Why are Muslims of Russia not obliged to be loyal to its regime
Not so long ago, we wrote about the course of the brainwashing of the students and teachers planned in the Kazan Russian Islamic Institute, entitled Formation of the All -Russian Civil identity of the Muslims of Russia.
One of the readers of the Voice of Islam visited this course and decided to share his impressions and thoughts in connection with him. We give his story completely.
“I was not too lazy, I listened. The main idea is that Russian Muslims should integrate into the Russian nation. It is clear that states are formed on a national basis and that Muslims can live also in not a Muslim state, being its citizens. Indeed, there is a basis in Sharia that it is impossible to raise a rebellion while Muslims are allowed in non-Muslim countries to fulfill 5 Sharia goals: protection of religion, protection of life, health, honor, property. And it was shown that Russian legislation does not contradict Sharia that Muslims can calmly fulfill their religious duties. All this comes down to loyalty to any ruler.
Another point, what kind of nation is being built in Russia? Polosin (Ali Vyacheslav Polosin, a former priest of the Russian Orthodox Church, a Russian Muslim scientist who converted to Islam in 1999 – the Free Idel-Ural) says, if you do not want to become a Russian nation, no one forbids you to leave and receive citizenship of another country. Sharia does not prohibit this, but, from the point of view of Sharia, you should take into account that you lose all Sharia rights in relation to this territory, including the right to inherit. They gave examples of betrayal in the sense that during the war it was impossible to take the enemy side by Sharia, in general, all relevant topics.
That is, if you are a Russian, then in any case you automatically support the war, in order not to support it, you should not have Russian citizenship. It turns out that if you want to act on the side of Ukraine, you should have Ukrainian citizenship.
I don’t understand this: when you do not feel part of such a civil identity, they tell you – get out, a Muslim cannot support a rebellion against his ruler, and moreover have the right to self-determination and separation of territories, and the same Muslims who are against interference in the internal affairs of the state support the intervention of their country in the affairs of another state. Let those who do not feel civil identity with the Ukrainian nation say that they go away to Russia and become Russians and leave alone the territories of Ukraine. Why does not the Russian Muslim have a question that the support of Russia’s aggression is the harams on the same arguments that they give at lectures on civil identity in favor of the construction of the Russian nation?”
The Voice of Islam added on its behalf that Polosin, the author and delivering this course, is trying to manipulate formal categories of citizenship as an agreement obliging only a citizen. However, he is silent that in each case, this contract has the conditions formulated in the law of a particular state.
For example, Saudi Arabia is an unlimited monarchy, and therefore it can be said that getting the right to live in it (no one will give citizenship to a foreigner anyway), you agree with this, and if you don’t like it, then go to another country.
Well, but Russia’s basic law (constitution) is completely different. It reads in the first chapter that it is a legal, democratic and federal state, for which man, his rights and freedoms are the main value. And in the second chapter, all these rights and freedoms are described in great details. Including freedom of speech, the right to rallies, the creation of parties, independent media, religious call, etc.
And now let everyone make an experiment – read these two chapters and say what of them, the authorities fulfill for their part, and what they do not. Yes, because this is what Polosin is silent about – unlike countries such as Saudi Arabia, in countries that have proclaimed themselves democratic, the law obliges not only a citizen, but also power. And if the authorities roughly violate their obligations and the rights of a citizen, then his duties on loyalty to the authorities are removed from the citizen. Regardless of his religion, since the law of such a country does not distinguish citizens according to this principle.
Therefore, as in the space of the Islamic world, if the ruler rejected Sharia and plants the kufr, the collective duty of Muslims becomes to eliminate him (with all the conditions that we are not talking about now), so in the democratic space to which Russia attributed itself by the adoption of such a constitution, violating by the ruler of the foundations of the state constitutional system and the rights of citizens gives them a generally accepted right to uprising.
Therefore, the whole ideology of the “all-Russian civil identity of the Muslims of Russia”, promoted by Polosin, does not worth the paper on which it was written (although it was paid by not small Kremlin grants), even not from the point of view of Islam, but from the point of view of substitution of the concept of citizenship by it, alleged by the Russian constitution. Moreover, it is important to emphasize that he knows this very well as a person who at once defended the principles of the Russian constitution, when it was still possible, and opposed the curtailing of its foundations, planting state ideology, exaltation of the Russian Orthodox Church over other religions, cancellation of federalism, the introduction of national-religious chauvinism (“Russian world”), etc. But when all this had already happened and he faced a choice: to go to the opposition to all this (at least silent) or to go to the service of this regime, he chose the second. And now he postures himself as a loyal citizen, although a real citizen should fight for the restoration of the country’s constitutional foundations against the power that had trampled them.
Another Polosin’s manipulation (intentional, since he understands this perfectly) is that he puts Russian Muslims in the position of some immigrants who come to a foreign country and get citizenship. Although for the most part they were not just born in it, but they were born on their lands captured by it.
And here another question arises, which Polosin carefully bypasses.
In fact, at the basis, according to Sharia, if the Muslim lands are captured by a non-Muslim country, then the Muslims who have not committed Hijra from them are obliged to free them.
And theoretically, an alternative to this can be only one, which returns us to the previous. If, as the Russian constitution says about this, it was not the capture of Muslim lands by Russia, but their voluntary participation in the Russian Federation on the basis of self-determination of peoples, then we could talk about something.
But Polosin knows very well that there is nothing like this, because federalism is trampled in Russia, the right of nations to self-determination is denied, the presidents of the republics and the constitutional courts are abolished, Moscow governors are appointed as their heads, etc. That means the reality of the capture and occupation of Muslim lands and not their voluntary participation in the Federation.
Thus, neither from the point of view of the constitutional foundations of Russia itself, violated by its authority, nor from the point of view of residents and immigrants from Muslim lands, captured and occupied by it (due to the denial of its own principle of federalism) there can be no speech about any obligations of the loyalty of the Russian Muslims to its regime.
