The call by the Muslim community in Dagestan to close nightclubs in the republic has predictably provoked another hysteria among Islamophobes. Dmitriy Glukhovskiy, a Russian writer and graduate of Jerusalem University, made a significant statement on the radio station «Echo of Moscow» (to paraphrase Stalin, one could say that this radio station has no other Russian writers for us). «Well, listen, first of all, the implementation of national moral norms and criminal law on the territory of the Russian Federation leads to the disintegration of the Russian Federation. That’s it. If something is allowed in Moscow, it should be allowed everywhere. Right? In Yakutia, Dagestan, Kabardino-Balkaria, Khakassia. Well, not to mention all our other ambiguous regions. And, well, actually, if anything, it’s a step towards Saudi Arabia. I mean, at the moment when a nightclub is called a den of depravity, alcoholism, and corrupting the youth, it is absolutely obvious that we have heard this rhetoric many times in the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and so on,» protested the Russian writer from the University of Jerusalem.
In fact, one must understand that the entire «cohesion» of the Russian regime is absolutely hypocritical and does not correspond to the way of life and value system of its own ruling class — this collection of alcoholics, drug addicts, debauchees, sodomites and simply degenerates. And in any case, even the small part of this class that takes its «cohesion» seriously, of course, does not adopt Islamic norms with a complete ban on alcohol, extramarital relations, etc., which they consider «medieval,» but rather a certain «orthodox glamour» with ostentatious fasting and church attendance, which does not interfere with their normal way of life.
However, it is pointless to argue with the militant statists and liberal fundamentalists who insist on the principle of «one country — one law» (which is hypocritical, first of all, because there are no laws in Russia), because they either present Muslims with facts or Muslims present them with facts. But there is a certain category of people whose arguments should be answered. We are talking about nationalist-democrats who speak in the name of Muslim peoples and advocate distancing themselves from the existing system in Russia in order to build their own independent, modern, successful states. These people also oppose similar initiatives of the Muslim community and present their objections, the most important of which we will consider below.
1. Prohibitive initiatives of the Muslim community limit the space for civil liberties, without which a modern civil society and state are impossible.
However, the existence of nightclubs, saunas, etc. has not prevented the destruction of independent journalists, politicians, religious figures and human rights defenders in the last two decades. On the contrary, as their number decreased, the number of nightclubs and saunas increased, and based on the above, there are reasons to believe that this trend will continue (that is why the «Dagestani» authorities have already rejected the initiative of the Muslim community).
Moreover, the regular visitors of night clubs and saunas are not known for their struggle for real civil rights and freedoms. On the contrary, «religious activists» were usually in the forefront of the struggle in Dagestan, against whom the repressive system directed its main forces, while rare exceptions in the form of some exotic feminists (usually outsiders) were and are considered by this system as harmless curiosities. Not only harmless, but quite useful for the colonial administration in creating a favorable image of the fighters for civil liberties as bearers of values alien to Caucasians and Muslims. This, however, does not correspond to the true state of affairs, as religious circles were the real fighters for civil rights and independent institutions in Dagestan.
2. In a society where freedom is absent, tyranny, personality cult, sycophancy to authorities, etc., will inevitably prevail, so by taking the path of prohibitions, Muslims contribute to this.
In many totalitarian communist countries the sale of alcohol and discos were allowed, while in Finland there is still the «dry law». Can we say that the first group of countries has more civil liberties than the second? Or that in Karimov’s Uzbekistan, with its nightclubs, there are more civil liberties than in Malaysia, where they are either banned or restricted?
The reality is that even in the West, the core institutions of modern democracy and the rule of law have emerged in fairly conservative societies. Moreover, as in the situation described in Dagestan, the struggle for these institutions was often led by religious Protestant movements, which understood freedom not as nightclubs, but as freedom of assembly, association, the press, protection of private property, possession and carrying of arms, and so on. The freedom associated today with gay parades, feminists, etc. is a relatively recent phenomenon, even for the West, associated with the postwar cultural and sexual revolutions. That is, democracies existed before in sufficiently conservative societies where divorce, abortion, homosexuality, etc. were forbidden. Moreover, it can be said that the imposition of these values on the majority in the West today leads to the growth of populist forces that capitalize on the rejection of these Sodomite values by ordinary people.
So, is it worthwhile for the Muslim peoples of the post-Soviet space, who are at the very beginning of the struggle for civil society and the rule of law, not having achieved the results that conservative Christian societies have had for generations, to immediately strive to jump to the state they are in today?
3. A public space dominated by religious restrictions is incompatible with the development of tourism, without which the Caucasus and Dagestan will continue to depend on the Kremlin’s handouts.
Frankly, it is quite strange to read that the development of tourism in modern Russia will contribute to the independence of the Caucasus from the Kremlin, since any «development» in the Caucasus today takes place under the control of the Kremlin. And since the local leader Abdulatipov was replaced by the Russian general governor Vasilyev and his team of Russian «Varangians», it is unclear what independence can be discussed in Dagestan — all strategic spheres are under federal control.
Nevertheless, speaking of tourism development, it is important to understand that coastal tourism and mountain tourism (although the Caucasus as a whole and Dagestan in particular are heterogeneous in terms of landscape) develop according to different principles.
Relaxed lifestyle, parties, etc. are the main characteristics of coastal tourism, but even here everything is not so simple — today the halal tourism market is booming, and if we want to attract tourists, it is unclear why we necessarily need to gather enthusiasts of alcohol and debauchery from all over Russia and the world, rather than Muslim tourists, who have much more money, and in hard currency at that. Especially considering the example of neighboring Azerbaijan, which is experiencing a boom in Arab tourism. So wouldn’t it be better to target a culturally similar clientele from the start, rather than trying to compete in debauchery and drunkenness with resorts in Sochi, Tuapse, Anapa and Crimea?
As for mountain tourism, nightclubs are usually not a priority for those who choose it — they go specifically for nature, and the absence of nightclubs in cities is unlikely to stop them if there is a normal infrastructure and services. Besides, tourists can get what they need on the hotel premises if necessary — there is no need to bring this filth into cities where locals live.
In general, it must be said that the distancing of the Caucasus from Russia will be facilitated not by the development of normal tourism, which leads to the elimination of differences in the lifestyles of tourists and the local population, but rather by the «Islamization», even if symbolic, which everyone fears, from the existing authorities to the opposition liberalists. By the way, Habib Nurmagomedov, who supported the initiative of the Muslim community, is once again being harassed these days, including by pro-Kremlin bloggers and Telegram channels. As we can see, even a meeting with Putin did not protect him from this, which was clearly forced for the latter.
And this shows who in Russia is perceived as a truly anti-system element — simply by the fact of their allegiance to their system of values, independent of both the Kremlin and «Echo of Moscow».