Not long ago we wrote about a brainwashing course planned at the Russian Islamic Institute in Kazan, entitled «Formation of the All-Russian Civic Identity of Muslims in Russia» (https://golosislama.com/news.php?id=41157). One of our readers took the initiative to attend this course and decided to share his impressions and thoughts about it, which we present below.
«I made an effort to listen. The main idea there is that Russian Muslims must be integrated into the Russian nation. It is understood that nations are formed on the basis of nationality, and Muslims can live in non-Muslim countries while being their citizens. And indeed, there is a basis in Sharia law that prohibits rebellion unless Muslims are allowed to fulfill the five goals of Sharia in non-Muslim countries: protection of religion, protection of life, health, honor, and property. It has been shown that Russian legislation does not contradict Sharia law and that Muslims can peacefully fulfill their religious duties. All this boils down to loyalty to any ruler.
Another point is what kind of nation is being built in Russia? Polosin says that if you don’t want to become part of the Russian nation, no one is stopping you from leaving and getting citizenship in another country. The Sharia does not forbid this, but according to the Sharia, you must consider that you will lose all Sharia rights in relation to that territory, including inheritance rights. Examples of treason were given in the sense that during war, according to Sharia, one cannot change sides to the enemy. In general, all current issues were covered.
If you are a Russian, you automatically support the war. In order not to support it, you must not have Russian citizenship. It turns out that if you want to support Ukraine, you have to have Ukrainian citizenship.
What I don’t understand is this: if you don’t feel part of such a civic identity, you are told to leave. A Muslim cannot support rebellion against his ruler, let alone have the right to self-determination and separation of territories. And the same Muslims who are against interference in the internal affairs of the state support the interference of their country in the affairs of another state. Let those who do not feel a civil identity with the Ukrainian nation be told to leave and become Russians, and let them leave the territories of Ukraine alone. Why doesn’t the Russian Muslim raise the question of whether supporting Russia’s aggression is haram (forbidden) on the same grounds that are presented in the lectures on civil identity in favor of building the Russian nation?»
In addition, the author and lecturer of this course, Polosin, tries to manipulate the formal categories of citizenship as a contract that binds only the citizen. However, he fails to mention that in each specific case this contract has conditions formulated in the law of a particular state.
For example, Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy, and therefore it can be said that by obtaining the right to live there (regardless of whether citizenship or foreign nationality is granted), you agree to it, and if you don’t like it, then go to another country.
That’s fine, but Russia has another main law (constitution). In its first chapter it says that Russia is a constitutional, democratic and federal state, the main value of which is the individual, his rights and freedoms. And in the second chapter all these rights and freedoms are described in detail. They include freedom of speech, the right to protest, the creation of parties, independent media, religious calling, and so on.
Now let’s make an experiment — read these two chapters and say from your point of view which aspects the authorities fulfill and which they don’t (http://www.constitution.ru/). Yes, because that is what Polosin is silent about — unlike countries like Saudi Arabia, in countries that have declared themselves democratic, the law obliges not only the citizen, but also the government. And if the government rudely disregards its duties and the rights of the citizen, then the citizen is relieved of his duties of loyalty to the government. Regardless of his religious beliefs, since the law of the land does not differentiate citizens on the basis of this principle.
Therefore, just as in the Islamic world, when a ruler rejects Sharia law and imposes disbelief, it becomes the collective duty of Muslims to remove him (under the necessary conditions, which we are not discussing at present), so in a democratic space, to which Russia has assigned itself by adopting such a constitution, the violation by the ruler of the fundamental principles of the constitutional system of the state and the rights of citizens gives them the universally recognized right to revolt. Therefore, the whole ideology of the «pan-Russian civic identity of Muslims in Russia» promoted by Polosin is not worth the paper it is written on (despite the fact that it is financed by substantial grants from the Kremlin), not even from the perspective of Islam, but from the perspective of distorting the meaning of the concept of citizenship as envisaged by the Russian Constitution.
It is important to emphasize that he knows this very well, as a person who once defended the principles of the Russian Constitution, when it was still possible to do so, and opposed the undermining of its foundations, such as the imposition of state ideology, the elevation of the Russian Orthodox Church above other religions, the abolition of federalism, the promotion of national-religious chauvinism («Russian world»), etc. But when all this had already happened and he was faced with the choice of either opposing all this (even silently) or entering the service of the regime that had committed these acts, he chose the latter. And now he presents himself as a loyal citizen, when in fact a true citizen would fight to restore the country’s constitutional foundations against the oppressive regime that trampled them underfoot.
Another manipulative tactic of Polosin (intentional, as he well understands) is that he portrays Russian Muslims as immigrants who arrive in a foreign country and obtain its citizenship. Although the majority of them were not only born in Russia, but in their own country, which was conquered by it. And here comes another question that Polosin carefully avoids. In fact, according to Sharia law, when Muslim lands are conquered by a non-Muslim country, it is the duty of the Muslims who did not perform Hijrah from those lands to liberate them. And theoretically, the only alternative to this would lead us back to the previous point. If, as the Russian Constitution says, it was not Russia’s seizure of Muslim lands, but their voluntary participation in the Russian Federation based on the self-determination of nations, then there might be something to talk about. But Polosin knows very well that there is no such thing, because federalism in Russia has been trampled upon, the right of nations to self-determination is denied, presidents of republics and constitutional courts have been abolished and replaced by Moscow’s deputies, and so on and so forth. This means the reality of seizure and occupation of Muslim lands, not their voluntary participation in the federation. Thus, from the point of view of the constitutional foundations of Russia itself, which are violated by its authorities, or from the point of view of the inhabitants and people of the Muslim lands conquered and occupied by Russia (due to the denial of its own principle of federalism), there can be no talk of any obligations of loyalty on the part of Muslims in Russia to its regime.