When we last wrote about how representatives of the Muslim establishment in Russia, including those who personally knew and worked with Aslambek Ezhaev, had effectively distanced themselves from him, we thought that was the end of it. But then, as they say, there was a knock from below — from representatives of the «progressive» Muslim community, whose spokesman called himself «Muslim blogger No. 1,» Rasul Tavdiryakov.
Below is the text of his article, published on IslamNews, but deleted from his social media accounts the same day due to the public reaction it generated. And then we will explain why, and comment on the article itself and what it discusses.
«The time for lone wolves is over. The arrest of a Muslim publisher. And what about us, Russian Muslims? Today we have another martyr for the faith, reptiles behind bars, and… public confusion. The public, the majority of whom had never heard of the publisher Ezhaev, is waiting for some sort of understandable explanation. After all, such events are alarming — first of all because of their vagueness. Let’s try to understand on the basis of what is publicly available.
Aslanbek Ezhaev is the founder of the publishing house «Umma», which has published a significant volume of Muslim literature in Russian. Many are familiar with «The Life of the Prophet, May Allah Bless Him and Greet Him», «Fundamentals of Faith in the Light of the Quran and Sunnah», «The Fortress of a Muslim. Prayers to Allah» and others. He managed to monetize the Muslim publishing market and turned it into a successful business venture. Umma’s books were in demand, even among neo-convert circles, because they were written in a fairly simple and sometimes provocatively careless manner that could be misinterpreted by notorious experts.
As a result, the publishing house was accused of publishing forbidden literature and financing terrorism. According to the investigation, in 2012 at the latest, Aslambek Ezhaev, who adheres to the idea of radical Islam, organized the financing of the international terrorist organization «Islamic State» (banned in the Russian Federation). From 2012 to the present, Ezhaev has repeatedly held secret meetings with his counterparts, from whom he received funds intended for the financing of the «Islamic State». He later transferred over 34 million rubles to individuals wanted in Russia for committing terrorist crimes.
Many commentators on social media note Ezhaev’s significant contribution to Islamic publishing in Russia. They even compare him to Cyril and Methodius of Orthodoxy. Well, that may be the case, but not entirely. The works published by his platform were aimed at a wide audience and did not always demonstrate the purity and accuracy of translations. Therefore, they often ended up on the list, given our deep traditions in this regard. However, this did not deter him; the banned publications were slightly edited and reappeared on the bookshelves. It seems that this was the main reason for the publisher’s misfortunes.
Here, dear brothers and sisters, it would be appropriate to draw an important lesson. First, the time of the lone warrior raven is long gone. Today we are all integrated, «embedded» in the system of social relations, and the «one against all» option is a losing one. Second, in building any systematic work (whether it is a public cause on the path of Allah or a virtuous business project), it is necessary to take into account a wide range of opinions-from law enforcement and special services to various administrations, journalists, and spiritual fathers-generals. Is it rational today to insist on one’s own exclusively correct opinion and go against everything and everyone?
We are living in interesting times. The country is full of ambiguous moods. There are different types — including agents, undesirable organizations and individuals… They can be misinterpreted and assigned to the wrong sect. Do you think that those who disagree with the enemy — as the Prophet (peace be upon him) said — will find a meeting? I repeat, I am talking about the complexity of our situation. It is inherent in us Muslims to feel persecuted, to be victims. This does not reflect well on us and does not give us the necessary strength and energy for constructive positive activities on the path of Allah. Sometimes it seems to me that some of our brothers see religion as an opportunity to engage in hooliganism in such a way that they will even receive bonuses in the hereafter. But I don’t think that’s a healthy subject. Ultimately, we have to introduce people to Allah through our own example, preferably outside the expanding framework of the criminal code. If a Muslim backs down, he must understand that a series of public trials are likely to follow, the outcome of which could be even greater harm to the Ummah.
You might say that Rasul is a loyalist. Please, if that suits you better! I don’t mind! But with such a one-sided position, one cannot go far in today’s realities. We should be more flexible, more intelligent and more communicative. Who will be afraid of a crowd that has no resources? At most, they might feel sorry for them. One of the few bloggers who covers events in the community has been labeled a «dissident in the ranks of the enemy.
So, first of all, why are we publishing this article even though the author deleted it himself? No, not to make him regret his mistake.
First of all, if the author himself admitted that he had made a mistake and reconsidered his views, it would not be appropriate to do so, according to Islamic ethics, which dictate not to expose the sins of Muslims for which they have repented. However, the author chose a completely different course of action, which we will come back to later, and it is obvious that he deleted the article along with his accounts only to escape the backlash he caused.
Second, we actually believe that in this case Rasul has become the voice of certain circles and is proclaiming certain approaches that will not disappear even after the deletion of this article due to the wave of outrage from readers. Finally, thirdly, links to the cached version of this article are circulating on social media, it is widely discussed, and it has become an event in the public life of the Muslim community that deserves to be considered. And our analysis, which we will try to present in a respectful manner, will not be the harshest reaction Rasul will face in this case.
Regarding the article itself, two aspects need to be highlighted. The first is the ethical aspect that made it highly vulnerable and provoked such a strong reaction. Specifically, accusations against a person who is behind bars, unable to comment and respond to these accusations, and who is facing not just a fine, the closure of his publishing house, or even a few years in prison, which could be considered a proportional punishment for such mistakes, but rather 20 years in prison, which in his situation could be equivalent to a life sentence. Therefore, even if we accept that he has made some mistakes, thinking and talking about his situation should focus primarily on the fact that these mistakes cannot justify the punishment he is threatened with, and that Muslims, even those who disagree with him on certain issues, should strive together to prevent this retribution.
The second aspect is what is attributed to Ezhaev’s guilt and, most importantly, what is offered to Russian Muslims as an alternative to his behavior. In short, he is accused of not wanting to coordinate his activities with the security services and of trying to circumvent their prohibitions by using the opportunities provided by the law, which ultimately led to the retribution against him. Retribution, it should be noted, by unlawful means, since he is being judged not for what he actually did, but for what he obviously did not do. The author considers integration into the existing system and compliance with its rules as an alternative to Ezhaev’s behavior.
Now let’s speculate. It is indeed acknowledged that Ezhaev was targeted because he acted according to the letter of the law, defending the rights that the law granted him. The question is, Rasul, what are these rules, and where can we familiarize ourselves with them? And what rules did Ezhaev violate, as well as many other publishers, religious and public figures who tried to carry out their activities in accordance with Russian legislation, but suffered for violating some unwritten rules? If these rules exist and are known, why not make them public so that they have a stable legal nature? If they are arbitrary, how do you propose to live by them?
Are you suggesting that we rely on the opinion of a certain major or someone higher and try to predict or find out what he thinks about our plans each time? Are you sure, Rasul, that there is only one major and that if you get approval from him for your activities, it will protect you from the displeasure of another major, colonel, or anyone else? Are you sure that you are careful enough not to incur anyone’s wrath and that no one would eventually say about you that you should not have engaged in independent activities? After all, not everything you say and write will please those who are more connected to those majors than you are. And do you think about those who, like you, tried to get approval for their activities from those you mentioned in your article, and thought they had succeeded, but later found out they hadn’t? And yet those were much more herbivorous times than now…
The essence of this problem is that Muslims are being asked to reconcile themselves with a reality in which they have to follow not only the Sharia, or even the Russian Constitution and legislation, which establish more or less clear rules of the game. In fact, the legislation of recent years has long been at odds with this constitution, but in this case they are proposing to rely not on the first or even the second, but on the sheer arbitrariness of those who «decide according to concepts» at any given moment. Although, frankly speaking, this is not even the concept of thieves, but pure lawlessness, which is offered to be accepted as a given and to be reconciled with. In essence, this is what those whose position was expressed by Rasul in this case propose, considering those who try to stand up against this lawlessness as senseless, and themselves as progressive and intelligent. However, it is quite obvious that these «opinion leaders» who think they possess knowledge and understanding of the surrounding reality, like the Jews who succeeded in Russia, are far from the truth. To understand this, it is necessary to look at the position of the Jews in Russia a century ago and why it changed dramatically in the direction that now impresses Rasul. After all, in pre-revolutionary Russia, Jews had many rights, except for a few wealthy or baptized Jews who converted to Orthodoxy. And in this respect they resemble contemporary Muslims. Their position changed thanks to thousands of Jews who saw this as unjust and joined the Russian Revolution, which overthrew the power of their oppressors and themselves, paving the way for their fellow Jewish revolutionaries to come to power. It is only because of this that they now «occupy such positions that it seems they are everywhere. Business, politics, the media — sectors that are overwhelmingly run by Jews. Accordingly, they are listened to and sometimes feared. If they had acted as Rasul and his senior comrades suggest Muslims should act, they would still be trembling at the rustling of leaves, could not leave their reservations beyond the so-called «pale of settlement,» and could not achieve success without renouncing their Judaism. The situation of pre-revolutionary Jews and contemporary Muslims is not entirely analogous, but the similarities are obvious. Every Muslim with the potential to succeed in various fields is now required to undergo a «baptism,» if not literally, then indirectly — to reconcile himself to life under arbitrariness and lawlessness, to condone it against his fellow believers, and to condemn those among them who try to resist it by defending their rights. The same Muslims who can achieve success in various fields, but still try to remain true to their principles and defend their rights, are simply marginalized, as is happening now to Ezhaev, as it happened to many others before him, and as it will continue to happen to many more after him. Oh, and there was another alternative for Jews to their rebels and revolutionaries that comes to mind in connection with Rasul’s argument — Jewish councils. This was the name given to the Jewish activists who helped the concentration camp administration maintain order among the Jewish prisoners, sometimes even saving some of them. But believe me, the Jews did not achieve their present success thanks to them.