Russia and the West-Salafi Alliance: What Is to Be Done?

It seems that the West has collectively found an ally in the representatives of Salafi Islam, particularly in the Middle East.

This might seem an impossible combination. At first glance, it would appear that the West, with its secularist and notoriously pro-human-rights rhetoric, has nothing in common with those who support the Muslim world’s return to the ideals and practices of Mohammed’s community in Medina. The West at present denies religion’s influence on society and proposes secularity, while the Salafis cast away anything that lies outside the realm of religion; the West calls for tolerance, while the Salafis are openly intolerant; the West demands equality, while the Salafis insist upon the inequality of Muslims and non-Muslims, men and women, etc.; the West at least claims to reject violence, while the Salafis welcome violence, taking it as the cornerstone of their worldview.

But not everything is so simple.

It is easily observed that the followers of radical Islam have been scrupulously gaining ground throughout the Muslim world. We see this as established regimes fall, whether those of a distinctly secular, quasi-European nature, such as Egypt, or ones which employ secularism hidden under a religious facade, such as Libya, and their uppermost positions are rapidly overrun by followers of the Salafi model — those Muslim brothers. We see this in the triumph, within Sunni Islam, of the idea of cleansing all modern rituals and customs. African Islam takes an utterly intolerant attitude; indeed, entire peoples have parted with their traditional modes of worship, modes which have been developed over hundreds of years. Furthermore, this comes at the cost of searching for a model of peaceful coexistence with non-Muslim neighbors, and moreover at the cost of attempting to introduce national elements of non-Arab nations into the Muslim religion. All of this is accompanied by deteriorating relations between Muslims and non-Muslims, or, to put it simply, by a surge in terrorist activity in Nigeria, Kenya, Sudan and other countries. And why are we all hung up on Africa? In Russia, in the North Caucuses and Volga regions, there are unending struggles between adherents to classical regional versions of Islam and supporters of the Salafi movement who come from the Arab nations of the Gulf. We cannot ignore the fact that the Muslim world has become the source of colossal destabilization and has become a new type of “sick world” — to paraphrase Nicholas I, who dubbed the Ottoman Empire “The sick man of Europe.” And denial is pointless; only a blind fool would deny the truth of this.

The sad thing is that in today’s world, which has become so heavily interconnected, almost everyone feels the weight of Muslim issues. Of course, it would make sense to expect that the Western collective, after its victory over communism, would next set upon defending humanity from the threats posed by the Islamic world, which are no laughing matter.

But what do we see? We see that the secular regimes of the Islamic world, those regimes which repeatedly demonstrated their loyalty to Europe and America, are collapsing and no one is coming to their aid. We see statements by those in power in America suggesting that the West is attempting to “build bridges” with radical Muslims.

The events in Syria demonstrate that there exists between the West and the radical Islamists a close and mutually beneficial cooperation. How is this cooperation important and beneficial for the supporters of “pure Islam”? Well, obviously, there is the overthrowing of the non-Sunni elite. Furthermore, of course, there is the cleansing of non-Islamic elements from Syria, in order to create the conditions necessary to connect the Syrian territories with the block of Gulf nations, which are clearly playing the skeleton role of this projected Arab-Islamic superpower.

But what does the West get out of this? Well, obviously, the West was pleased with the expulsion of the Russian bases from Tartus, Syria, but this was clearly not a goal of great magnitude, as it did not require great pains to acquire that base. The overthrowing of Assad, who allegedly poses a threat to Israel and Europe? That is laughable, considering that the threat posed by Damascus, where all forces are taken up in insurgency, is practically negligible.

Evidently, the West is only interested in the establishment of an alliance with the Salafis. Throw them Syria, so that they will feel that the alliance is useful. The West, with its immense pragmatism, saw a great power — one, I might add, that is both blind and tightly controlled, and which the West can tame, channel and use for its own aims.

And what sort of aims might these be? Well, it goes without saying — they are the nations with substantial Muslim communities that are not part of the West. That is, Russia, China and India.

For now, the biggest problem facing Russia is the permanent rebellion in the Northern Caucuses, which has passed into the stage of guerilla terrorism and is fueled by Arabian oil, as has already been written about many times. As for China, their problems with the Muslim regions of the northwest have long surpassed those with Tibet. When it comes to India, there is the government, which is slowly but steadily developing and is frankly very vulnerable in relation to the Islamic factor. Sooner or later, the colossi like India and China, and to no less an extent Russia, which are rich in natural resources, will begin to overtake the Western nations, and the detachment and hegemony of the latter will begin to be called into question.

Is this “friendship” with the zealots just being used to establish a battering ram in advance against the great nations of Asia? Are there not notions among those who truly control the West, that “since the Caliphate is inevitable, we might as well use it to our advantage”? And must an entire block of countries and peoples fall victim to this idea?

In fact, Salafi thinking leads inevitably to war, destabilization, conflict and the collapse of anything that could lead to a civil consensus. In Syria, at any rate, this is certainly the case. Recent events say it all. What can we expect? First, a band of Salafis will burst into some little town and take control of it. Next the so-called world media, having apparently just printed the news, which all came in sync, will immediately begin to trumpet the “humanitarian catastrophe,” “mass executions,” etc. Then this “hotbed of freedom,” in following with logical process, will be declared “untouchable” and will find itself under the protection of NATO, the EU, the U.S., etc. In the next stage, this new Benghazi will be pumped full of arms; all sorts of bearded Arabs from various places, such as Yemen, will begin to gather there as it becomes impossible for the authorities to actively sanitize this hotbed, and then it will become the origin of an offensive on the cities of Syria. The Wahhabi Democrats will start fighting with the Alawites, and the Christians along with them, while the world looks with favor upon yet another triumph of the right of the strong.

What should Russia do in such a situation? Certainly, the challenges of the modern era deserve to be given priority. It would be good if countries such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Pakistan were unable to actively establish their agents among Russia’s Muslim population, which is the issue confronting our nation’s security agencies. In the Northern Caucuses, it is imperative that we support the so-called “tariqas,” the traditional Muslims of the Sufi persuasion. Our strongest tool against the depersonalizing “Arabizing” psychology of Salafism lies in the development of all things national: national languages, national lifestyles and elements of Islam. And certainly, no effort should be spared in helping moderate Tatars in their practice of Islam, as they are exposed to never ending attacks.

When we say that Tatar Islam is tolerant and moderate, however, we nonetheless understand that this was not always the case. When Tatar Mullahs were educated in regions outside of Russian control, such as Khiva or Bukhara, there was room for the existence of radicalism in the Volga. This was the case until Catherine the Great ordered the establishment of an Islamic Spiritual Department in Ufa, along with several madrasahs in Orenburg, so that Tartars could receive a spiritual education without leaving the country, and without falling under the control of anti-Russian forces in the East.

However problematic it may be, it is necessary to suspend the practice of receiving Islamic education in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt and Afghanistan. It is imperative that we stringently ensure immigrants from Arab and Islamic countries do not distribute Salafi propaganda in Russia, do not open underground mosques and that all those found in such mosques are expelled without right of return. It is further necessary to take control of all processes of conversion to Islam within the Russian population, considering the fact that many potential insurgents and explosive types are neophytes, people who come to Islam not in search of spirituality, but because of its a priori inclination toward radicalism.

It is unacceptable for Islamic holidays celebrated in Russian cities to become specific and often atrocious demonstrations, complete with public sacrifices. An unequivocal understanding is imperative — Russian local laws are above people’s customs, unregulated though they may be, simply because Russia, while home to a number of Muslims, is not in fact an Islamic nation.

This is the first thing that comes to mind. And of course, when it comes to all those who articulate ideas of radical Islam in the media — or anything close to radicalism — I’m sorry, but their voices must be silenced with a strong hand, because their words spill blood. And there is no room left for cowardice, or pretending that nothing dangerous can happen.

Most importantly, it is imperative that we combat the raw paralyzing fear that we all feel at the words “Islamic radicalism” and “Wahhabism.” For fear often leads to irrational decisions; it harms, leads to Islamophobia, and it is that which these gentlemen strive to achieve.