Paul
Goble
Staunton, February 18 – Rafael Khakimov,
advisor to former Tatarstan President Mintimir Shaymiyev and one of the most
prominent and academically distinguished advocates in the Russian Federation of
a liberal and Europeanized Islam has been attacked for taking money from
Western sources by someone who has gained prominence for attacking Islamic extremism.
On the one hand, this represents yet
another way in which the Russian law requiring anyone who receives money from
abroad to declare himself an “agent” is playing out, with individuals of all
sorts -- and especially those inclined to view opponents as objectionable
sectarians -- using it to discredit their opponents or exclude them from public
life.
But on the other, this case is more
disturbing because it suggests that at least some Russian officials and
analysts are ready to recapitulate what the Soviets did in the 1920s when they
attacked Muslim modernists sometimes even more than they did reactionaries in
order to reduce the attraction of Islam as such.
That 1920s approach did geld the
Islamic community in the Russian Federation because it cut the umma off from
the modernist trends that had emerged in Tatarstan before 1917 and were
attracting the young, but it had the effect of depriving the Muslims of the
post-Soviet states of the kind of knowledge that could have immunized them
against the extremists.
Consequently, those, be they
researchers or government officials, who think they are fighting extremism by
attacking modernist Muslims are likely to discover that it is they and not those
they are criticizing who are laying the groundwork for a new growth of Islamist
extremism in the future.
The specifics of this case are
suggestive. On Friday, the Regnum.ru
news agency published an article by Rais Suleymanov, the head of Kazan’s Volga
Center of Regional and Ethno-Religious Research which is part of the Russian
Institute of Strategic Studies (www.regnum.ru/news/fd-volga/tatarstan/1625495.html).
Over the last year, both in articles
posted on his own institution’s web page and in other places, Suleymanov has attracted
attention by his argument that Tatarstan and the Middle Volga more generally
are going the way of the North Caucasus, with Islamists growing in strength and
often enjoying at least some support from the republic governments.
But in his Friday comment,
Suleymanov focuses on Khakimov, a scholar who heads the Kazan Institute of
History and a prominent advocate not of extremist Islamist groups but rather of
the revival of Jadidist or liberal Tatar Islam. Indeed, for works like “Where
is Our Mecca?” which advocate hat, Khakimov has been sharply criticized by many
other Muslims.
Suleymanov begins his article by
calling attention to a recent interview Khakimov gave to the Tatar-Bashkir
Service of Radio Liberty. In it, the Kazan scholar was asked for his views on
who is behind the “incitement” of ethnic Russians in his Middle Volga republic,
a question Suleymanov says “was not asked by chance.”
Discussing the problems of the
Russian community in Tatarstan in this way has been a hallmark of Tatar
nationalists, Suleymanov says, because in this way, they “now explain the
growing anger of [ethnic] Russian and the Russian-language society which is
leading to protests against ethnic discrimination in the republic.”
Like many other Tatars, the writer continues,
Khakimov suggests that several Tatar oligarchs, interested in protecting their
property and angry at the government in Kazan, have provided subsidies to the
leaders of various Russian groups allowing them to operate without the need for
any personal sacrifices.
Such “a thesis” is “not new,”
Suleymanov says; one often hears “this accusation” from Tatars. But he continues, it is “quite strange” to
hear it from “someone who himself regularly receives grants” from abroad, including
the American MacArthur Foundation, which provided his Center for Federalism and
Public Policy several hundred thousand dollars in the past.
Given that, Suleymanov says, one is
compelled to ask “who is working for whom in Tatarstan.”
Is it “the theoretician of Tatarstan
sovereignty and the ideologue of national separatism whose views are
propagandized among the Tatars by an American radio station”? Or is it the republic’s
Russian community whose organization … on an invented pretext was excluded from
the Assembly of the Peoples of Tatarstan”?
The question “answers itself,”
Suleymanov says, but the issues his attack raises are far larger and more
important than he appears to suspect.
No comments:
Post a Comment