Caucasus becomes a new hotbed of extremism
By Dmitry Shlapentokh
Increasingly extremist forms of jihadism are apparently not limited to the
Middle East but are spreading globally. The jihadist trend in the Chechen
resistance has become a concern not just for Russians but for the United
States, as indicated by the invitation of several muftis from the North
Caucasus for an official visit to the US.
North Caucasus extremism as part of a global jihadist network can provide a
common interest between the US and Russia, despite the increasing chill in
Russian-US relations. In fact, it can
provide common ground for cooperation among most of the countries of Middle
East, which are seen as mortal enemies by increasingly radicalized jihadis.
The split between jihadis and nationalists and the continuous radicalization of
the jihadis can be traced to the first Chechen war (1994-96) during the late
Boris Yeltsin's tenure as president of Russia. It has become sharper recently,
as seen on North Caucasian, mostly Chechen, Internet sites, especially some
views on the Taliban state, recently praised by North Caucasian jihadis.
For some North Caucasus radicals the Taliban were not radical enough. One
author noted that, despite formidable forces, the Taliban regime collapsed
easily under US attack. The debacle was because they did not separate
themselves completely from non-Islamic practices and ideas. The author wrote
under an assumed name on a website sympathetic to the Chechen resistance. [1]
The problem, in his view, is that the Taliban made the crucial mistake of
forgetting that the institution of democracy has nothing to do with Islam, and
created a society along democratic lines. They also attempted to play according
to international rules and be recognized by the international community;
indeed, they were recognized by some states.
This attempt to integrate themselves in the global order of the non-Islamic
world - kufr - led the Taliban to hobnob with regimes that, while
claiming to be Muslim, were actually quite foreign to Islam.
These mistakes/blunders would have been avoided by those who truly follow the
Islamic path. They would reject democracy or any political arrangement that
does not stem directly from the Koran, which implies that one-man rule should
be the organizational principle.
Departing from a kufr organizational framework should go along with a
resolute struggle against any regime that is actually a traitor to Islam,
despite external Muslim trappings. These regimes/people are to be treated with
the most decisive actions, for they are even more dangerous to the cause of
Islam than openly anti-Islamic regimes.
The author of the article appeals to the authority of Sheikh Al Islam Ibn
Taymiyyah, who is one of the most quoted authorities for present-day Islamists.
Taymiyyah was a savant who lived in the 13th century, at the time of the Mongol
conquest of the Middle East. By the time the Mongols engaged in their conquest,
they had become Muslims.
Those who engaged in war with these Islamicized Mongols were perplexed at
Muslims killing other Muslims. Taymiyyah solved the problem by stating that
those who, while formally Muslim, did not follow the doctrines of the Koran and
attacked other Muslims were even more the enemies of Islam than openly
non-Islamic people.
Muslims could deal with those who were openly non-Muslims, conclude treaties
with them, and free them if they became prisoners of war. But with false
Muslims there should be no compromise: they should be totally exterminated,
including the old and women.
The author of the article regarded Taymiyyah's philosophy as the guide to
dealing with fake Muslims, and elaborated on what seem to be the artificial
problems and doubts of some Islamic fighters in the Arab states of the Persian
Gulf, such as Kuwait. These fighters, anxious to sacrifice themselves for the
cause of Islam, wanted to go to Iraq, where they could fight for the Islamic
cause. When asked why they could not engage in this sort of fight in the Gulf
states, they usually responded that it could create problems for Gulf Muslim
society and implicitly the elite.
The author is perplexed by these problems and doubts. The regimes in the Gulf
states, and implicitly the Saudis, are disgusting and openly anti-Islamic. They
should be attacked without any doubt. In fact, Islamic fighters should use all
available means, including nuclear weapons if available, to attack these false,
pseudo-Islamic regimes. The same principles should be applied to President
Ramzan Kadyrov's regime in Chechnya, which despite its Islamic trappings is
just a Russian puppet.
The increasing radicalization of jihadis in Chechnya has clear implications for
US policy toward Islamic extremists. It demonstrates not just the continuing
spread and radicalization of Islamism but the possible transformation of North
Caucasus into a hotbed of Islamic extremists, similar in some ways to tribal
areas in Pakistan, which could be not just anti-Russian but also anti-American,
even hostile to Muslim states.
This concern possibly explains the US State Department invitation (some suggest
it was President George W Bush's personal invitation) to several muftis from
the Russian North Caucasus to visit the United States, possibly to create a
positive view of the country in the local Muslim community. The danger seems
also to offer a basis for cooperation with any state with similar problems,
including Iran.
Dmitry Shlapentokh, PhD, is associate professor of history, College of
Liberal Arts and Sciences, Indiana University South Bend. He is author of
East Against West: The First Encounter - The Life of Themistocles (2005).
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
