Dan Darling does our homework for us in an information-packed post on Chechnya. Any in the mainstream media reading this owe it to themselves to follow this link. I have never encountered anything on the subject in any of our newspapers so extensive and useful. Did you know most Chechens were Sufis (I didn’t) who were now being overwhelmed by Wahhabis? There’s plenty more.
UPDATE: Bravo to James too for his Labor Day Bleat. But as terrific a literary craftsman as he is, isn’t it sad he still has to write things like this?
Dan Darling accurately points out that Russia is not fighting a national liberation movement. No, Putinís government (and the rest of us) is confronted by Islamic nihilists who will settle for nothing less than world domination. We are deceiving ourselves when entertaining the notion that our enemiesí goals are limited. The Muslim radicals instead believe that the whole planet should be under their control. That is why compromise is impossible. They are not seeking a win/win solution. On the contrary, we are truly involved in a zero sum, all or nothing, predicament.
Thanks for the praise, Roger.
And if you’re interested in more on the subject,, I very recommend this link which is a general backgrounder on Wahhabi activity in the former Soviet republics put out by a Sufi Muslim organization.
For instance:
“Chechens are moderate Muslims who want to follow the Islamic legal standards in rules of worship and civil society, but who see no reason to impose such law on anyone else. When the first war for Chechen independence took place, it was not so much religiously motivated as it was supported by religious enthusiasm.
What took place during the latter phase of the war and after the peace treaty with Russia resulted in today’s disastrous situation in Chechnya. Radical foreign Islamists were attracted to participate in the Chechen war for several reasons:
1) It was a chance to learn the art of war from those who know it well.
2) It developed unbreakable ties of camaraderie with Chechnya’s military leaders.
3) It created a safe haven to train and recruit.
4) It established an independent military base where no government could interfere with it.
5) It provided the ability to implement money-making operations at will, including kidnapping for profit, racketeering, money-laundering and drug trafficking.
The above goals were realized in Chechnya in a very short time. Using Shamil Basayev as their “kingpin,” the Wahhabis were able to establish an independent militant movement operating outside all laws and restrictions.
The Wahhabis poured finances and arms into Basayev’s militia, creating a fullscale army in Chechnya. Their intent on expansion was clearly demonstrated by the insurgency into Daghestan in August 1999. The primary objective is to create an “Islamic” state, with the expectation that eventually it would stretch from Afghanistan to North Africa, and from Turkey south to Yemen and the Sudan.
It is alleged that Basayev seeks nothing but self-glory – no matter the cost.
Like the other Islamist movements throughout the world, inspiration comes from Wahhabi/ ìSalafiî teachers.
Because of the indulgence of the ego’s natural desire for power, their ideology rejected all forms of inner self-control and favors instead the physical and organizational pursuit of outward discipline. Thus the emphasis is purely
external, relegating purification of the self, and leaving just a shallow set of rules and restrictions. There is no balance between body and spirit that is so essential in true religion. The dogma ends up in a dry set of dos and don’ts, shouldís and should notís – something which most Westerners find abhorrent.
Chechen President Aslan Maskhadov unfortunately has had to compromise with Basayev and the Wahhabi factions he controls, to avoid internal conflict, but that does not mean Maskhadov accepts or supports their beliefs. This kind
of malignant infiltration is just what the Wahhabis have sought, imposing themselves in the midst of political matters where they normally would not be able to go. Having forced Chechnya’s president to accept their presence on
Chechen soil gives them implicit credibility by which to manipulate worldwide Muslim political opinion.
Maskhadov consistently opposed the Wahhabis, for which they tried to assassinate him three times before the current war, and once in the past three months. Maskhadov said that Chechnya may build its own version of a state founded on Islamic civil laws, but expressed confidence that the Chechens would never adopt Wahhabism, or any other extremist beliefs, pointing out
that for the Chechens “democracy is more attractive.”[RIA Novosti 8/10/98]
Since such militants historically have preferred stirring up bedlam and trouble rather than allowing a nation to develop and mature, it is likely that any military victory in the current war will quickly by replaced by internal fighting, much as what has taken place and continues presently in Afghanistan and Tajikistan.”
Roger,
You may want to append Wretchard’s two pieces at Belmont Club to this post.
Dan did a great job in his analysis at WoC (and in his comment here) my only additional thought is encompassed in the first post I linked at Belmont Club.
Beslan has become Russia’s 911 – but squared. Putin has neither the time nor the means to engage in sophisticated maneuvering or coalition building. His comments to date indicate (at least to me) that the Russian “hammer” is going to hit the Chechen “nail” so hard that it will disappear. If I were Chechen, I’d be running just as fast and as far as I could. I hope I’m wrong but history offers little solace with regard to Russian response when attacked.
Do you want to puke your guts out? If so, read what I just found on the Drudgereport:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/05/wosse705.xml
Roger:
Thanks for the link and I am so glad there are people like Dan Darling out there. He makes it easier for me to understand at least some of what is happening here. The whole thing is so awful. I honestly can not comprehend how any human being could be so cruel, much less an entire movement of them.
David:
Why doesn’t some Brit go kick that bastard’s ass?
ìDavid:
Why doesn’t some Brit go kick that bastard’s ass?î
Where have you been? The liberal British establishment would accuse you of blaming the victim. That Muslim cleric is only responding to the evils of Western imperialism. The poor guy is merely misunderstood and is not responsible for his actions. After all, the Israelis are allegedly mistreating the Palestinians. If only Tony Blair and George W. Bush were removed from office—the world would be such a nice place. Those reactionary scum bags are messing up everything.
Roger and Dan,
Thanks for all you are doing. I am doing everything I can do direct my liberal friends toward well-informed sites such as yours.
And James, I don’t know what’s wrong with people. Since when were innocents “taboo” for terrorists? So many people have a 20-second memory.
Looking back at my own recent posts, I’m struck by the fact that there are really two internal wars going on: in the Islamic world, and in the West.
asher -
There’s the opposition, then there’s the enemy.
The important thing is to recognise where the line is…and I believe many who consider themselves “opposition” are on the far side of the line.
Dan -
I don’t even want to think how many shelf-feet of books I’d have to read to have even a hazy picture of who our enemy actually is. Thank you for all your work, and I hope your summer internship was a happy and productive experience.
Roger -
Keep ‘em coming. Maybe Newsday will quote you again, eh?
The Bosnian Muslims are similar, also overrun by Wahabis. Steven Schwartz wrote a lot about this.
Roger:
Did you know most Chechens were Sufis (I didn’t) who were now being overwhelmed by Wahhabis?
Surely not. From MSN Encarta:
The Chechens have been Sunni Muslims (see Sunni Islam) since the 18th century…
and
also:
It seems that a large part of the Chechens were once Christians, but during the 16th to 19th c., they were all converted to Islam by Sunni missionaries from Dagestan and other neighboring areas. Since the 17th c., Islam has been a basis for Chechen nationalism. In the wars against Russia, Chechens found inspiration in fanatical, secretive, and mystical Sufi brotherhoods, which still exist and are perfectly suited to clan-based underground warfare against an occupying power.
More on Islam in Chechnya. From WAIS:
But the Chechens were still primarily pagans at the time the Great Caucasus War began (unlike the Dagestanis who had accepted Islam centuries before). Paganism is still practiced in some remote areas. But the war against the Russians was lead by Imam Shamil, who used Islam as a way to unite the Chechens for the struggle. By the end of the war, most Chechens had converted to Sunni Islam. It is evident today, however, that Islam still does not have deep roots in Chechnya. Many practices from paganism remain, and many of the dictates of Islam are ignored. The clan system (complete with blood feuds) is the dominant motif, and religious prejudice is practically non-existent (the clan system and blood feuds provide plenty of outlets for hatred and mayhem)
and from Amir Taheri:
A majority of Chehens, however, belong to the Malekite school of Sunni Islam and have a strong Sufi tradition that dates back to the early stages of Islamisation in the region.
So that’s the scoop. Sunni. With an accompanying Sufi tradition and Sufi undertone.
David:
I don’t care what the liberal establishment says it would seem that someone would kick his ass.
Dave:
My understanding of the Sufis is that they tend to be more mystical and less prone to overt violence. But to be truthful I am having a hard time thinking the Shia are not fanatical but the Wahhabi are the Suni are more secular or whatever. It seems to me they are blending together into a large and unhealthy mass.
TmjUtah:
The summer internship was wonderful. I only hope that the people at AEI enjoyed having me as much as I did being with.
Dave Schuler:
Being Sunni and being Sufi aren’t in of itself exclusive. Only the Wahhabis and their fellow travelers regard being a Sufi as being incompatible with being a good Sunni.
Roger:
The Islamo-Fascists have declared war, a no holds version that permits any atrocity under the banner of Allah. Yes, I know there are moderate Muslims but they have no influence and seem to show neither the will or the ability to stop their fanatic bretheren. It makes no difference which of the last two options you choose, the moderate Muslims have no place in this debate because they are irrelevent to the final solving of this problem. I wish we could rely on them to clean up this mess but I have seen nothing to show me that they can do anything to put an end to the scourge of Islamo-fascism.While the press corps of Manhattan and DC debate on whether it is right to call these thugs terrorists or seperatists, babies are being killed, hostages are having their heads slowly sawed off like goats being prepared for the slaughter, “Artists” are producing drivel that makes their bruised feelings the centerpiece of their useless tracts. The narcissism of these smoking impaired dolts would be funny if it wasn’t so pathetic.I would tell them to follow their idea to leave amerikkka but I know it would be a waste of breath. They know how great it is here and like a unemployed relative that moves in “temporarily” you know that their threats are as empty as their prose.
Dan–great post and article–Thank you for increasing my understanding–I knew it was bad; I didnt realize how bad.
Terrye: being an old cavalry man, I thought I had a wonderful grasp of anglo-saxon hypenated four letter words–please remind me NEVER to get you upset at me.
David: Islam is the face of evil–they mean to kill us all and the fact that “moderate” muslims do nothing, makes them part and parcel of the evil. What makes me puke is to hear Islam referred to as the religion of peace.
In regards to Lileks’ utterly justified flaying of Art Spiegelman:
I used to live for movies, and was very much interested in the arts overall.
However, the reaction to recent events by the vast majority of the artistic community has only served to turn me away. I can’t justify patronizing something that has been created by someone who’s so morally adrift on the issues before us. Spiegelman’s perspective is utterly sickening.
Well, hell, I guess people like us have helped to popularize our own news media sources (blogs like Roger’s, et al)… we’ll have to come up with our own visual arts, too.
At least we’ll always have Roger’s books. Roger, fer gawd’s sakes, don’t stop writing, or we’re all going back to the stereopticon.
Percy DoveTonsils ó The question you have to ask yourself is, given the “artistic community”‘s take on the world around us as we experience it, can their worldview produce meaningful, enduring art based on that take? More and more, I’m finding the answer to be no, it doesn’t.
Interesting re art.
The ‘artists’ I know are a good 90% Bush bashers. But the art itself doesn’t show it. I mean I have no way of telling the political stance of the artist by the work.
Some of it, well okay. Goth stuff. But even I enjoy doing Goth stuff for the visual effect, not for any real social or political statement. Tatoos and nose-rings are fun to play with.
And black/white and blood red can be visually stunning just to look at.
And the fantasy stuff is just plain fun. You may not care for imaginary worlds, but the fantasy stuff usually has a ‘good’ vs ‘evil’ element that doesn’t relate to Bush=evil. Comparing Bush to a fire-breathing dragon would be good for Bush. Mainly the fantasy stuff is a gorgeous not-very-well-clad babe with a sword in a temple. NBD.
I guess what I’m saying is, though many ‘artists’ are liberal/lefties, the art itself may not be. Cartooning is another genre entirely where the ‘artist’ IS trying to make a statement.