The first thing to which I would like to draw your attention to is that in the title Russia and Islam, part four: “Islam” as a threat I put the word “Islam” in quotation marks. This is very important, as most of the issues I will be discussing today are not directly linked to Islam at all. However, in the minds of many Russians, these issues are linked to Islam and it is therefore simply impossible to analyze the topic of “Russia and Islam” without taking a long hard look at the connection which a lot of Russians make between some issues (with no direct relationship to Islam) and Islam itself.
The use of words can be very tricky in this context. Take the word “Muslim”, what does it really mean? In Bosnia, the word “Muslim” was really used to describe a “non-Orthodox and non-Catholic Bosnian” since both Croats and Serbs often were natives of Bosnia and since Bosnian-Croats, Bosnian-Serbs and Bosnian-Muslims are all of the exact same ethnic stock (hence the fallacy of speaking of “ethnic cleansing” in the Bosnian context). Later, the rather inept term “Bosniac” was coined, as opposed to “Bosnian” because to use “Muslim” or “Bosnian” just made no sense. Regardless, by fiat of some politicians, what used to be called “Muslim” became “Bosniac” overnight.
Likewise, in Ireland, the “troubles” were supposed to oppose Catholics and Protestants, but did the IRA or the Ulster Volunteers really care about the Papacy or Martin Luther? Did these denominations really play a relevant role in this conflict?
This is hardly a new issue. In the past, both the Russian Empire and the Ottoman Empire assimilated religious groups to ethnic minorities hence the Karaites in Russia were not considered as Jews while the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople was referred to by the Ottomans as “Millet-Bashi” or “ethnarc”. In modern France there is a “problem” of the Muslim immigration and its effects on the suburbs of many French cities. But taking a closer look at these (mostly Algerian) immigrants one could legitimately wonder to what degree this is an “Islamic” problem. This confusion between “Islam” (as a faith, a religion), “Muslim” (used as both a sign of religious and, often, ethnic affiliation) is as frequent in modern Russia as it is in France. Keeping all these caveats in mind, let’s look at the type of issues which makes many Russians see “Islam” (in quotation marks) as a threat.
a) Immigration and crime.
Ever since the dissolution of the former Soviet Union there as been a steady flow of immigrants from some former Soviet republics (Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, etc.) towards big Russian cities. In parallel to that, a large number of immigrants from the Caucasus (Chechens, Dagestani, etc.) also emigrated to central parts of Russia. The combination of these to migratory flow resulted in a vast increase of immigrants in every major Russia city. As is so often the case, while some of these immigrants came looking for a job, there were enough criminal elements amongst them to strongly tie the issue of immigration and crime to each other. Typically, these immigrants from the south were composed of a mix of four groups:
a) Law-abiding and hard working workers, often ruthlessly exploited and treated as quasi-slaves by their local employers.
b) Arrogant and very poorly educated young men who, while not necessarily criminals, act in highly provocative and offensive manners.
c) Petty thugs who combine an official job with petty criminal activities.
d) Hardened criminals who are deeply involved in drugs, prostitution, illegal casinos, etc.
 |
| Typical Chechen thugs |
Typically, the first group is bigger than the second which, in turn, is bigger than the third, while the fourth group is the smallest of all. And yet, that explosive combination achieves in Russia exactly the same effect as it does in France: it associates crime and immigration in the mind of many, if not most, people.
Furthermore, since most of these immigrants come from historically Muslim countries and since many of them consider themselves as Muslims, many Russians experience their first or most frequent interaction with putative “Muslims” in a criminal situation. As for the fact that in the vast majority of these cases these “Muslim thugs” know absolutely nothing about Islam is not at all apparent, in particular from a Russian point of view.
The French author and philosopher Alain Soral, who is very actively engaged in efforts to reconcile and unite all French citizens against the NWO, including Christians and Muslims, speaks of “Islamo-racaille” (“Islamo-scum”): young loud thugs, wearing “rapper-gangsta” gear, with NYC baseball-hats and who speak of Allah and Kufars while driving around in sports cars – often high or drunk – looking for somebody to rob, rape or abuse. As Soral points out – these people are not exactly the type you would see coming out of a mosque and the very same is true of Russia. Still, it is undeniable that many Russians still make the association “Islam” <-> crime.
b) Wahabism – internal
The wars in Chechnia and the Islamic terrorism in Dagestan and many other part of Russia have had a huge impact upon the Russian public opinion. The two was in Chechnia, in particular, resulted a a deep aversion for the Chechen insurgents and any other Islamic terrorist group which could be described as “Wahabi”. Initially, the combined propaganda tsunami of the Western corporate media and the Russian “liberal” media left people confused as to what was really going on, but soon the horrible events on the ground become impossible to suppress: the Chechen insurgents combined the very worst of the Wahabi extremism with the worst of Chechen thuggery. Thousands of people were summarily executed, women raped, Russian soldiers and even civilians were tortured to death, crucified, skinned alive, raped and beheaded. Hostages were kidnapped from all over southern Russia and a slave market was working each day in downtown Grozny. And all these horrors were committed by bearded man, brandishing green and black flags embroidered with suras of the Kuran, and to the constant screams of Allahu Akbar. And since the Chechen insurgents loved to use their cellphones to videotape their atrocities, a steady stream of blood-curling videos make it to the Russian TV and Internet sites. By 2000 the Russian public opinion was ripe to give no quarter to any Islamic terrorist or anybody supporting them.
To make things worse, the Chechen insurgency had the support of the vast majority of the Muslim world which, just as in Bosnia or Kosovo, automatically sided with the “Muslim” party no matter what (I call this the “My Umma – right or wrong” position). That knee-jerk support for the Muslim side, even if it is largely composed of Wahabi terrorists and criminals, put a big stain on the image of Islam in Russia and gave a lot of weight to the “conflict of civilizations” paradigm which the West and its supporters in Russia wanted to impose upon the Russian public opinion.
If under Eltsin the Russian state proved completely incapable of taking any kind of measures to deal with this situation, under Putin things changed extremely rapidly as shown by the 2nd Chechen war which basically crushed the insurgency. Subsequently, the combined efforts of a completely re-vamped Russian security establishment and the coming to power of Akhmad and, later, Ramazan Kadyrov completely changed the situation. Grozny was rebuilt in a record time, and Chechnia became of the of safest republics of the entire Caucasus (at the expense of Dagestan where the situation got worse). The cost in human lives and suffering was absolutely horrendous, both for Russians (almost all those who survived left Chechnia) and for Chechens who died in huge numbers. The main scar left by this war though is that Russia has become a society with zero tolerance for any form of Wahabism and the Russian people have fully endorsed what I call the “Putin doctrine” of dealing with Wahabis: “change your ways or expect to be annihilated”. This, by the way, applies to both individuals and ethnic groups: against a Wahabi enemy the Russian people will support the harshest possible military methods of warfare, something which a lot of Muslim communities are acutely aware of (more about that later).
 |
| Spetsnaz GRU forces with Arab prisoner |
In Chechnia itself, Ramzan Kadyrov instituted an even harsher anti-Wahabi policy than in the rest of Russia. During the 2nd Chechen war, foreign mercenaries and preachers were interrogated and then summarily executed by both Russian and Chechen forces and ever since Saudi, Yemeni or Pakistani preachers are simply barred from entering Chechnia.
Contrary to the predictions of most “experts”, the Kremlin did successfully deal with the situation in Chechnia, but one inevitable side effect of this success was that a lot of the Wahabi extremists were flushed out of Chechnia into neighboring Dagestan and even the rest of Russia. And that second problem is far from solved. While the USA and the UK have now toned down their pro-Chechen rhetoric, the Saudis are still pushing Wahabi-Islam into Russia, although in a more discrete manner.
First, they train preachers in Saudi Arabia and send them back to Russia. Then these preachers form small communities, often inside mosques, were the faithful are recruited for social and religious activities. During that phase, the candidates for the next step are carefully investigated, vetted and selected for the next phase: the establishment of weapons caches, safehouses, training grounds, and the like. Eventually, the new recruits are used to attack police stations, banks, murder traditional (anti-Wahabi) clergymen, and opposing Mafia gangs. Russian security services have observed that sequence in Dagestan, Kazan or Stavropol (regions with large Muslim minorities), but also in Saint Petersburg, a city with a very small and very traditionalist Muslim population. So far, the security services have managed to say one step ahead, but this is far from over and that kind of penetration efforts can last a very long time.
One of the crucial aspects of this dynamic is the reaction of the local, traditional, Muslim spiritual leaders. First, as I have mentioned above, no Russian Muslims want to have a “2nd Chechen war” happen in their own town or region, because they have no doubts whatsoever about the outcome of such a situation. Second, traditional Muslim spiritual leaders are themselves the first victims of the Wahabi infiltrators who often begin their “active” phase of operations by murdering the local imams. Third, Muslims in Russia are often very rapidly disillusioned with the Saudi version of Islam which declares as “un-Islamic” many customs and traditions which are at the core of the cultural identity of many Muslim groups in Russia. Fourth, for all the thugs from the Caucasus behaving in obnoxious and vulgar manners in Central Russia, the fact is that the Muslim communities these young people come from are often very conservative and peaceful and that the older generation deeply disapproves of the kind of behavior which, in their opinion, brings shame upon their people. Fifth one should not under-estimate the legacy of the Soviet period which promoted both secularism and modernism and which has left a strong mark on the local elites. These elites are both outraged and horrified when they are told by Wahabi preachers that they have to completely abandon their way of life and begin living according to medieval precepts. Finally, there is an inherent tension between any form of nationalism and the Saudi style Wahabism being imported to Russia. This tension is one of the key elements which turned the Kadyrov clan against the various Wahabi warlords in Chechnia which were viewed by the more nationalist Chechen leaders as arrogant foreigners who were enemies of the Chechen ancestral traditions. For all these reasons, there is a lot of push-back on the part of the local Muslim communities and Muslim leaders against the type of Wahabi style Islam the Saudis have been trying to export to Russia.
c) Wahabism – external
Wahabism is not only an internal threat for Russia, it is also a major external threat. According to Russian analysts, the Obama Administration has brought with itself a fundamentally new set of imperialist policies which are now being implemented. During the Bush era, the USA exercised direct control, mostly by means of military interventions, over the Middle-East and Africa. This “direct” approach is the way the Jewish Lobby and the Neocons believed that the USA should maintain its global empire. Obama represents a very different type of constituency (old “Anglo” money) which is vehemently opposed to the Neocons and which will agree to pay lip service to the Israel-firsters but, in reality, places US strategic interests far ahead of any Zionist priorities. In practical terms, this means that the Obama administration will withdraw as many US troops as possible and relinquish the direct control over contested regions, and that it will secure its domination over a country or region by means of chaos. This is a policy of indirect imperial control.
After all, why invade and occupy a country, thereby loosing US blood and money, when one can use proxies to create a situation of absolute chaos inside that country? In the best of cases, chaos leads to a Libyan-style “regime change” and in the worst case, a civil war like the one taking place in Syria. But in either case, undesirable heads of state like Gaddifi or Assad have been “de-fanged” and their countries removed from any possible anti-US alliance. As for the “good guys” of the day (say Abdullah in Jordan or Hamad in Bahrein), they are protected from the surrounding chaos at rather very limited costs.
According to Russian analysts, the Wahabi and “al-Qaeda” types are the foot soldiers of this new US imperial policy. The US simply “injects” them in any society it wants to subvert and then it sits on the sidelines without much else to do than to send in special forces to assist here and there, depending on the needs of the moment. In this situation, the CIA agent is the puppeteer and the Wahabi crazy the puppet, whether it is aware of that or not.
The big fear of Russian analysts is that this US strategy will be used to remove Assad and then that it will be used against Iran. True, Syria has a large Sunni population, whereas Iran is predominantly Shia, whom the Wahabis hate with a special seething loathing. Still, Iran does have small Kurdish, Turkmen and Balochi (Sunni) minorities which, combined with pro-Western “Gucci revolutionaries” of the upper classes can pose a real risk to the regime. And, if not, there is always the option of triggering a war between Iran and some Sunni country. Most Russians analysts believe that Iran is strong enough to resist such attempts at destabilizing it, but they remain very attentive to the situation because they agree that if Iran was to be engulfed into some form of US-sponsored chaos this would directly affect the southern regions of Russia.
Some analysts also see this US “indirect” or “control through chaos” strategy as a “win-win” for the USA even if their Wahabi proxies are defeated. They ask a simple question: what will happen if Assad convincingly wins the war in Syria? Where will the Wahabis go next? Back to Mali, which they temporarily left to avoid engaging the French? Or into Algeria, to start a civil war there? Or maybe into Kosovo or even southern France? And what if these Wahabis decided to “test the waters” in Kazakhstan?
This type of concerns brings some Russian security specialists to actually see a positive aspect to the war in Syria. Simply put – Assad is killing a lot of al-Qaeda types and every Wahabi crazy killed in Syria is one less candidate for a transfer to another holy war in another part of the world.
We now can clearly distinguish the rationale behind the Russian policy not to threaten to shut down NATO supply lines over Russia, regardless of the amount of obnoxious and hostile pronouncements and actions from the US side: the Russians want the Americans to remain in Afghanistan as long as possible to give time to Russia and its allies like Tajikistan to prepare for a Taliban regime back in power in Kabul. In the meantime, Russia is strengthening its powerful 201 Russian Military Base (ex- 201 Motor-Rifle Division) in Tadjikistan and providing technical assistance to the Tajik Border Guards.
As part of the recent reforms of the Russian Armed Fores the entire Russian military has been reorganized into four Strategic Commands, each capable of independently waging a regional defensive war independently by directly controlling practically all the military forces and resources in its area. It is interesting to note that while the Southern Strategic Command is the smallest one in size, it is by far the most combat ready. If there is anything which the 08.08.08 war with Georgia has convincingly shown, it is the lightening speed at which the 58th Army and the Black Sea Fleet were ready to go to war (and that even though it took the Kremlin quite some time to finally react). It is quite clear that following the Russian successes in Chechnia and Georgia Moscow is most definitely not letting its guard down and that it will remain ready to engage in a wide spectrum of military operations ranging from local clashes to a full-scale regional war.
d) Islam through the prism of the “clash of civilizations”
This aspect of the “Islamic threat” is fundamentally different from all the other ones as it is predicated on a thesis which is never really tested, but only proclaimed: that there is a “clash of civilizations” taking place between, roughly, “Christian Europe” on one side and the “Eastern” or “Arab” Islam on the other. Nevermind the fact that Europe has lost almost all signs of Christianity many years ago, nevermind that Islam is neither primarily “Eastern” nor primarily “Arab”, nevermind that Islam includes very different civilizations (from Morocco to Indonesia) and nevermind that no Muslim or Islamic “civilization” has attacked any Western interests since a very long time. By the way- proponents of this theory will include a theocratic and racist country such as Israel in the “Western”, if not “Christian European”, camp while ignoring the key role Muslim Turkey plays in NATO. Simply put – this view is 100% ideology, no facts are needed. And yet, there are quite a few groups in Russia which are happy to promote this worldview:
a) The Communists. In the bad old Soviet mentality, Islam is, as any other religion, an ideological enemy. If Ziuganov & Co. do not speak of “opium of the people” it is because they are afraid to antagonize their Orthodox Christian members, in particular since nowadays being “Orthodox” gives you “patriotic” credentials. But being Muslim gives you exactly *zero* credentials with the Communists. If anything, they would be inclined to see Islam and Muslims as agents for foreign interests.
b) Zionists: contrary to the popular belief, there are still plenty of Zionists in Russia, including in the media, and they never miss the opportunity to fan the flames of Islamophobia. One of their favorite tricks is to always and deliberately conflate all forms of Islam, with the deeds of any “Muslim” whether actually religious or not and draw the conclusion that “Islam is our common moral enemy”. For these people, Russia and Israel are natural allies against the common Islamic foe, and even Iran is not to be trusted. Needless to say, the Israelis go out of their way to court these circles and promote an image of “you had the Chechens, we have the Palestinians”.
c) Russian neo-Nazi racists: this is really a small group, but an extremely vocal one. These are the famous Russian skinheads who feel that they are defending the “White Race” when they beat up a Tadjk in the subway. Some of them claim to be Orthodox, though a majority like to seek their roots into some distant “pagan Russia” populated by blue eyed White warriors. These groups exist mostly on the Internet, but they sometimes gather in remote places to “train” for the “conflict to come”.
Recently a group of real Russian patriots got together and began quietly investigating these groups. It turns out that the most vocal and racist of them all usually had IP numbers in the USA, Canda and Israel. Russian security services strongly suspect that these groups are quietly supported by US and other Western intelligences services to create ethnic tensions in Russia. Unsurprisingly, since Putin came to power most leaders of these groups have landed in jail, or are hiding abroad.
d) Roman Catholics and Orthodox Ecumenists: both of these groups share a common belief: whatever “minor” differences they “might” have had in the past, Orthodox Russia belongs with the “Christian West”, if only because both are “threatened” by a “common enemy”. These people carefully avoid ever mentioning the undeniable fact that Russia has always chosen Asia over Europe or Islam over the Papacy, if only because of all the wars of conquest which were waged by the West against Russia. This group has no traction in the masses of people, but it has some following in the pro-US circles in the big cities.
Individually, these groups are not very powerful, with the notable exception of the Zionist one. And they do not officially work together. But if there are no signs of a conspiracy, there is an objective collusion between these groups when it comes to demonize Islam in all its forms, even the most moderate ones. This, in turn, means that there is a minority of the Russian population which will always view Islam as a threat, no matter what.
The good news is that these groups are counter-balanced by far more influential forces which see Islam as a potential (if not yet actual) natural ally of Russia. This will be the topic of the next installment.
The Saker
Hello
I saw your blog and am interested in your observations over the widely promoted ‘clash of civilizations’ view of the world. You provide valuable insights, and working to understand our commonalities will help much in the long run.
Now I have a question in my personal quest to better understand the teachings of eastern orthodoxy (which ive been told you adhere to): Are all the early church fathers like St. Augustine and Ambrose upheld as guides or are some only a source of doctrine for the Catholic Church?
Excellent summation of a complex topic. On the Zionist lobby, I am reminded of some comments I recently read in Mike Wallace’s “Between You and Me”, which is an autobiographical review of some of his most interesting interviews. He mentioned an interview with Moshe Dayan, in which he had asked him some questions about his time with the Irgun. Dayan was furious, but more significantly, there was a full-court press by the Zionist lobby against Wallace which, he said, went on for weeks.
Mike Wallace was born Myron Wallace, and is himself as Jewish as Hannukah.
@Jahan Shah: welcome friend!
Are all the early church fathers like St. Augustine and Ambrose upheld as guides or are some only a source of doctrine for the Catholic Church?
Well, if by Catholic Church you mean the Papacy, then you might want to pose that question to a Roman Catholic. But if by “Catholic” you refer the literal meaning “universal/counciliar”, in other words, to the Christian Orthodox Church, then I can gladly answer.
The short answer is “no”. Orthodox Christians strongly believe that only God is infallible and that all humans are sinful and can err, no matter how pious, well-intentioned or kind. We therefore do not consider any one person as a guide or source of doctrine. The *only* source of doctrine and guide that we recognize is the fullness of the Church, understood here not as an organization but, as we like to say, the “Theandric Body of Christ”, the visible equivalent of the presence of Christ in the “Mysteries” (what is called “Sacraments” in the West). How does the Church express its doctrine? In two fundamental ways:
I) Through the so-called “consensus patrum” – that upon which *ALL* the Church Fathers agree
II) Through the Church Councils, provided that the decrees of these councils are “upward compatible” with what has been taught in the past and “downward compatible” meaning that the council is not later denounced as a “robber-council” or an illegitimate council.
It is crucial to understand that unlike the Papacy which has the Pope as sole source of authority and the Protestant denominations which only have the Scripture as a source of authority, in the Christian East *every single Christian* is tasked with the defense of the purity of the faith and tradition handed over to him. In other words, in matters of doctrine a simple laymen has as much authority or right to speak up as a Bishop or even a Patriarch. *All* Orthodox Christians are considered as “guardians of the faith”.
Now, Augustine of Hippo (which most Orthodox Christians respect, but not necessarily consider a saint) and Saint Ambrose of Milan have had a great deal of influence upon the entire Christian world because of their writings. And yet, some of what they wrote, in particular some of the ideas of Augustine, are clearly outside the consensus patrum and to not have any authority simply because they were spoken by an otherwise very authoritative figure.
Orthodox Christians will strenuously object to any attempts to “localize” an attribute which we consider as solely divine (doctrinal infallibility) in any one person or even any one organization or structure. This is the main reason why for the past 2000 years even though there have been plenty of apostates and heretics, the doctrines of the Church itself have never changed, have never been “modernized” or “updated” or “adapted to the times”. We believe that the Truth exists objectively and that it is not the sum of human opinions, but something which is inherent to the nature of God and therefore immutable.
Does that adequately answer your question?
Kind regards,
The Saker
@marknesop: yup, that could still happen today in Russia, alas. The Zionist lobby is still powerful, in particular in the media. The good news is, however, that since Putin a) the Zionists lost their monopoly on the media and b) that there are some journalists and anchors who are Jewish but who are also clearly patriots of Russia, I think of journalists like Vladimir Soloviev or Alexander Gordon). Soloviev, who is even a member of the Presidium of the Russian-Jewish Congress (he might even have been the chairman for a while) has even gone on the record as saying that it is ridiculous to speak of “state anti-Semitism in Russia” when I guy like him can have his own high-profile talkshows on the main TV station of the country. As a result of these developments, the really toxic Jewish-Zionists propagandists have sort of been relegated to specific niches. Pozner still has his shown where he interviews all sorts of guests, including those who very much disagree with him, while Venediktov still runs “Ekho Moskvy” (Echo of Moscow) but which a lot of folks refer to as “Ekho Matsy” (Echo of the Matzo-bread). While the main news outlets still tend to be rather anti-Kremlin, they are at least more careful of what they say and they are done advocating the kind of hysterically pro-American propaganda they used to spew in the 1990s.
But the Zionists are still out there, and they are now doing some rather creative ideological “acrobatics”. They try to position themselves as “not pro-US but only pro-Israel”. Sure, they often get called on that kind of nonsense, but they are still at it, pushing the “you had the Chechens, we have the Palestinians” line. Still, I am confident that as long as Putin remains in power, they will continue to lose infuence.
Cheers!
More of an ethnic hostility and Islamic identity to understand the situation of Islam in Russia and the Eurasian region stocked by foreign academics, writers, historians, universities, etc that are promoting Turkey and pan-Turkic identity where most of the money like the Gulen movement is coming into the region supported by the CIA and big wigs in politics and corporate world and an anti-Stalin cult as an attack on Russian identity and sovereignty of the dangers of a strong Russian centred state.
It was no coincidence that Clinton and Obamas staff appointees are involved in Turkish lobby groups, Bosnian, Kosovo and Chechen lobby groups, East European energy policy and Azerbaijan oil.
The Circassian issue being promoted for the upcoming Sochi winter Olympics in 2014 but that is another issue for a future post.
The interesting thing is that during the first war there were Moscow based Chechen groups that fought on Russia’s side that include a group led by Basayevs former Chechen employer when he moved to work in Moscow.
I don’t really buy the Wahabbi angle only as is only used as moral justification to commit acts of terrorism and a source of funding and Saudi influence in the Caucasus or Chechens regarded as jihadists like Basayev are motivated by Wahabbi ideology.
In regards to Chechnya it is hard to really pin down as there are so many external factors and motivations and internal factors of Chechen society.
I posted this before but I think this is the best summary of the 97-99 year leading up to the 2nd Chechen war given in an interview with Ahmad Kadyrov in 2003.
http://web.archive.org/web/20090906081630/http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/7274-15.cfm
b) Is interesting because Neocons and Jewish commentators in the west are pro-Israel like The Jamestown Foundation and refuse any connection between international terrorism and Chechnya that includes total media suppression in regards to 9/11. And the pro-Chechen lobby groups in the US and UK are dominated by Neocons and aided by former KGB officers who jumped ship during the 70’s and 80’s when the USSR was collapsing.
Israeli anti-terrorism officials have been assisting Russian anti-terrorism forces since just like te Serbs during the Balkans conflict because some of these groups like Jordanian that claim ethnic Chechen ancestry are also among the Palestinian refugee population were these militant groups breed.
Basayev wrote a letter to Hamas in the early 90’s urging them to take a more militant line against Israel and offering to send 150 fighters that they declined.
Islam in its modern context at least is a natural ally of Russia?
I don’t think so.
Interesting video I just found on YouTube.
Interviews of Foreign Terrorists on the Death of their (Chechen) Commander in Syria
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3agU2a8Yis
Published on 23 Feb 2013
Abdullah the Chechyan another top Alqaeda commander killed in Syria. Filmed inside their training camp in Turkey for the first, his fellow terrorists recount how he died.
Turn on caption for my translation.
@jack:Abdullah the Chechyan another top Alqaeda commander killed in Syria. Filmed inside their training camp in Turkey for the first, his fellow terrorists recount how he died.
Yup, which just goes to prove the kind of folks Assad is fighting against and why the rest of the world owes him sincere thanks for dispatching them to where they all belong: hell.
Israel wants Sunni-Shia War
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=TPMODXAHNVE
looking at yopur statements and questions to sheikh imran hosein i can see your ignorace so blatantly. for example you quote mosques as being places spreading wahabbism. firstly mosques arent even used as islamic schools, although traditionally they were this isnt the case no more, and now a days madrassas are used instead, most muslims cant even name the imam of the mosque.
how can you even speak about what goes on inside a mosque when youve never been in one.
I doubt you know chechen muslims well enough to say how many are criminals.
im pretty dissappointed with what i came to see in the high hopes of seeing this russian alliance sheikh imran always mentions.
First of all thank you for the excellent analysis’s. The “clash of civilizations”, as you call it, is a fact that nobody can deny. Never can be proven directly that a country like the US choose the strategy to cause chaos everywhere, while this is a fact, visible to everyone. You know that I responded to your call for an explanation of the difference between moderate and belligerent Imam’s. All these appearances MUST have a deeper background. Can we prevent this “clash” further? I do not believe that. But doing nothing is also not an option!
You have it quite right, Christian countries lost the “spiritual element” of their religion a long time ago and can only think materialistically. The Muslim man makes a sharp distinction between spiritual and material. But his spiritual world is a dream world! Both “civilizations” are not aware of all this.
All religious backgrounds can never be proven directly or in a so-called scientific way, but prove their point by their consistency. Therefore, Western people must become aware of the reason why exactly in the seventh century Islam was placed into the world and as well understand the reason why the spiritual-element completely disappeared. But this is only one side. Man must know the process of development of mankind and especially his consciousness. Does he know of these aspects then gradually the pieces of the puzzle drp into place. However, this is only possible for each person separately. He (or she) must become inwardly convinced of their correctness!
It may not be the intention to drill any religion into the ground. Everything has its reason and place in this world. However, there must be understanding. EVERY religious institution has the tendency to keep knowledge of these backgrounds away, to put it mildly! The same tendency is applicable to our traditional, materialistic, sciences!
Analyzes as above are excellent and correct, but it should not end there. It’s like the doctor knowing what is wrong with the patient and then sends him home without medication. Suppose one would know HOW the Prophet Mohammad got false information; why he could not know what a “one-born” means and therefore started fantasizing everything about the Jesus himself. That is just one example at the negative side! Positive is: they should also know how Islam came to rescue mankind for the second time! The first time was to prevent the insertion in a much too early phase the “intelligence” from the University of Gondisjapur going, via Spain into Europe. Also this has to do with the progressive development of human consciousness.
And now this happens again by Islam in a barely recognizable, but terrible way! However, and for now, the greatest misery is set in Muslim countries!
Quote:
“Russian neo-Nazi racists: this is really a small group, but an extremely vocal one…
Recently a group of real Russian patriots got together and began quietly investigating these groups. It turns out that the most vocal and racist of them all usually had IP numbers in the USA, Canda and Israel. Russian security services strongly suspect that these groups are quietly supported by US and other Western intelligences services to create ethnic tensions in Russia.”
Any sources for the above claim? Because I find it to be one without evidence and one that uses anti-Americanism to blame everything bad in Russia on the U.S. How did these “patriots” get the I.P. addresses of these neo-nazis? And who many addresses are we talking about here, because 2 or 3 aren’t enough? And how do these “patriots” know these neo-nazis aren’t using VPNs or proxies to anonymize their I.P. information? And there is zero evidence that the U.S. is behind the many neo-nazi groups in Russia. The Deputy PM, Rozogin, is one such neo-nazi, to the point where his party was banned by the Moscow Duma a few years ago.
I made this comment because the above claims are repeated in your book, “Essential Saker”. Another false claim is your bolded statement in the book which claims the SBU has not caught a foreign spy in 22 years. False, because they did catch a pair of North Korean spies.
The term Bosniac is not coined overnight, it is an old term for citizens of Bosnia, it had been taken away with time. For example the Austro-Hungarian empire called all citizens of annexed/occupied Bosnia, whether they have been muslim, ortodox or catholic, with a single name “bosniak”. With time, bosnian orthodox and catholic citizens have been “croatenized” and “serbianized” with time (no one can dispute the historical tendency of Serbia and Croatia to conquer Bosnia).
Not that I care when people manipulate these facts but maybe you are interested in it, if yes this are good hints to start your research on this topic.
P.S. Why bosnian Muslims are still holding to this name, well besides Turkey we don’t have an alternative. There is a great influence of Saudi Arabia and Turkey in Bosnia but to be “turkianized” is just.
P.S 2 There have been many non Muslim individuals promoting the term Bosniak in the past, the best example is the Franciscan writer Ivan Franjo Lukic
Edited:
The term Bosniac is not coined overnight, it is an old term for citizens of Bosnia, it had been taken away with time. For example the Austro-Hungarian empire called all citizens of annexed/occupied Bosnia, whether they have been muslim, ortodox or catholic, with a single name “bosniak”. With time, bosnian orthodox and catholic citizens have been “croatenized” and “serbianized” (no one can dispute the historical tendency of Serbia and Croatia to conquer Bosnia).
Not that I care when people manipulate these facts but maybe you are interested in it, if yes this are good hints to start your research on this topic.
P.S. Why bosnian Muslims are still holding to this name, we don’t have an alternative, this is our only country and has always been, take a look at Husein Gradascevic (there is no bigger “Bosnia” on our border to identify with). There is a great influence of Saudi Arabia and Turkey in Bosnia but the majority of us to be “turkianized” or “wahabized” is just nonsense.
P.S 2 There have been many non Muslim individuals promoting the term Bosniak in the past, the best example is the Franciscan writer Ivan Franjo Lukic