding for all people, regardless of their skin colour, ethnicity or religious beliefs. International law is like traffic regulations – tragic consequences will certainly follow if those rules are ignored.
I will start with reminding the reader that the Islamic doctrine does not forbid other religions, moreover, it clearly says that Moslems should peacefully co-exist with people practicing other religions and beliefs. Nowhere in the Quran or Sunnah will you read that the relations between Moslems and non-Moslems should be confrontational, war-like and implacably hostile. The Islamic religion is very clear in its definition of the issues of war and peace and if there are no legitimate reasons for declaration of war, Moslems should be living in peace with others. So, if the sacred sources of the Islamic religion call for peaceful co-existence of Moslems with other nations and societies, then there should be rules regulating such peaceful co-existence, common for all people, i.e. international law.
If we consider international law fair, if it does not favour the strong over the weak or one nation, race or religion over another, if it promotes mutual tolerance and humanity even at times of war, if it prescribes to have respect for women and take care of children, then where and how is international law in contradiction with Islam? Is not Islam based on the same principles of humanity and mutual tolerance for all people and nations? Is there a single precept in Islam that would glorify cruelty and tyranny? Does not Islam most passionately condemn any injustice that the strong can do to the weak?
Being no expert in the Islamic theology, I am, however, absolutely convinced of one thing: Islam can not possibly argue against the principle of humanity and law abidance. This, for example, can be proved by the mere fact that the Holy Quran very often uses the term “unfair people” to describe infidels. And now I would like to ask the authors of the sentence quoted above: what exactly, which provision of the UNO Charter and international human rights law do they consider “unfair“? We Moslems will then simply refuse to abide by that particular rule and if there are many such “unfair” rules, stop “appealing” to international law and “referring to” the UNO Charter.
Justice can not be in conflict with Justice, likewise, Humanity can not be in conflict with Humanity, because all people are born with these feelings, regardless of their ethnicity or religion. If the Holy Quran featured some special kind of “justice”, the kind of justice that non-Moslems would be unable to comprehend, then millions of non-Moslems would have never embraced Islam as their new religion, not now and not in the past. If Islam denied the feeling of justice itself, the feeling that every human being has in different degrees, then how would we Moslems even talk to non-Moslems? How would we understand each other? When we argue with representatives of other confessions, we do not say to them “You are not right because you are not Moslems.” We say, “You are not right because your words or your actions are unfair”.
I do not want to hide behind any names, but all our leaders have always insisted we abide by international law in the Russo-Chechen armed conflict. The President of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria Abdul-Khalim Sadulaev is now insisting on this, and the first Chechen presidents, who became, insha Allah, shahids, did the same. To call those people “jahilis”, i.e. ignorant infidels, is much too insulting for all of us, that is, all those who think of themselves as supporters of the Chechen independency.
It is another matter that the governments of big and small states and the UNO officials do not care about the principles of justice and humanity they are supposed to enforce. Moreover, they criminally violate them! In other words, representatives of the aggrieved nations, first of all, Chechens, can clearly see that the majority of the international leaders do not abide by the principles of international law – the principles that they themselves have ratified and promised to live by. This is called the policy of double standards in the international practice. But if you see a scoundrel of a judge who accepts bribes and twists the law, would you blame the law, cancel or change it, especially if it clearly states the principles of justice? Do Russian pseudo-muftis licking the boots of the Kremlin make us doubt the holiness and righteousness of Islam?
I said it before and I want to say it again: it is dangerous to make a muddle of things and mix up the law itself with the individuals responsible for its enforcement. If one of them is unsuitable for the job, corrupt and greedy, it is not because the law is so bad – any man of sense will tell you that it is the person, not the law, which is to blame. It is for this very reason that we continue “calling“and “appealing“. And we are not alone here. It is necessary to understand that the indignation we feel about the policy of double standards does not give the oppressed nations any grounds to deny international law itself. On the contrary, not only should representatives of those oppressed nations respect international law but also do everything possible to convince international political leaders to make decisions which would help others accept the right of the oppressed nations to sovereignty.
Reading what some of our political analysts write I sometimes think that perhaps the time has come for us Chechens to make a crucial decision and choose between the two alternatives: either we isolate ourselves from the rest of the world, take a defensive stance and declare war until total destruction or we join forces with the rest of the world in the search for a common platform for peace and co-operation – the platform of justice. If we opt for the first alternative, we should stop telling the rest of the world about genocide, torture, kidnappings and trade in corpses, destruction and vandalism and loads of other illegal things that the Russian occupants are doing in the Chechen territory. Indeed, why should we complain about all that if we believe that the rest of the world is devoid of any sense of justice and compassion? But if we do admit that other nations have morals, too, and if we do admit that they are not our enemies by default but human beings like ourselves who know compassion and justice, then, I would say, it is time for some of our people to stop calling the rest of the world “Satanists”, “neo-infidels” and the like.
If we fail to make this choice, we risk being seen as evil hypocrites by the world. We will be accused of only pretending to appeal to people’s sense of justice, secretly wishing the rest of mankind dead, with the exception of a minority briefly outlined by the authors of the thesis quoted above. We already hear these accusations today, as hints or open statements, claiming that all Moslems are the same: when they “receive the beating” they complain but when they grow stronger they themselves become “oppressors” and dream of exterminating “all infidels” etc. However, the truth is we do want to have independent statehood and we do not want to remain part of the Russian empire because only in our own independent state do we have a chance to secure our national and religious identity and preserve ourselves as a nation.
There are several ways to obtain national sovereignty, armed revolt the most radical of all. The UNO documents allow nations to realize their right to self-determination even using armed insurgence as a method if an empire uses force to suppress the wish of the people to become independent from it. However, armed opposition alone is not enough to get sovereignty. Armed insurgence has to have its “political voice“ to inform the international community about the logic behind the armed resistance in the legal and emotional language comprehensible for the international community. If our armed resistance has no voice of its own or speaks the language of total hostility against the rest of the world, if we lose our political platform of the state sovereignty, then we will indeed only be seen as “armed insurgents” and enemies fighting against the world.
In other words, if the Chechen Resistance ignores the norms of international law, Chechens will be seen by many as merely bandits, robbers and murderers, something the Kremlin centre of international terrorism would want very much. This is what they have been calling us all the time anyway, for years. Is it really reasonable for us to deny international law and state sovereignty as a strategic goal of our armed resistance when by saying that we will be doing the Kremlin a favour it could not even hope for? This should be absolutely out of the question and every Chechen, every participant of the Resistance and first of all any thinking Mojahed should know it.
II. Islam and International Law
One can confidently say that before Islam and Islamic law there had been nothing even remotely resembling the law now known as international. The relations between nations, especially the nations practicing different confessions, were characterized by arbitrariness, wars, mutual destruction and the only law they knew was the law of the strongest. Only Islam stopped that lawlessness and arbitrariness, established contact to representatives of other religions of the Holy Scriptures and built international and inter-confessional relations on the basis of firm and fair legal principles.
I would like to illustrate my thesis by an example. When Prophet Mohammed was still alive, after several military confrontations with the people of Najran, a Christian town in Jemen, Moslems entered into an agreement with them. The text of the treaty was written by the Prophet himself, and was, therefore, considered as a model treaty for the next generations of Moslems. We still have the text of the original treaty. So, this is what the text of the first treaty in the history of Islam says about the rights of the Christians who came to be under jurisdiction of the Moslems:
“In the name of Allah, the Most Compassionate and the Most Merciful. This is the document from Muhammad, the messenger of Allah, for the people of Najran.
... To the Christians of Najran and the neighboring territories, the security of Allah and pledge of His Prophet are extended for their lives, their religion, and their property - to those present as well as those absent and others besides;
There shall be no interference with the practice of their faith or their observance;
Nor any change in their rights or privileges;
No bishop shall be removed from his bishopric; nor any monk from his monastery, nor any priest from his priesthood,
And they shall continue to enjoy everything great and small as heretofore;
No image or cross shall be destroyed;
They shall not oppress or be oppressed;
They shall not practice the rights of blood-vengeance as in the days of ignorance, i.e. before the advent of Islam;
No tithes shall be levied from them nor shall they be required to furnish provisions for the troops.
If anyone demands his right from you, justice will be maintained between you.
Neither you will be oppressed nor will you be allowed to oppress others...."
What do we see in this document, which is not merely a legal act but the Sunnah of the Prophet? We see, first of all, justice, protection of the rights and ethnic and religious identity of the Christians of Najran. And those were not just any Christians or citizens of an independent state but the residents of the city conquered by the Moslems. And if we see the declaration of justice, the desire to protect the rights of representatives of all nationalities and confessions, to preserve their culture and ethnic originality in the texts of modern international law written by Western scholars, why should we then deny such international law? What would be a reason for that? By rejecting “somebody else’s” idea of justice we are, in fact, rejecting our own, the justice of Moslems, an example of which we have just seen in the Prophet’s Treaty with the Christians of Najran.
The moderns views of Islamic scholars, „alims“, on the principles of the relations between Moslems and nations of other confessions and beliefs and on human rights in the Moslem society are clearly stated in the Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights. One should add that this remarkable document is a result of joint efforts of outstanding Moslem scholars, lawyers, philosophers and representatives of Islamic movements.
III. Do we need a Constitution?
This question is being eagerly discussed in the Chechen press and there are some analysts and columnists who answer this question only in the negative. In their opinion, Moslems in general and Chechens in particular do not need a constitution because we have our Holy Quran. I will list here the most common arguments these people use:
“The adoption of a constitution is an abstract and unnecessary ritual we follow only because “the rest of the world does it”. We do not only mean the “democratic” kind of constitution, unacceptable for Moslems by default, but even the best “Shariah Constitution”. Writing a constitution became fashionable after the French and American revolutions of the 19th century. Nowadays it is simply a kind of mandatory procedure for every country…
Firstly, the concept of a constitution does not exist in the practices of the Prophet. When we get our land back (and we have no doubt we will) and face the task of regulating the social and political life of our Moslems, we will need only two things: to use the Quran and Sunnah for guidance and take into account the conditions existing at a certain time in a certain place.
Secondly, when we discuss such things as a “constitution”, we use the logic of the system of the “world order“ and by doing so we fall even deeper into the moral and psychological dependency on the global Satanic system.
Thirdly, even if we create the right kind of a “Shariah Constitution”, we will give our enemies a chance to gloat about a “virtual constitution of a non-existent state”. And unfortunately, they won?t be that wrong. Such unrealistic initiatives do look too far-fetched and discredit the struggle of the Mojaheds”.
Before I start looking at those arguments in detail, I think it necessary to make a few statements of a more general character. I suggest we think about the political consequences which would follow if the Chechens cancelled the Constitution of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria adopted in 1992. The gravest consequence of such a step would be the total destruction of the legal basis for our state sovereignty and bulwark of independence of the Chechen nation. The Chechen Mojaheds would instantly lose the right to call themselves freedom fighters and would indeed be seen by the world as “illegal armed formations”, “groups of armed insurgents”, to use only a few terms from these and other much more offensive labels the Kremlin propaganda has been trying to pin on us for years.
Imagine for a minute that in a bout of madness we would indeed abolish our Constitution. What then? That would mean we automatically abolished the concept of an independent Chechen state, dissolved all legitimate governmental structures, including the armed forces of the country. This is exactly what the Kremlin attempted to do in March 2003 by staging the so-called “constitutional referendum” in Chechnya. Putin, with his degree in law, understood only too well that the most important step to satisfy his ambition and cancel our statehood was not to physically occupy the country but to abolish the Chechen Constitution of 1992 by using his dirty trick with the referendum.
That was an attempt (luckily, an unsuccessful attempt, because the Chechen people did not give in to blackmail and threats of the Kremlin, besides, nowhere in the world were the results of that farce accepted as legitimate) to rob us of the most crucial legal basis of our state sovereignty. But not even in his wildest dreams could Putin then imagine that some people among those who position themselves as supporters of the Chechen independency would be pushing for the same: to abolish our Constitution of 1992. Could he ever dream of such a gift? To voluntarily do something that our mortal enemy is forcing us to do, i.e., to commit a political suicide – that is what the authors of such speculations are calling us to do. I would very much like to hope that it is merely a lack of understanding.
Now I would like to go back to the claim of the authors that, ostensibly, the concept of a constitution does not exist in the practices of the Prophet. This claim is not only ignored but actually refuted in a document well known to the scholars of Islam, the Constitution of Medina, written by the Prophet Himself. The text of this most valuable for all Moslem documents can be easily found in printed and electronic media. It is not my intention to analyse the contents and the articles of this document in detail, I merely want to draw the attention of the authors of such a claim to the fact that the Prophet?s Constitution does exist, that there is a precedent of its existence.
First of all, I would like to point out that when the Constitution was being drawn, Moslems already had the Holy Quran and the Sunnah of our Prophet. Moreover, every Moslem at the time was blessed with a chance to come to the Prophet and ask Him to explain any unclear political or social issue. Nevertheless, the Prophet thought it necessary to write a special Public Agreement (i.e., a Constitution as we know it) and isolate all legal, social and political issues from the Holy Sources of the Islamic religion into a separate set of rules to regulate all aspects of the life of the first and the oldest Islamic state, the Medina Tribal Union, and let me remind you that not only Moslems but also Jews and pagans were members of the union and all of them enjoyed equal rights.
Therefore, the assumption that there is „no concept of a constitution“ in the Prophet?s practice is not only false but is in direct conflict with the Islamic reality. The other assumption, the one that claims that “Writing a constitution became fashionable after the French and American revolutions of the 19th century” is equally erroneous. As we see now, Moslems were living under their own constitution at the times when France, let alone America, I think, did not even exist as a state. And the Prophet Himself was the first to refute the claim that Moslems do not need a Constitution because they have the Quran and Sunnah.
I believe, this can be explained by the fact that the Quran and Sunnah cover all issues of private and public character and all the issues of the universe and religion; however, the society needs a simple and clear set of rules to regulate the frame of society, its economy, its home and foreign policies and so on. This is what a constitution is about, as a code of basic laws. Certainly, the world develops and changes, and so does the society, and so does the political and economic situation, therefore, the constitution changes, too.
But there is no country which would be living without a legal base and had no laws common for all its citizens. These laws are usually compiled into one separate document, be it a Constitution or a Charter or the so-called Dustur, the name the Ashabs and Ansars of Medina gave to their first Constitution. Now, why would the Chechens, for whom it is so vital to have a legal base for their restored independent statehood, be deprived of a constitution? To call for this means to ignore the sacred example (Sunnah) of our Prophet, to defy elementary logic and to do a lot of harm to our cause which has already demanded so many big sacrifices from us all.
IV. Islam and Democracy
When I write about the degree of similarity between the Islamic social doctrines and democracy, I mean the democracy in its pure original sense, only as a tool for electing the supreme public (state) government. The authors of the statements quoted above consider democracy inacceptable for Moslems because, they say, in the modern western societies, traditionally called „democracies“, it is political cynicism and public immorality that rule. However, it is hardly fair to hold democracy responsible for those negative sides, because we see as much cynicism and immorality in authoritarian societies, including the ones that formally follow the law of the Shariah. The key point is, democracies have much better chances to improve the situation, whereas autocratic societies have no such chance at all.
I do not want to praise or criticize anyone, but I would like to illustrate my point by a simple example, well known to all Chechens. The USA is seen as the bulwark of democracy, an expression which is almost obscene for some of our brothers-in-arms. Nevertheless, the American leaders had enough wits and fastidiousness not to welcome Putin?s accomplice, the late Kadyrov-senior, in their country. Saudi Arabia is a state formally living by the Shariah law, nevertheless, not only did the main traitor to the Chechen nation receive an official welcome from the king of this country, he also received a kiss from the king and a request to pass this “brotherly kiss” to Putin, the person who drowned Chechnya in blood and wiped out hundreds of thousands of Chechen Moslems. This alone should have taught us not trust any official declarations too much, including the Islamic ones. One should judge everybody by their deeds.
I would like to reiterate that the discussion of the issue whether or not democracy complies with the Islamic canons can drown in the sea of unimportant details and produce no results if we do not limit it to the social aspect of democracy, i.e. the rule that allows people to elect their own government. It goes without saying that the government elected by people in free elections will reflect the moral and cultural state of the nation, or, at least, the majority of this nation. Nothing can be done about that, as a famous saying goes, “people get the government they deserve”. But we are not talking about “good” or “bad” people; we are talking about the keystone of democracy, a natural right of all people to elect their own government. It is important for us to find out whether or not this principle contradicts the letter and the spirit of the Quran and Sunnah.
Now it is time to remember that the first four righteous Halifs (may Allah be pleased with them!) were elected by the community, ummah. The right of any society to elect their government is democracy by definition. And we see here that the first Moslem rulers, the ones who most closely followed the canons of Islam and were the associates of the Prophet Himself, which meant they were blessed with a chance to ask Him any question, were elected in a democratic way, by free will of the society. How can then anyone argue that democracy is in conflict with Islam? There are many things and aspects in modern democratic (and not only) societies that are in conflict with Islam, however, not only is the principle of free election of the government by people non-contradictory to the Islamic canons, it is actually one of those canons, as we can see from the example above.
There is an authentic Hadith by the Prophet, which obliges Moslems to follow the example (Sunnah) of the righteous Caliphs: "He among you who lives long enough will see many differences. So for you is to observe my Sunnah and the Sunnah of the rightly-principled and rightly-guided successors, holding on to them with your molar teeth. Beware of newly-introduced matters, for every innovation (bid'ah) is an error."
(Abu Daud and Tirmidhi).
The Holy Quran reiterates the commandment “Verily, what you decide amongst yourselves will belong to you”. This means that Our Lord gives every nation and every society the right to free choice, including their choice of government. One can say again that there is good and bad government, but whatever it is, Our Lord gives people the right to live their lives the way they choose and elect their own government by their free will. However, if one assumes that people are “unreasonable”, unable to make the right choice and should, therefore, be forced to accept a certain kind of government, some kind of “righteous people”, albeit very religious, then we come to tyranny, pure bolshevism. That will only be a different way of applying force, i.e., violation of another Quran precept, which says that “there shall be no coercion in religion”.
If “there shall be no coercion in religion”, then whoever restricts people’s freedom and imposes even the most “righteous” of governments on them by force stops being the righteous and turns into a tyrant. A tyrant can not be righteous. Any tyranny sooner or later stops caring about people and starts caring only about itself and ways to reproduce itself. Let us think about our own history. The imam of Chechnya and Dagestan Shamil started his political career as a brave warrior and a true democrat. At that time he was successful in everything he did, by the 40-s of the 19th century Russian aggressors were pushed to the other shore of the river Terek and liberation of the Caucasus became possible reality.
However, gradually Shamil started changing; he was becoming more of a dictator and a tyrant. Perhaps he did have “good intentions”, thought he was doing the right thing when he tried to reinforce the Shariah and eliminate any resistance to his government. But what did it lead to? In the end, in the 50-s of the 19th century, Shamil declared his rule hereditary and that ruined him and his cause, as Chechens, who had never experienced any social oppression before, refused to support his claims to be a monarch. So very soon the Imamate fell and the Caucasus was conquered by Russians.
However, that was not the worst that could have happened. If Shamil had managed then to enforce his dynasty and if Chechens had accepted a hereditary monarchy in the form of a khanate or and emirate, then our ancestors and we would have been living in our very own oriental despotism, very much like the “Moslem” states now cringing before the Kremlin, ready to sacrifice any principle, should the Kremlin order them so. Such a disgusting „national“ monarchy could have irrevocably changed our national mentality and killed the spirit of freedom that characterizes our nation. However, the Russian despotism, the despotism of an outsider, was only boosting that spirit.
The second “historical experiment” in our country happened after the October coup in Russia, when the democratic federation state of the peoples of Northern Caucasus, led by Tapa Cherpoev, had to defend itself not only against the Bolsheviks but also against the „emirate“ of Uzun-khadji. It is remarkable that almost all tyrannical powers turned against the democratic state of the North Caucasians: Denikin?s army of volunteers, Bolsheviks, Uzun-khadji, who joined forces with the Red Army. All those powers were indeed tyrannical: Denikin wanted to restore the Tsar monarchy, Bolsheviks were going after their „barracks socialism“, and Uzun-khadji dreamt of an oriental despotism similar to the khanate of Bukhara. And all of those forces saw Tapa Chermoyev as their number one enemy, not because he was a bad Moslem, but because he opposed tyranny in all its forms.
Today, as if we have completely forgotten not only the examples of the first Moslems but our own historical experience as well, we are again kicking and blaming the government freely elected by the people. Somebody wants to rob our struggle of all legal foundations, to picture our fighters to the world as some kind of exotic “formations”, quite in line with the Kremlin’s propaganda about our “bandit formations”, to make the world forget that our fighters are nothing but legitimate armed forces of an independent state. “We do not need a state”, “we do not need a constitution”, “we do not need democracy” – that’s what some of our own ideologists proclaim. As if a state, constitution and democracy contradict Islam, whereas in fact they are the Islamic commandments put into practice!
We have showed that the first righteous Moslems, the contemporaries and associates of our Prophet, had everything the previously quoted ideologists oppose to in the name of Islam. They had a state (the ummah of Medina), they had a constitution (the constitution of medina, Dustur) and they had democracy (in the form of the government of caliphs made legitimate through free election). And all those social standards were set by our Prophet and that means they are Sunnah for us and all other Moslems. Therefore, one should not try and clash our holy religion, Islam, with something that is, in fact, the realization of its social aspect in our life: a free democratic Chechen state with all the attributes of sovereignty - the constitution, Parliament and post of the President.
V. Islam and our Struggle
Considering a century-long struggle of our people for independence, one should raise the following question: why have Islamic slogans always been used by our fighters? An unbiased answer to this question shows that Chechens, unlike the authors of the statements quoted above, have never seen any conflict between Islam and their freedom in any of the numerous Caucasian wars. Moreover, Islam has always been seen by Chechens as a great ideology of Liberty –both individual and national. As a famous Chechen saying goes, “We chose Islam as Liberty and we loved Liberty as Islam!”
There is no national liberty without national sovereignty and a national state. The authors quoted above suggest we should remove the word “freedom” from our vocabulary and do not spare epithets to humiliate the Chechen state and the people who were at any time part of its official structures like the Parliament, ministries, army, police etc. They claim that the people who used to work in those structures all „fled“ and that only „Serzhen-Yurt and Urus-Martan jamaats keep fighting“. Allah forbid, we do not doubt the heroism and self-sacrifice of the mojaheds from those jamaats, however, to ridicule members of any other jamaats does not do any credit to the authors of such claims.
I do not think I should list the names of the ministers and members of the parliament who perished in the war or to remind how many hundreds of young fighters died defending Johar (Grozny) in the initial, most difficult, phase of the war, breaking the blockade through the mine fields, suffering from hunger and cold in the mountains. I would not recommend the authors of those claims to repeat their offensive remarks in front of the family or comrades-in-arms of those Shaheeds, who did not separate Jihad from the fight for liberation of their home land. To free your home land from occupants is Jihad by definition. As for the traitors and the cowardly… Well, such people have always existed, unfortunately also among those who are praised by the authors and so favourably compared to the other Resistance fighters. The traitors and the cowardly have existed at all times and in all nations, and sadly, Chechens are no exception.
A Moslem and a Mojahed can not simply say: „I am fighting for Islam“. We should understand that Islam is a programme for a decent, free and fair social life, clearly and in great detail described by the Quran and Sunnah. Fighting for Islam means fighting for this kind of life! The Quran and Sunnah reject slavery and tyranny, the Quran and Sunnah declare all people equal, the Quran and Sunna call for delegating the power to those who deserve it. Aren’t these and other commandments of our Holy Scriptures the social and political program that we Chechens have been trying to implement in our national liberation movement “outside” and the fight for a fair and free society “inside”?
I believe that the Islamic slogan should not lead us away from the concrete social and political realia but, on the contrary, lead us closer to them, uncovering the religious origins of the concepts we think of as everyday concepts, such as democracy, constitution and social discipline, complete and natural realization of which is only possible in the structure of a national sovereign state.
The authors of the statements quoted above deny these obvious things. They are very negative on the idea of a Chechen national state, referring, for example, to the fact that in the Northern Caucasus we now have a united multinational military force, which sworn allegiance to the President of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria Abdul-Khalim Sadulayev and is fighting against the Russian colonial policy. Because of that they suggest we should „re-organize” our state structure, i.e. to simply dissolve it as “unsuitable for the current situation” and at the same time change the legal status of the Chechen president to the “Imam of Caucasus”.
What can be said about that? First of all, national sovereignty is no hindrance to different forms of integration with other nations and states; on the contrary, it is a mandatory initial basis for any such integration. Only voluntary integration of free nations and states equal in their rights can result in a stable long-term union; any other form of “internationalisation” is obvious or disguised enslavement of one nation by another, what we call an empire. One can discuss possible ways to unite Chechens with other nations in the region only after the Northern Caucasus has been liberated of Russia’s political and military presence there. And any such union should be a voluntary option of the peoples of the Northern Caucasus, made legitimate by their expression of free will, in the way the Chechen people did to restore their statehood.
I believe this possibility can be further discussed and even, perhaps, popularised. However, the demands to dismantle the Chechen state system before the Northern Caucasus has been liberated from the Russian colonial rule are both irresponsible and absolutely damaging for our cause. Moreover, it is a crime. Let me remind the reader that in 1990 Chechens restored its national statehood, not an Imamate, and in 1994 they started fighting against Russian aggressors not because they wanted a “Caucasian Caliphate” but because they wanted to free our country from occupation.
No doubt, we do see some kind of integration processes happening in the Northern Caucasus, mainly in the military area. However, those processes have not been initiated by us; they have resulted from a cruel punitive policy of the Kremlin, the policy which has robbed the autonomies in the Northern Caucasus of their last illusions of being independent. I mean the law which forbids the peoples of Russia to elect their local Republican government, to freely practice their religion and to use national alphabets in writing. Putin and his clique have de facto denounced the Federal Treaty of 1992, which lists all those rights, and have, de facto, robbed a national entity known as the “Russian Federation” of its legitimate status. The Kremlin has trampled on whatever was left of the political and ethnic autonomy of the nations of the Northern Caucasus (and not only theirs), so it is only natural that the most patriotic part of the youth in Northern Caucasus has joined the fight against the openly anti-national and anti-Islamic Russian Empire. And it is also natural that those young people lean on the more experienced and battle-hardened military and political structures of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria.
However, there is a huge distance between a military alliance against the common enemy and a „united state“, these two entities are organizationally and legally very far from one another. If we do not go all the way but merely stop at the “starting line”, the decision to dismantle the Chechen state system in exchange for some vague promises of a “Caucasian Caliphate”, “Islamic solidarity” etc would be not only rash and stupid – it would be criminal and damaging to our own nation. I would like to reiterate the following: the Chechen people made their choice and legitimised it in early 90-s of the last century. We restored an independent state, elected our government and adopted our constitution. If the nations of the Northern Caucasus want to talk about something more than a military alliance, about a united state, they should go the same way. And only after they have done the same, can we start thinking about a state union on a voluntary basis. However, our Constitution would have to be changed for that.
The Constitution of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, adopted in 1992, is still valid and no one has the right to change it at will. Any change in the constitution is a prerogative of the Chechen people represented by a freely elected parliament. As we know, at times of war a Parliament stops making new legislation. This means: as long as there is war, the Parliament has no right to either cancel or change the constitution. Some of our analysts and columnists write that in May 2002 the Chechen Constitution “was abolished”. First of all, nobody has the right to abolish a constitution. Second, what they call „the repeal of the Constitution“ was in actual fact the practical implementation of the clause on the State Defence Committee in the Chechen Constitution, which delegates the SDC the highest executive power at the time of war. This act was also supported by a special statement issued by President Maskhadov (Shaheed, insha Allah!). President Abdul-Salim Sadulayev is elected President in accordance with the Constitution, which is a base of his legitimacy as President. Any attempt to abolish our Constitution is an attempt to destroy the legitimacy of our state and all state governmental structures.
Our Constitution defines Chechnya as a secular, democratic and legal state. I do realize that my use of those words – “secular”, “democratic” and “legal” – annoy those who reject anything that can not be described by an Arabic term. However, there is nothing blasphemous in those terms from the Islamic point of view. The word “secular” in the Russian language has the same root as the word “light”, and we associate light with enlightenment, education, science and knowledge. The concept of education is not at all conflicting with Islam, moreover, Islam obliges true believers to study and increase their knowledge. All Moslems know the Prophet?s Hadith which says, “Do not be lazy; seek knowledge even as far as in China, because to seek for knowledge is the main duty of a Moslem”. In this case only scientific, “secular” knowledge is meant, as it is clear that the pagan China could not give Moslems any better knowledge of the Islamic theology.
We have already discussed the term “democratic“ and agreed that it means the right of the people to freely elect their government. Election of the government is a basic social norm of the Islamic religion established by the righteous Caliphs (may Allah be pleased with them!). As for the term “legal”, there is nothing scary about that, either. A legal state is a state which secures all natural and legal rights of all nations of the state, in the same way that the Ummah of Medina at the time of the Prophet secured not only the rights of Moslems but also the rights of other nationalities and confessions.
As for the terminology: the authors of the previously quoted texts strongly object against the use of Russian or European words in relation to our realities and suggest we should replace them with Arabic equivalents. It would be absurd to deny that the “sound” of the words is important psychologically and in a way reflects the ideology of those who uses them. However, one should think about the cultural context Chechens used to live in for years, whether they liked it or not, especially the generation which chose to restore the Chechen national statehood in early 90-s. Besides, when we speak or write in any European language, including the Russian language, it is only natural that we use the terminology familiar to our audiences in Europe. Arabs, by the way, do the same and see no ”heresy” in that.
A national language is another matter, as it is a necessary attribute of a national state. Clearly, the Chechen state should be “speaking” in the Chechen language, and not in Russian, English or Arabic. After all, all languages (as well as all nations) were created by Our Lord and have equal rights to be used in everyday life. Our Lord tells us: “Oh mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things)”. (the Quran, 49:13). One can not say that one language has a “higher“ and another a “lower“ status, because such claims are in conflict with Islam.
Therefore, when we speak or write in Chechen we should use the Chechen social and legal terms: “Мekhk-khel“ for „Parliament“, “khetasho“ for “council“, “mekhk-da” for “President”, “bacha” for “a military commander, a general”, “urkhalla” for “ a committee, administration, office” and so on. I agree with those who think that the SDC does not sound good for a Chechen ear but I do not think it should be replaced by Arabic term „Madjlisul-Shura“. As the Committee is Chechen, I would suggest it should be re-named in Chechen, Pachalkhan Tieman Khetasho. However, this is a separate topic for discussion.
Much can be said about the issues I have just raised but I would like to end my article with a word of warning to our analysts and political writers: do be careful with what you are publishing and please know when to stop. We are all, praise Allah, Moslems and we all hope for His divine mercy and to be allowed into His Paradise. We do not need to discuss this; otherwise we would be, so to speak, on different sides of the barricade. However, we will not tolerate when somebody is playing into the enemy’s hands, as a saying goes, and reinforces the enemy’s propaganda by their ideas and slogans.
The thing is that the Kremlin propaganda has been, in fact, repeating the same messages we hear from some of our overzealous comrades-in-arms: that we do not need a state, that we do not need a constitution, that we do not need any legitimately elected government, that we are fighting not in the capacity of the Armed Forces of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria and Home Guards but as some undefined “formations” and that we are fighting not because we want to liberate our country from occupation but because we want to establish some kind of a Caliphate, the World or Caucasian, nobody knows which. It is very hard to see any differences between these statements and the messages Putin is tirelessly repeating at every summit and spreads every day with the help of his propaganda machine in the Kremlin. I do not think our people are deliberately sabotaging our cause; therefore, I am urging everybody to be very careful in their words and slogans.
May our Mighty Allah help us in our righteous cause!
By Akhmed Zakayev, Vice-Premier of the Chechen government.
Statement by the Presidential Administration of the ChRI
By Ibragim Mezhidov, Head of the Presidential Administration
In the name of Allah, the Merciful, the Munificent!
Some Chechen internet sites have been recently publishing many articles and editorials that reject the crucial state institutions and offices of the ChRI and use different arguments and viewpoints, including religious ones, to cast doubt on the historical decision of the Chechen people to restore its independent statehood. So we think the time has come to explain that the Chechen government (some members of which are Islamic scholars, „alims“) does not see any conflict between Islam and the doctrine of the independent Chechen state, complete with its official structures and institutions.
It is also necessary to explain that the key points of the well-known article by Akhmed Zakayev, Vice Premier and Head of the Foreign Policy Department of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria government (http://www.chechenpress.info/events/2005/12/19/01.shtml) have been agreed with and approved by the President of the ChRI and the Presidential Administration of the ChRI. The official government of the ChRI is hereby informing the Chechen public that this and other political and ideological activities of the Foreign Policy Department under the ChRI government are in agreement with the views of the President and government of the ChRI and have their full support.
However, we believe that certain Chechen ideologists holding official posts in the ChRI government should re-think their opinions and stop misinforming the Chechen and international communities on the official views of the Chechen government on the fundamental issues of home and foreign politics.
The President of the ChRI and the armed forces of ChRI under his command have been abiding and will continue to abide by the rules and principles of international humanitarian law, despite the fact that the Russian occupants and the Kremlin government choose to violate them and international organizations often choose to ignore them. The Chechen government said it before and says it again: we are prepared for objective international investigation of any case in dispute.
We confirm that, in accordance with the principle of freedom of speech, any citizen of the ChRI has the right to express their opinion on the issues of the Chechen statehood and reform of its official structures and institutions, with the exception of any calls for violent overthrow of the existing state system, which would be a crime. However, anyone who will be publishing their views in any further discussions of the said issues should bear in mind that the government, Parliament and President of the ChRI have already clearly expressed the official viewpoint of the Chechen government on all those issues.
Chechenpress, Official Information Department, 31.12.05.
* * *
The statement of Parliament of CHRI
SNA CHECHENPRESS, Official Information Department.
BISMILLAKHIOROKHMANIRROKHIMI
- Considering, that in recent times on the several websites there have started to appear the articles of individuals, discrediting the governmental authority and the bases of constitutional system of CHRI;
- Taking into account, that this happens during the proceeding war and cause damage to the line of national-liberation struggle of Chechen people inside the country as well as on an international arena, the Parliament of CHRI.
Declares
The president, the Parliament and the Government with armed forces of CHRI are united in policy of state system of CHRI based on Constitution of CHRI, which runs:
"In accordance with the will of Supreme, the people of the Chechen Republic, expressing an aspiration of Chechen people, being guided by ideas of humanism and the purpose of construction of social-fair society, starting from the high responsibility before the present and future generations of our compatriots, respecting rights and interests of all nations and nationalities, proclaiming the Chechen Republic as an independent sovereign state and recognizing itself equal in rights subject in the system of world commonwealth of the nations, accepts the present Constitution and regards it henceforth as the organic Law of society and state".
In accordance with clause of CHRI Constitution:
"Clause 1. The Chechen Republic - the sovereign and independent democratic jural state, created as a result of self-determination of Chechen people".
Nobody has the right to put the will of Chechen people under the doubt: "mokajed" (reflecting outside the Chechen Republic), neither somebody else who tries to disorient the Chechen people struggling for the independent statehood, relying on sacred precepts of our religion both the conventional principles and norms of international law.
In clause "Remarks to some reflections and utterance", the vice-premier of Government of CHRI A.Zakaev has given exhaustive answer, which is the official point of view of the Chechen authority, and the Parliament completely supports his point of view. The Chechen armed forces, mojaheds, protect freedom and independence at the price of their lives (Dala gIazot kobal doila tseran!), and those who put the basis of a political system under the doubt, deliberately or unconsciously render a service to our enemies.
The president, the Parliament and the Government are united in aspiration of liberation of the Chechen Republic from the Russian invaders and construction of the independent democratic State based on CHRI constitution.
Let the ALLAH help us along this way!
The chairman of Parliament
The Chechen Republic Ichkerija (signature, seal) L.Saraljapov
23.12.05
|
