IS THERE SUCH A PARTY?

Muslims all over the world have begun celebrating the holy month of Ramadan, when all true believers must fast and direct their thoughts only to Great and Merciful Allah. However, the Muslims in the Crimea cannot observe all these canons because their community is split, which has resulted in cadre replacements. On the eve of Ramadan, the Spiritual Administration of Crimean Muslims (DUMK) resolved to dismiss eight imams presiding over various Crimean mosques. The imams of the central municipal mosques in Bilohirsk, Dzhankoy, Alushta, and imams in the villages of Aromatne (Bilohirsk district), Luhanske (Dzhankoy district), Rozlyvy and Chkalove (Nyzhniohirsky district), and Sevastianivka (Bakhchysarai district) lost their posts. Why? Because they were all members of Hizb ut-Takhrir, a party that, in the opinion of the Muftiate, is spreading radical and extremist ideas among Crimean Muslims, ideas that have nothing to do with Islam. As a result of this “educational work,” according to Emirali Adzi Ablaev, Mufti of the Crimea, three imams have already quit the party and promised in writing that they will never again cooperate with Hizb ut-Takhrir, but that they will truly serve the cause of reviving Islam in the Crimea.

This firm decision of the Muftiate may be explained by the resolution handed down at the Kurultai Council of the Crimean Tatars during its meeting in September, condemning Hizb ut-Takhrir’s activities on the peninsula. Mustafa Dzhemilev, Mejlis leader, People’s Deputy of Ukraine, and Chairman of the Council of Crimean Tatar Representatives subordinated to the President of Ukraine, believes that there are 500-600 Hizb ut-Takhrir supporters in the Crimea. He takes a very dim view of this party. Addressing the Kurultai, he said that Hizb ut-Takhrir was founded in Palestine in 1953, and is on a list of terrorist organizations banned in many countries, except Israel and several European countries. “It is banned in most Muslim countries,” he added, “as a terrorist and anti-Islamic organization that has been infiltrated by agents of certain foreign special services working to discredit Islam in the eyes of the world.”

The Kurultai issued a statement explaining the emergence of the Hizb ut-Takhrir organization in the Crimea: “The appearance on Crimean territory of supporters of the Hizb ut-Takhrir organization, which is banned in practically all Muslim countries, and whose interpretation of Islam is recognized as inadmissible and heretical, proves that those who oppose the unity and integrity of the Crimean Tatar people continue to seek more refined methods, which, in their opinion, are capable not only of weakening the will of the Crimean Tatar people, who are on the road to national and spiritual revival, but also of introducing religious intolerance and distrust into the Crimean community. At the same time, it should be noted that one of the reasons behind the emergence of radical trends among people professing various confessions is often a feeling of injustice experienced by people in actual life.”

All would be well if the believers unequivocally welcomed the above resolution. However, not all the imams who were relieved of their posts — and not even all ordinary Muslims — agreed with the Muftiate’s decision. According to the newspaper Pivostriv [The Peninsula], the Alushta Muslim community forwarded a statement to the DUMK, protesting the dismissal of Imam Elvin Kadyrov of the Yukyary Dzhami Mosque in Alushta, and demanded his reinstatement. The statement, bearing 253 signatures, claims that the Muftiate’s decision contradicts the shari’ah; that imams can be appointed and dismissed only by the jemaat (i.e., the community as such): “We hereby declare that Imam Elvin Kadyrov suits us perfectly and that he has committed no indecent acts and has done nothing contrary to Islam... In the event that our demands are not met, we reserve the right to ignore your decision.”

On the other hand, politicians and parties should be judged by their deeds, not words. The Hizb ut-Takhrir has done enough to be judged. After the outbreak of the war in Iraq, its organization in the Crimea spread leaflets calling for a jihad against America and threatening those that believed otherwise. Against the background of the Mejlis’s policy of non-confrontation, such appeals are regarded as alien. The Ukrainian authorities have not made their attitude to the Hizb ut-Takhrir clear. Hennady Moskal, Chairman of the National Migration State Committee of Ukraine, said in the Crimea, “If there are radical Islamic trends in the Crimea, they [such organizations] must be denied official registration and disbanded. If there are none, it means that some people are being pitted against others.” Volodymyr Maliborsky, Chairman of the Crimean Committee for Religious Affairs, also does not agree that the Hizb ut-Takhrir should be qualified as a radical organization. He believes that they have not demonstrated their radicalism in any way, and that if one were to abide by the rule that the state must assess political trends by deeds, not by words, then the Crimean authorities have no grounds to maintain a negative attitude toward this party.

In an interview posted on the Web site Crimean Line, Ridvan and Abdusalam, leaders of the Hizb ut-Takhrir organization in the Crimea (both requested that their last names not be published), insist that their organization is not terrorist: “One of the reasons why Hizb ut-Takhrir cannot be referred to as a terrorist organization is the fact that for the past 50 years, since its inception, this party has said that it does not resort to physical acts in its activities. As for such terms as ‘radicalism’ and ‘extremism,’ the negative attitude to them is also artificial. For example, radicalism has a simple and firmly established meaning: being decisive in one’s acts and aspirations for substantial changes. Indeed, we make no secret of our being engaged in reforms, since reform envisages the preservation of the fundamentals of the current system (the system of life), and we resolutely declare that Islam can independently resolve all current and future problems, and that it does not need any borrowings. Now about extremism, meaning being inclined toward extraordinary views and measures. The question is: Why should anyone from outside determine our Muslim borders, for example, considering that we think and act within these borders—does this not mean that we are normal and not extremist? We do not need these kinds of definitions. We abide by the sole correct criterion that allows us to show the correctness of our views and actions. This is conformity to the Koran and Sunna.”

Ridvan and Abdusalam also object to the ban on their party in many countries and the threat of building the Caliphate, a worldwide Islamic state ruled by the Hizb ut-Takhrir.

“As for Hizb ut-Takhrir’s activities in Ukraine, they boil down to educational efforts, owing to the absence of the required conditions; in other words, this party conveys Islamic concepts and ideas to the [local] Muslims, helping them to study and better comprehend Islam,” they say.

Emirali Adzi Ablaev, Mufti of the Crimea, stubbornly refutes this statement, saying the Muftiate will not tolerate Hizb ut-Takhrir in the Crimea, and that imams will continue to be dismissed. The process of uncovering Hizb ut-Takhrir members in mosques and Muslim communities has just begun. Moreover, in his own words, some clergymen simply conceal their affiliation to this party, which is banned in many countries. Every issue of the Muftiate’s newspaper Hidaet will carry a list of newly dismissed imams and leaders of religious communities. The Pivostriv has already tagged the process a clean-up operation. The Mufti is convinced that Hizb ut-Takhrir’s activities are absurd as such, and that they may cause a rift in the Crimean Tatar community at large. “A party that appeared some fifty years ago wants to change Islam, a religion that has existed for fifteen hundred years, and set it on the right path!” he said in disbelief. “We say to these people, ‘Take the Koran and read it in the mosques, explain the fundamentals of our religion to the people.’ That way you will serve a good cause, helping the people and us, especially since we lack religious cadres. Do the Crimean Muslims have any problems or suffer from any restrictions? Neither the Mejlis, nor the government, nor anyone else is enforcing any restrictions. Then why build a parallel party and explain Islam to the people on its behalf? For what purpose?”

“Ramadan is a holy month for the Muslims,” notes Emirali Adzi Ablaev, “when each and everyone must tell himself: I shall say no bad things, I shall harm no one; if anyone says bad things to me, I shall remain silent, I shall say nothing in return. During this holy month we must become aware of our unity, because during Ramadan people must love, respect, and understand each other more than ever. Therefore, we will offer up most of our prayers for the Crimean Muslims and other people to become united.” This categorical statement indicates that the secular authorities should figure out what is actually happening first and make decisions afterward.

COMMENTARY

Oleksandr FORMANCHUK, Crimean political analyst:

At first glance, Hizb ut-Takhrir seems to have emerged in the Crimea accidentally and unexpectedly. In actuality, everything is much more complicated. In the first place, the emergence of such parties reflects worldwide trends having to do with international terrorism. Regrettably, the main source of terrorism is found in political forces speculating on the fundamental values of Islam. Essentially, it is a response to the challenges of globalization. The latter is accompanied by stronger intercultural penetration and more active interrelationships of world religions. Under the circumstances, the process of modernizing the basic values of world religions is inevitable. Naturally, this causes delimitation in the religious realm. Some religious leaders feel even more inspired to protect the fundamentals of their faith from modernization. I believe that Hizb ut-Takhrir is a mirror reflection of these trends. Its name translates as Liberation Party. The first question that comes to mind in connection with this party is from whom does this party want to liberate its supporters. The answer to this question is perfectly clear for countries with established Islamic traditions. And this answer totally changes with regard to countries where Islam is in the process of being revived. This is particularly true of post-Soviet countries. In the communist past, Islam existed there only on a domestic basis. The Islamic ideology was practically nonexistent. Today, the ideological function of Islam is actually being reborn in these post-Soviet countries, in conditions of escalating battles between various trends in the ideology of modern world Islam.

Will the new Islamic party take root in the Crimean soil?

O.F.: It is hard to predict the outcome of this struggle at the moment, just as it is premature to describe Hizb ut- Takhrir as a terrorist party. It is in the making in the Crimea. Its activists are carrying out purely educational functions in order to enlist supporters. Naturally, their current activities do not violate the law. But the question is: Why are the Hizb ut-Takhrir leaders in no hurry to get their party officially registered, as required by the current legislation? It is also hard to predict what the members and supporters of that party will do after forming a sizable membership. This will depend on many factors, primarily on what stand Hizb ut-Takhrir will take in the Islamic world and what reputation it will have. That is precisely why Hizb ut-Takhrir has appeared in the Crimea. They want to spread their influence in Islamic countries. I believe that Hizb ut-Takhrir’s positions in the Crimea will mainly depend upon the Crimean Tatar national movement’s attitude to them. This movement is experiencing a certain ideological crisis. The time has come to thoroughly analyze and revise the Crimean Tatar national movement’s objectives, strategy, and tactic in modern conditions, because much of what was traditionally championed by the movement contradicts current historical realities. One thing is clear now: the current traditions of the Crimean Tatar national movement do not allow the Hizb ut-Takhrir to count on serious support from the Crimean Tatar population. The Mejlis is trying to preserve its political monopoly of forming and proliferating the Islamic domain in the Crimea, so it does not need Hizb ut-Takhrir’s or any other such party’s assistance. This monopoly is primarily manifested in the selection and appointment of religious cadres. At the same time, it would be premature to discuss the Mejlis’s final choice of tactic in dealing with Hizb ut-Takhrir. This choice has yet to be made.

In other words, the emergence of a new religious party does not contradict the normal pattern of development in the Crimea?

O.F.: At this stage it is safe to assume that the emergence of Hizb ut-Takhrir in the Crimea contradicts only established historical and political traditions. There is nothing permanent under the sun, and the same applies to tradition. Meaning that whether or not Hizb ut-Takhrir will settle in the Crimea remains an open question. How it is answered will primarily depend on how united the Crimean community will prove in defending the autonomy’s rights in the nearest future. This problem is the cornerstone of the behavior pattern of most people who live in the Crimea. So far, the attitude to the problem points to the fragmentation of Crimean society, which is allowing ideologically-diversified political parties to appear, including Hizb ut-Takhrir.