First of all, a small announcement to our readers. Due to problems with hosting and servers, the work of the website itself and the Facebook platforms that are connected with the broadcasting of materials from it were practically paralyzed this week. We hope to solve this problem in the near future, but for now, new articles continue to be published on our Telegram channel, to which we encourage everyone to subscribe.
One of the most pressing news for Russian Muslims this week was the issue of building a mosque in Moscow. Now, among the opposing sides, there are many people who are dissatisfied with Sobyanin’s final statement, as well as those who want to present it as a Solomon’s decision. We have written about this issue before, but critically. Now we will try to discuss what a positive solution to this problem could be and examine what is wrong with this «Solomon’s decision» from this perspective.
First of all, we must understand that the issue of mosque construction is a political problem, the solution to which is only possible after addressing the question of the political framework in which Islam and Muslims exist in a particular region. Therefore, there cannot be a universal solution for different regions and situations — there is one solution for Muslim countries and another for non-Muslim countries, and among the latter, one solution for countries where Muslims are a small immigrant minority and another for countries where they are numerous and established.
Speaking of Russia, it must be understood that it is the only non-Muslim state on the European continent whose territory and population includes a large number of Muslims. They are significant not only in terms of demographics (from millions to tens of millions of inhabitants), but also historically (the lands from Astrakhan to Siberia were Islamic). Moreover, within Russia there are officially recognized, albeit nominal, state entities named after Muslim peoples: Adygea, Bashkortostan, Dagestan, Ingushetia, Kabardino-Balkaria, Karachay-Cherkessia, Tatarstan, and Chechnya.
Therefore, the question arises: Is Russia a colonial empire occupying Muslim lands and countries where they are neither free nor equal? Or is it a federative multinational state in which Muslim peoples and citizens are equal to Orthodox Christians and others? Of course, we all know the answer to this question, which is how things are in reality, not on paper. But we must either force them to change their attitude and abide by their constitution (as was the slogan of Soviet dissidents who understood the deception of the regime and demanded that it abide by its OWN constitution), or continually expose their lies. This is necessary both for the Muslims in the country to understand them and to expose them to the world, where these scoundrels try to portray themselves as the main fighters against colonialism, although they represent the last colonial empire of the Old World.
So if Russia is a federative multinational state with Moscow as its capital, then it’s simple — Russian Muslims, as citizens of their country in its capital, should have the opportunity to build as many mosques as they need, to the point where they have as many mosques as churches or even more, considering that Muslims today are generally more religious than Orthodox Christians.
And if someone objects to this, saying that Moscow is an Orthodox city and there shouldn’t be such a thing, then it means that we have to ask whether the capital of a multinational and multiconfessional federation should be an «Orthodox city» or one where the presence of neither mosques nor churches is a problem.
For example, a city like Kazan, where there are about the same number of mosques and churches. Or a newly built capital where there is an equal representation of places of worship for all major religions. The same applies to the status of all the territories in the Federation.
If it is constantly claimed that there are regions where Muslims are considered outsiders and are not welcome in their mosques, then let’s first determine the status of these regions. Let Russia officially create Orthodox or Russian republics, and let there also be Muslim republics (Caucasian and Volga), Buddhist republics (Kalmykia, Buryatia, etc.), and so on.
But in this case, if non-Muslim regions are allowed to restrict foreign phenomena, including Islam, then the same should apply to Muslim regions, starting with ending the practice of appointing non-Muslim leaders and granting them full autonomy within themselves.
Secondly, if we move to such a principle of true multinational federalism, then, as already mentioned, the capital in such a state should be a religiously neutral city, or as an alternative, it should have several capitals, one of which should be the capital of one of the Muslim regions. This is what real federalism, which respects the rights of its Muslim participants, could look like, as described above.
But we all understand very well that Russia is essentially not a multinational and multi-confessional federation, but a colonial empire, which will collapse much more easily than it will become what it declares itself to be in its constitution — a federal state based on equality and self-determination of peoples. Accordingly, all problems with the construction of mosques in cities like Moscow should be addressed on this basis.
As long as Moscow remains the capital of a state that includes Adygea, Bashkortostan, Dagestan, Ingushetia, Kabardino-Balkaria, Karachay-Cherkessia, Tatarstan and Chechnya, Muslims have every right to seek the construction of as many mosques as they need there — not one, not two, not five, and not even one in each district or region, but as many as they need.
And if they are denied this on the pretext that Moscow is an Orthodox city, then there are two possibilities — either Muslim lands and peoples have nothing to do in such a state, or this state has no place for Moscow as its capital, and another capital must be found.
And only then, when the Muslim colonies have left this state or the capital has been moved from Moscow to Kazan, for example, and the Muslims no longer find themselves in their own capital but as foreigners, then the question of building mosques would be resolved in these realities. By the way, this would not mean that there could be no mosques at all — there are mosques in places like New York, Berlin, Paris, London, etc., where Muslims are classic immigrants (apart from local converts).
But in these conditions, it would really be appropriate to discuss whether Muslims need large mosques or whether Islamic centers are enough for them, whether they need mosques with minarets or whether they should be more modest, whether the call to prayer should be made loudly or whether it should be confined to the walls of mosques. All these discussions are indeed relevant — in Amsterdam, Los Angeles, Cologne, Bordeaux, etc., where Muslims live mainly as immigrants.
But in the capital of their own country, they should have as many mosques as they need — full-fledged ones with minarets, with the possibility of calling for prayer from them, just as Orthodox churches call for prayer with bells ringing. And they should fight for this until they are officially confirmed — no, this is no longer a state of your people (now they have their own) or no, this is now a pure Orthodox city, not its capital (now it has another capital).