Category archive

Bilder & Comics

Archipel Tschernokosowo

рубрика: Bilder & Comics

Die Nacht ist ruhig. Die Sterne flackerten heiter am Himmel. Der Mond gähnte, kam durch die Wolken und glitt über den Himmel. Heute haben sich Nacht und Stille gefunden. Seit langem waren sie nicht mehr so ruhig vereint. Es krachen keine Panzergeschosse, keine Leuchtraketen ärgern den Himmel. Das Dorf war eingeschlafen, im Frieden der nächtlichen Stille.

Sie kamen frühmorgens und zerfetzten die Stille. Die Fenster des Hauses klirrten vom Dröhnen der schweren Fahrzeuge, als wollten sie die Bewohner vor der nahenden Gefahr warnen. Die Hunde begangen wild zu bellen. Die Menschen sprangen aus dem warmen Bett und führten noch im Halbschlaf die gewohnten Handgriffe aus. Zeit mit Anziehen wurde nicht verschwendet, denn Alte wie Junge legten sich in den Kleidern schlafen, wie Partisanen im Wald. Die Frauen steckten die goldenen Schmuckstücke und die mageren Ersparnisse unter ihre Kleider, um sie vor den unguten Blicken ungebetener Gäste zu verbergen. Die Männer legten die Pässe bereit und versteckten alles, was entfernt an eine Waffe erinnert – zu lange Küchenmesser, Familienstücke wie Dolche der Großväter und weitere unsinnige Gegenstände, auf welche sich die Soldaten bei den «Säuberungen» jeweils stürzten und ihnen höchst kriegerische Bedeutung beimaßen. Die Soldaten verteilen sich über den Hof. Während der Säuberung legten sie außerordentliche Effizienz und großen kämpferischen Eifer an den Tag. Der Erfolg dieser Operation war ihnen sicher. Weil der Feind ohne Waffen und nicht imstande war, Widerstand zu leisten. Die Männer des Hauses standen mit finsterem Blick in der Mitte des Hofes, schweigend beobachteten sie, wie die Soldaten ihr Haus verwüsteten.

„Nun, ihr Herren, was lässt ihr den Kopf so hängen?“ Jener, der ihr Anführer zu sein schien, trat auf sie zu, in seinem Ton lag Spott. „Wo ist eure kaukasische Gastfreundschaft?“ – „So kommt man nicht zu Gast“ antwortete der Hausherr finster. „Sogar ein Feind beachtet die elementaren Anstandsregeln.“

„Im Krieg gibt es nur eine Regel, Überrumplung!“ lachte der Anführer der „Säuberer“ voll Stolz auf sein Wissen. „Aber hier, unter Zivilisten, ist das unangebracht“ entgegnete der Tschetschene. „Auf dem Schlachtfeld, Aug im Auge mit dem Feind, ist es etwas anderes.“

„Ach So! Man ist ja schrecklich gebildet.“ Verächtlich hob der Soldat die Schultern. „Wer seid ihr denn? Nun, von Beruf?“ – „Ich bin Geschichtslehrer an der Schule.“ – „Aha, Schulmeister der Kriegskunst“ formulierte der Soldat auf seine Art die Aussage des Lehrers. „Sie bilden wohl die zukünftige Bojewiki aus?“

„Prochorow!“ laut rief er einen der Soldaten. „Hier!“ Der Besitzer des gerufenen Namens kroch aus dem Keller. „Hast du etwas gefunden?“ – „Nein, nichts, Genosse Sergeant.“ – „Die Antwort ist nicht korrekt.“ Viel sagend stellte sich der Sergeant vor ihm auf. „Du hast gefunden … Habe ich mich klar ausgedrückt?“

„Verstanden, Genosse Sergeant“ Der Soldat kroch erneut in den Keller und nach kam nach einer Minute wieder heraus. „Genosse Sergeant, ich habe eine Granate gefunden, in einem Sack Mais.“ Der Sergeant blickte triumphierend auf den bleich gewordenen Lehrer. „Nun, was sagen sie zu ihrer Rechtfertigung, Herr Lehrer?“

„Ihr selbst habt doch die Granate dorthin gelegt, ihr handelt gesetzwidrig.“ rügte dieser. Der Sergeant lachte. „Und sie werden es beweisen. Schreiben sie doch eine Beschwerde. Reichen sie Klage ein.“ Er freute sich über die missliche Lage des rechtlosen Tschetschenen. Dann befahl er: Ihn ergreifen und ins Auto!

Sogleich banden sie ihm die Hände und warfen ihn zu Boden. Seine Frau lief verzweifelt über den Hof und reif um Hilfe, doch es gab kaum jemand, der ihm hätte zu Hilfe kommen können. Rundherum, in allen Höfen, hörte man Schreie und vereinzelte Schüsse von Maschinengewehren, es geschah Unbeschreibliches.

„Genosse Kommandant“ meldete jetzt per Funk der Sergeant. „Wir haben einen Bojewiki gefasst … einen Anführer … Wir haben Waffen gefunden. Wir führen eine sorgfältige Kontrolle durch … Verstanden!“ Er stellte das Funkgerät ab und beugte sich über den zu Boden geworfenen Verhafteten. „Also Herr Historiker deine Geschichte ist zu Ende, jetzt beginnt eine neue – Dossier Nummer 1 – und glaub mir, solche Anklagedossiers anlegen, das können wir. Darauf kannst du dich verlassen.“

Ein junges Mädchen von ungefähr sechzehn Jahren, dass die Schreie und das Weinen seiner Mutter gehört hatte, stürzte aus dem Haus. Dichte kastanienbraune Haare fielen ihr über den Rücken, in ihren großen Augen stand blankes Entsetzten. „Vater“ – „Geh weg, Tochter geh in Haus, schrie ihr der Vater zu.“ Er versuchte, sich aufzurichten, wurde aber fest zu Boden gedrückt.

„Ach, schau mal, welch hübsches Ding!“ Der Sergeant packte das zum Vater drängende Mädchen am Arm. „Wo hast du denn eine solche Schönheit versteckt?“ In seinen Augen blitzen gefährliche Funken auf. Das Mädchen grub die Zähne in seine Hand. „Ah, du Miststück!“ Schrie er und fasste sie an der Gurgel. „Was soll´s, wir unterhalten uns später, unter vier Augen.“

„Lass sie los“ stöhnte der Vater des Mädchens. „Ich werde alles unterschreiben, was ihr verlangt. Aber rührt meine Tochter nicht an.“ – „Was heißt da sie loslassen?“ zischte der Sergeant zornig „Die ist doch eine Heckenschützin“ Die Mutter des jungen Mädchens brach vor Entsetzen fast zusammen. „Was tut ihr, ihr Ungeheur?“ Sie warf sich auf den Sergeanten. „Nimm deine schmutzigen Pfoten von meiner Tochter!“

„Verschwinde, du Hexe“ der Sergeant riss sich von ihr los, machte aber gar keine Anstalten, seine Beute loszulassen. Die Frau kratze wie eine Tigerin, die ihr Junges verteidigt. Außer sich vor Zorn und Schmerz verlor der Sergeant die Beherrschung, er zog die Pistole und erschoss die arme Frau aus nächster Nähe.

„Mama!“ Eisiger Schauer durchfuhr die Tochter. Bewusstlos sank sie neben die Tote. „Schweinehunde!“ Machtlos schlug der zu Boden gedrückte Tschetschene mit dem Kopf gegen den Boden. „Wenn ich am Leben bleibe, so werde ich euch sogar aus dem Grab herausholen!“ Der Sergeant antwortete gelassen „Richtig, richtig, wenn du am Leben bleibst… Aber ich, ich werde dafür sorgen, dass dies nicht geschieht… Ins Auto mit ihm … Das Mädchen auch … Sie ist unsere Trophäe.“

Plötzlich ertönte eine durchdringende Knabenstimme. „Stehen bleiben!“ Verblüfft standen alle still. In diesem Durcheinander hatte niemand den etwa zwölfjährigen Jungen aus dem Haus stürmen sehen. Jetzt stand er mit einer Granate in der Hand da, bereit, sie zu entsichern. Der Sergeant war bestürzt. „He! Kleiner!“ schmeichelte er „gib die Granate her, damit scherzt man nicht.“

In den Augen des Jungen schimmerten Tränen. Er wies mit dem Kopf in Richtung der toten Mutter und der bewusstlos daliegenden Schwester. „Ihr habt genug gescherzt … Jetzt bin ich dran.“ Stille trat ein. Alle warteten gebannt. Dem Sergeanten und dem Soldaten stockte der Atem. Wenn sie explodiert, kommen sie nicht mit dem Leben davon. In den Händen des Jungen war dieselbe Granate, die der Soldat dem Hausherrn erst unterschoben und dann auf den Tisch gelegt gatte, als Beweisstück. Doch aus Versehen hatte er vergessen, sie wegzuschaffen.

„Sag deinem Kleinen, er soll die Granate hergeben“ zischte der Sergeant dem Tschetschenen zu, der den Blick ausdruckslos auf eine Stelle gerichtet hielt. Vater und Sohn sahen einander in die Augen. Keiner der Anwesenden konnte sich vorstellen, was in diesen beiden verwandten Seelen vorging. Beide schwiegen, aber redeten mit Augen und der Junge las in jenen des Vaters die ganze Ausweglosigkeit ihrer Lage. Auch wenn er die Granate hergibt, bekommt er den Vater nicht zurück und rettet die Schwester nicht vor Schande. An sich selbst dachte er schon gar nicht. Der Vater schloss die Augen … Man hörte eine ohrenbetäubende Explosion.

Am nächsten Tag wurde jedoch in den Nachrichten am Fernsehen gemeldet: In einem tschetschenischen Dorf stießen Soldaten bei einer planmäßigen Säuberungsoperation auf eine Gruppe von Kämpfern, unter ihnen zwei Heckenschützinnen. Ein Gefecht entbrannte, die Kämpfer sind vernichtet, die Soldaten in Erfüllung ihrer Pflicht heldenhaft gefallen. Ihre Namen werden zu Ordensverleihung vorgeschlagen. Posthum

Die ersten Wochen des neuen Jahrtausends wird Ruslan Babijew sein Leben lang nicht vergessen. Drei Wochen lang ist Ruslan [die Namen der Gefangenen wurden in diesem Text verändert] in Tschernokosowo, 60 Kilometer nordwestlich der tschetschenischen Hauptstadt Grosny, geschlagen und gefoltert worden. Drei Wochen lang hat er miterlebt, dass russische Gefängniswärter Hunderte von Mitgefangenen gequält und Männer wie Frauen vergewaltigt haben. Jetzt erholt sich Ruslan bei seiner Familie, die mit ihm nach Inguschetien geflohen ist. Der FR schilderte Ruslan ausführlich seine Haft. Sein Bericht stimmt mit denen anderer Ex-Häftlinge überein, die die FR bei getrennten Interviews in den Dörfern Inguschetiens getroffen hat. Die Berichte belegen, dass Russland in Tschetschenien ein Schreckensregime aufbaut, in dem willkürliche Festnahmen und Folter an der Tagesordnung sind. Nach Moskaus offizieller Darstellung sollen in so genannten „Filtrationslagern“ wie Tschernokosowo Rebellen, die gegen die russische Armee gekämpft haben, aus der Masse friedlicher Zivilisten „herausgefiltert“ werden.

Doch von einer aufwändigen Überprüfung mit rechtsstaatlichen Mitteln war keine Rede, nachdem russische Polizisten Ruslan am 16. Januar bei einer Routinekontrolle im Dorf Snamenkoje verhaftet hatten. „Du hast Dich im Trainingslager von Chattab [einem bekannten Rebellenführer] ausbilden lassen und gehörst zur tschetschenischen Aufklärung“ warf ihm der Untersuchungsrichter vor. „Dafür haben wir Zeugen.“ An der Entführung westlicher Geiseln sei Ruslan ebenso beteiligt gewesen wie an der Serie von Bombenanschlägen, die Russland im September 1999 erschütterten. Ruslan weigerte sich, das vorbereitete Geständnis zu unterschreiben.

Ein vergitterter Polizeiwagen brachte Ruslan und zehn andere Männer ins nahe Tschernokosowo. Der Wagen fuhr auf den Hof der „Strafkolonie verschärften Regimes“ die Einheiten des russischen Innen- und Justizministeriums Anfang Dezember in Betrieb genommen haben. Als sich die Wagentür öffnete, bildeten zwanzig Uniformierte mit Schlagstöcken einen „lebenden Korridor“ für die Ankömmlinge. „Während wir gebückt und mit den Händen über dem Kopf durch den Korridor liefen, prügelten sie auf uns ein“ erzählt Ruslan. Im Gefängnis nahmen die Wärter den Gefangenen Geld und Wertsachen ab und sperrten sie unter weiteren Schlägen in eine Zelle. „Sie befahlen uns, uns mit dem Gesicht an die Wand zu stellen, die Handflächen nach außen. So standen wir bis zum späten Abend“ berichtet Ruslan. Dann begann die Routine des nächtlichen Horrors: „Die Wärter holten uns einzeln aus den Zellen und brachten uns zum Verhör oder schlugen uns auf dem Korridor zusammen. Wenn sie das Prügeln leid waren, holten sie manchmal einen Mann oder eine der Frauen aus der Zelle und vergewaltigten sie. Wir konnten in unseren Zellen natürlich nichts sehen. Aber wir hörten die Schreie.“ Der 24 Jahre alte Eli Saslanbekow, der die zweite Januarhälfte in Tschernokosowo verbrachte, erlebte mit, wie die Wärter einen Mann aus dem Dorf Goragorskij zum Verhör holten. „Er flehte: ‚Schlagt mich nicht mehr!‘ Sie ließen ihn über den Korridor zum Zimmer der beiden Untersuchungsrichter kriechen, die alle verhörten. Dort musste er rufen: ‚Bürger Chef, danke dafür, dass ich zu Ihnen kriechen durfte. Danke, dass Sie mich empfangen.‘ Nach dem Verhör schlugen sie ihn zusammen und vergewaltigten ihn. Dann öffneten sie die Zellentür. ‚Sag Deinen Kameraden, wie Du heißt!‘ Er antwortete: ‚Fatima.‘ Er war ein gebrochener Mann.“

Die drei interviewten ehemaligen Häftlinge sind sich einig, dass die Tschernokosowo-Wärter Kontraktniki sind: für einige Wochen oder Monate angeheuerte Schläger, die für das Justizministerium die Drecksarbeit in den Gefängnissen erledigen. „Die meisten Wärter trugen Masken, wenn sie uns aus der Zelle holten“ berichtet Wacha Israpilow. Übereinstimmend mit Ruslan schätzt er die Zahl der Gefangenen „in den 19 Zellen unseres Blocks auf etwa 300“. Tschernokosowo ist kein Einzelfall, „sondern Teil eines großen Systems“ sagt Alexander Tscherkassow von der Moskauer Menschenrechtsorganisation Memorial. Wie im ersten Tschetschenien-Krieg 1994-96 nutzt Russland ein umfassendes Netz von Gefängnissen und Lagern zur „Filtration“. „Zu diesem Netz gehören alle Kontrollposten und die provisorischen Gefängnisse, die es praktisch in jedem größeren Dorf Tschetscheniens gibt“ sagt Tscherkassow. „Wir wissen heute von Gefängnissen in Tolstoj-Jurt, Gudermes, Urus Martan und Naurskaja.“ Nach Tscherkassows Recherchen werden festgenommene Tschetschenen außerdem „in die russischen Städte Mosdok, Stawropol und Pjatigorsk“ gebracht. Da die Kapizität der bestehenden Gefängnisse erschöpft ist, haben russische Bausoldaten am Rand von Tolstoi-Jurt, zehn Kilometer nördlich von Grosny, und in Tscherwlennaja am Terek-Fluss „mit dem Bau zweier großer Filtrationslager begonnen“ sagte Oberst Jurij Gladkewitsch von der Moskauer Agentur für Militärnachrichten der FR bereits Anfang Februar. Das Justizministerium hat zudem fünf Millionen Rubel für den Wiederaufbau des Untersuchungsgefängnisses von Grosny bereitgestellt, sagte Wladimir Jelunin, Chef der Hauptabteilung für die Vollziehung von Strafmaßnahmen im russischen Justizministerium, auf einer Pressekonferenz am 15. Februar. Jelunin machte deutlich, dass in Tschetschenien die „Filtration“ im großen Maßstab begonnen hat: 1400 Beamte und Sondertruppen des Justizministeriums befänden sich heute in Tschetschenien.

Alexander Tscherkassow von Memorial zweifelt nicht daran, dass Jelunins Einheit, früher dem Innenministerium unterstellt und schon zu Zeiten Stalins für den Strafvollzug im Archipel Gulag zuständig, tschetschenische Gefangene systematisch misshandelt, wie es die ehemaligen Häftlinge der FR berichteten. „Auch im vorigen Tschetschenien-Krieg wurden angebliche Geständnisse in den Lagern oft durch Folter erreicht.“ Der liberale Parlamentarier Jurij Rybakow stimmt mit ihm überein: „Ich habe keinen Grund zu der Annahme, dass die russischen Einheiten ihre Sitten gegenüber dem ersten Krieg geändert haben. Die ‚antiterroristische Operation‘ hat sich in einen Krieg zur totalen Vernichtung der tschetschenischen Bevölkerung verwandelt.“ Bis heute gelten 1500 Tschetschenen aus dem ersten Tschetschenien-Krieg als spurlos verschwunden. Eine Einwohnerin von Schami-Jurt berichtete der Menschenrechtsorganisation Memorial Anfang Februar, in ihrem Dorf seien Dutzende junger Männer auf Lastwagen verladen worden. Seitdem fehle von ihnen jede Spur. Der Frankfurter Rundschau erzählten Flüchtlinge aus dem Dorf Katyr-Jurt, russische Einheiten hätten am 5. Februar etwa 200 tschetschenische Männer von ihnen Familien getrennt und mit Lastwagen und Hubschraubern in ein Lager bringen wollen. Nur weil moskaufreundliche tschetschenische Polizeieinheiten Bislan Gantemirows einschritten, seien die Männer wieder freigekommen.

Ruslan Babijew, Wacha Israpilow und Eli Saslanbekow sind überzeugt, dass sie noch Glück im Unglück gehabt haben: Ihre Familien haben schnell herausgefunden, dass sie in Tschernokosowo saßen. Und sie konnten genug Geld auftreiben, um den Untersuchungsrichter zu bestechen und die Freilassung ihrer Söhne oder Männer zu erreichen: zwischen 1200 und 4000 Rubel, umgerechnet 85 bis 285 Mark. Ruslans und Wachas Entlassungsscheine umfassen drei knappe Standardsätze. „Vorstehender Person sind die Fingerabdrücke abgenommen worden. Sie wurde fotografiert und mit der Datenbank des Provisorischen Polizeireviers und der Stadt Mosdok (Tschernokosowo) überprüft. Eine Teilnahme an ungesetzmäßigen bewaffneten Formationen festzustellen, erwies sich als unmöglich.“ Dass der Schein, den längst nicht alle Entlassenen bekommen, vor einer erneuten Festnahme schützt, glaubt keiner der ehemaligen Häftlinge. Eli Saslanbekow kam am 31. Januar frei, zusammen mit sechs anderen Männern. Zwei Tage später wurden zwei von ihnen an einem russischen Kontrollposten festgenommen und wieder nach Tschernokosowo gebracht.

«Wenn es eine Hölle gibt, kann man sie hier sehen»

MOSKAU, 10. Februar. In den vergangenen Monaten wurden hunderte tschetschenische Männer von Russen festgenommen und vor allem in zwei „Filtrationslager“ gebracht: nach Urus-Martan südwestlich von Grosny sowie ins Tschernokosowo-Lager am Terek-Fluss, 50 Kilometer nordwestlich von Grosny. Da diese Lager voll sind, haben russische Bausoldaten bei Tolstoi-Jurt, zehn Kilometer nördlich Grosnys, und in Tscherwlennaja am Terek-Fluss „mit dem Bau zweier großer Filtrationslager begonnen“ sagte Oberst Jurij Gladkewitsch von der Moskauer Agentur für Militärnachrichten: „Die Zahl der in Tschetschenien Festgenommenen ist steil angestiegen und betrug nach einigen Angaben bereits Ende vergangener Woche rund 1000 Mann.“ Generaloberst Wiktor Kasanzew, Oberkommandeur der Tschetschenientruppen, kontrolliere persönlich die Arbeiten zur Schaffung der Filtrationslager, sagte Gladkewitsch, der sich auf Quellen im russischen Stab in Chankala beruft. Die Lager werden offiziell „Filtrationslager“ genannt, weil dort aus den inhaftierten Tschetschenen die Rebellen „herausgefiltert“ werden sollen. Das angeblich dem Justizministerium unterstehende Lager Tschernokosowo wurde vor einigen Tagen in der Berichterstattung genannt, als sich herausstellte, dass der Radio-Liberty-Korrespondent Andrej Babitzkij dort eingeliefert wurde, bevor sich seine Spur verlor. Nach FR-Informationen hat das Justizministerium Soldaten seiner Guin-Einheiten – ausgebildet für die Niederschlagung von Gefängnisaufständen – in die Gefangenenlager nach Tschetschenien geschickt. Die englische Zeitung Independent veröffentlichte am Donnerstag Auszüge eines Briefes, der nach Aussage des Blattes am 3. Februar von einem im Tschernokosowo-Lager dienenden russischen Wehrpflichtigen geschrieben wurde. Demnach werden dort rund 700 Tschetschenen festgehalten, von denen nur sieben verdächtigt würden, Rebellen zu sein. Die Tschetschenen „werden hier buchstäblich umgebracht“ schreibt der Soldat. „Man muss die Schreie robuster, gesunder Burschen hören, denen die Knochen gebrochen werden. Sie zwingen einige von ihnen, sich gegenseitig zu vergewaltigen. Wenn es eine Hölle gibt, kann man sie hier sehen.“ Andrej Babitzkij sei nicht vergewaltigt worden, „aber sie haben ihn so böse zusammengeschlagen, dass seine Brille in die Luft flog“ zitiert der Independent den Soldatenbrief. Die meisten Männer, die vergewaltigt oder geschlagen würden, seien Jugendliche und wegen geringer Vergehen wie unregistrierter Pässe oder eines bei ihnen gefundenen Militärparkas festgenommen worden. „Ich kann die exotischen Methoden nicht beschreiben, die sie [die russischen Wächter, d. Red.] anwenden, um den menschlichen Willen zu brechen, um ein menschliches Wesen in ein Tier zu verwandeln.» Allerdings seien auch echte Rebellen gefangen genommen worden „für die ich kein Mitleid empfinde“ schreibe der Soldat. Zwei Rebellen seien erschossen worden. Sergej Jasterschembskij, Tschetschenien-Sprecher des Kreml, sagte der FR, das Tschernokosowo-Filtrationslager sei das einzige seiner Art. 280 Tschetschenen befänden sich dort, 316 Gefangene seien freigelassen worden. Der Independent-Bericht sei „eine Desinformation und Lüge“. Die Menschenrechtsorganisation Human Rights Watch veröffentlichte einen detaillierten Bericht über die Ermordung von mindestens 38 Zivilisten durch russische Soldaten und Einheiten des Innenministeriums Dieser Bericht bestehe ebenfalls aus „Fälschungen und Desinformationen“ sagte Jasterschembskij.

Mullah Nasreddin

рубрика: Bilder & Comics

An jedem Markttag brachte der Hodscha einen Esel zum Markt und verkaufte ihn sehr billig. Der Preis, den er für seinen Esel verlangte, lag immer weit unter den Preisen seiner Konkurrenten. Eines Tages sagte ein reicher Eselhändler zu ihm: „Ich weiß nicht, wie du es dir erlauben kannst, deine Esel so billig zu verkaufen. Ich lasse meine Diener das Heu von den Bauern stehlen und befehle ihnen auch, die Esel zu halten, ohne dass ich sie dafür bezahle. Und dennoch sind deine Preise niedriger als meine.“ „Nun ja, das ist sehr verständlich“, antwortete der Hodscha. „Du stiehlst Futter und Arbeitskraft – ich stehle Esel!“

Mullah Nasreddin eine historische Figur oder ein Pseudonym?

Mullah Nasreddin ist höchstwahrscheinlich eine historische Figur hinter einem Pseudonym. In Afghanistan und Iran ist er als „Molla Nassruddin“ bekannt. Der Seldschuken Sultan Alauddin Jahansuz (Weltverbrenner) im 13. Jahrhundert, der die blühenden Städte der Ghaznaviden wie Ghazni und Bost niederbrannte, soll einer seiner üblen Zeitgenossen gewesen sein. In Europa ist er als halblegendärer Volksweiser, Held einer Schwanksammlung und türkischer Eulenspiegel bekannt. Die älteste handschriftliche Sammlung seiner Geschichten soll aus dem Jahre 1571 stammen. In der Türkei wird als Hodscha Nasreddin bezeichnet. Dort soll er auch begraben sein. Er soll viele Gräber in verschiedenen Orten haben, die als Wallfahrtsstätte dienen. Sein Grab soll bei Besuchern Heiterkeit auslösen. Die Vorderseite seines Grabes hat ein Mauerwerk, während die drei anderen Seiten des Platzes ohne Mauer sind. Die Ironie dabei ist, dass das Tor, welches zu seinem Grabe führt, mit einem enorm großen Schloss verriegelt ist.

Die lustigen Geschichten und Anekdoten von Mullah Nasreddin sind in ganz Afghanistan, Iran, Tadschikistan, dem Kaukasus und in der Türkei bekannt wie beliebt. Bei den Geschichten geht es um humorvolle Darstellungen der Unzulänglichkeiten von Menschen. Der Held und Adressat, häufig der Mullah selbst, nimmt eine ambivalente Haltung ein, dessen Sprüche und Übertreibungen von einer totalen Naivität bis hin zu einem cleveren Einfallsreichtum und Schlagfertigkeit reicht. Sie sind ein Gemisch von selbstironischer und sozialkritischer Interpretation jener Zeit. Seine Geschichten sind zeitlos und da sie mindestens 500 Jahren mündlich weitergegeben wurden, sind manche verloren gegangen andere Nasreddin angedichtet worden. Sie variieren von Erzähler zu Erzähler. Dennoch gehören sie zur Trivialliteratur der Völker der Region. Sie haben für die Menschen eine kathartische Funktion. Diese reinigende Funktion kann durchaus mit der Wirkung des Trauerspiels verglichen werden. Wie die klassischen Dramen die Menschen zum Weinen bringen und somit durch die Tränen sowohl den Körper und als auch die Seele reinigen (Dramentheorien von Aristoteles bis Goethe), so können auch beim Lachen Tränen fließen und Körper vibrieren lassen. Menschen reagieren ihre inneren Spannungen ab. Nicht zuletzt wird in Afghanistan das Lachen als Salz des Lebens bezeichnet. In ihre Freizeit erzählen junge und alte Menschen in Afghanistan diese Geschichten, wenn sie beisammen sind.

Mullah Nasreddin ist aber nicht nur der Name eines Sufi-Scheichs sondern auch der des ersten Satirezeitschrift in der Umma. Mehr als 100 Jahre, bevor militante islamistische Täter in der französischen Satirezeitschrift Charlie Hebdo Journalisten ermordeten, spielte eine andere sehr ähnliche Zeitschrift eine wichtige Rolle in der muslimischen Bevölkerung des russischen und des persischen Imperiums. Die aserbaidschanische Wochenzeitschrift Molla Nasreddin war zu ihrer Zeit revolutionär, lästerte über Kleriker und kritisierte kokett die politische Elite ebenso wie den russischen Zaren und den Schah von Persien. 1906 wurde sie gegründet und nahm kein Blatt vor den Mund bei geopolitischen Ereignissen und setzte sich aktiv für Frauenrechte sowie einer westlichen Orientierung ein. Der Chefredakteur der Zeitschrift war Jalil Mammadguluzadeh (bekannt als Mirza Jalil), ein berühmter aserbaidschanischer Schriftsteller, welcher auch als Romanautor bekannt ist. In seinem Buch „Der Tod“ ist der Hauptdarsteller ein betrunkener Atheist, der als Verrückter behandelt wird, weil er die Wahrheit über seine rückständige Gesellschaft erzählt hat, wo Mädchen, die neun Jahre alt sind, gezwungen werden, 50-jährige Männer zu heiraten. Der Titel des Magazins, Molla Nasreddin, stammt von dem Namen des naiven, aber weisen Mullahs, der im ganzen Nahen Osten für seine Anekdoten berühmt wurde.

Auf dem Cover der ersten Ausgabe wird Molla Nasreddin gezeigt, wie er »die schlafenden Nationen des Ostens« aufweckt. Mehr als 20 Jahren lang präsentiert das Magazin mit dem Namen des Mullahs den Lesern die Welt anhand von Cartoons und Texten. „Die erste Ausgabe der Zeitschrift explodierte wie eine Bombe“ erinnert sich der berühmte Schriftsteller Ebdurrehimbey Haqverdiyev. „Die Mullahs sagten, dass die Zeitschrift nicht in das Haus eines anständigen Muslims gehöre. Wenn doch, sagten sie, schnapp sie sich es mit einer Zange und schmeißen es in die Toilette.“

Molla Nasreddin wandte sich in erster Linie an ungebildete Aserbaidschaner, im Gegensatz zu anderen Publikationen der Zeit, die stark von der türkischen, russischen oder persischen Politik beeinflusst waren. Die Texte waren in einfacher Sprache gehalten und die Cartoons waren leicht zu verstehen, oft gegen Kleriker gerichtet, die die Autoren des Magazins als Feinde der Bildung und einer säkularen Gesellschaft ansahen.

Mirza Jalil sagte, seine Zeitschrift sei ein Produkt seiner Zeit, als die Mehrheit der Bevölkerung Analphabeten war, von den russischen und persischen Imperien regiert und von religiösen Führern geleitet wurde. Es wurde in der aserbaidschanischen Sprache (zunächst in arabischer Schrift, später in Latein, mit Beginn des Sowjetregimes), gelegentlich auch in russischer Sprache veröffentlicht. Die folgenden zwei Karikaturen sind besonders direkt in der Art und Weise, wie sie das Bildungsergebnis religiöser „asiatischer Schulen“ mit den Ergebnissen säkularer europäischer Institutionen negativ vergleichen.

Frauen wurden in der Gesellschaft oder in ihren eigenen Familien als untauglich betrachtet und von ihren Männern geschlagen und unterdrückt. Die Zeitschrift widersetzte sich eindeutig der Intervention der Religion in den individuellen Freiheiten eines säkularen Staates.

Aber die Spöttelei über die Kleriker und der Einsatz für die Rechte der Frau waren mit eigenen Risiken verbunden. Mullahs in Persien veröffentlichten eine Fatwa, in der der Tod von Mirza Jalil gefordert wurde. Er wurde in der georgischen Hauptstadt Tiflis, wo die Zeitschrift erschien, angegriffen und ständig bedroht. Die Stadt war damals die Kulturhauptstadt des russischen Südkaukasus. „Hätte ich die Zeitschrift nicht in Tbilisi veröffentlicht, sondern in Baku oder Jerewan [der Hauptstadt des heutigen Armenien, wo die Aserbaidschaner damals die Mehrheit der Bevölkerung bildeten], hätten sie mein Büro zerstört und mich getötet“ erklärte Jalil. Für viele seiner Leser öffnete das Magazin ein Fenster zur Weltpolitik, aber in satirischer Sprache. Die Karikatur unten zeigt den osmanischen Sultan, der für die griechische Insel Kreta kämpfte und von den „Großmächten“ geduscht wurde.

Die Zeitschrift setzte sich aktiv für Frauenrechte ein und spielte eine wichtige Rolle bei der Einführung des Frauenwahlrechts in Aserbaidschan 1919, einer der wenigen muslimischen Länder in dem dieses Recht etwa zeitgleich eingeführt wurde wie in Deutschland, Großbritannien und den USA. Wenn man alte Ausgaben der Zeitschrift in der Nationalbibliothek von Aserbaidschan durchgeht, wird deutlich, wie gewagt die Schriftsteller und Illustratoren von Molla Nasreddin waren. In einer Ausgabe von 1929 wurde eine Karikatur des Propheten Mohammed veröffentlicht, allerdings ohne sein Gesicht darzustellen. Zu dieser Zeit war Aserbaidschan ein Sowjetstaat und die Veröffentlichung fand in der Hauptstadt Baku statt. Dennoch war die Mehrheit der Bevölkerung immer noch konservative Muslime. Die Karikatur kennzeichnet einen Dialog zwischen Jesus und Mohammed und zeigt die Leute, die an Weihnachten trinken. Es hat sich offensichtlich lustig über Muslime gemacht, die trotz ihrer Religion Alkoholkonsum verboten haben. Aber das Magazin sollte nicht lange bestehe. In den frühen 1930er Jahren sagten die Behörden Mirza Jalil, sie sollten ihren Namen in Allahsiz (Gottlos) ändern und den Prinzipien der sowjetischen Ideologie folgen. Unfähig, die sowjetische Zensur zu akzeptieren, endete seine Beziehung mit dem Magazin.

Dank an Konul Khalilova

Magomed Daudov & Abuzaid Vismuradov in Germany

рубрика: Bilder & Comics

Human rights activists are outraged that Abuzaid Vismuradov and Magomed Daudov, who have participated in the torture of Ruslan Kutaev, the Askahbov family and are involved in Case 27, travel freely around Europe.

Commanders who belong to the closest circle around Kadyrov have repeatedly been able to visit Germany. Although they are involved in crimes in Chechnya, German NGOs are silent about these trips. Young Chechens in Europe, however, closely follow the events in their homeland. Through YouTube and social networks like Instagram, they learn how Kadyrov in his republic suppresses any criticism and feel their own powerlessness. The rejection of Kadyrov creates an immense radicalization potential that could be avoided by honest reporting.

Already in 2012, Head of bodyguard, a close friend of Kadyrov, and Commander of the Chechen SOBR special forces unit – Terek –  Abuzaid Vismuradov was able to undergo an operation in Germany after a car crash in a hospital near Hamburg. Afterwards he visited U-995 at the Laboe Naval Memorial and a boxing match accompanied by Timur Dugazaev, Adam Tahaev, Shamil Dadagov and Magomed Ibragimov.

In 2014 Abduzaid Vismuradov came with Magomed Daudov to the fight of the Bosnian boxer Marco Huck. The fight on August 30, in the Gerry Weber Stadium in Halle (Westf.) against the Italian Mirko Larghetti was a nice pastime for the commanders of Kadyrov in comparison to their bloody work in the homeland. After all, this was the same year Magomed Daudov had tortured Ruslan Kutaev because he organized a conference in the memory of Aardakh (Deportation of Chechen/Ingush in 1944 by Stalin)

Spring 2015

Autumn 2015

Because both of these visits, similar to the tournament in 2014, were used to speak out threats against martial artists who disagree with the current government in Chechnya under Ramzan Kadyrov, these trips have been reported to German authorities. Although the NGO Memorial was contacted, there was no response to the trip to Gamburg and Schleswig-Holstein or threats by Abuzaid Vismuradov, only the State Criminal Police Office got active.

After that, there was officially only one more trip from Abuzaid Vismuradov to the UFC Fight Night 115 on 2 September 2017 in Rotterdam. This time, the entry was not as usual via the airport Hamburg but Berlin. As with the previous visits, Abuzaid Vismuradov was accompanied by Timur Dugazaev, Shamil Dadagov, Adam Tahaev and Magomed Ibragimov.

Criminal cases in which Abuzaid Vismuradov and Magomed Daudov are involved

Case 27

According to an article published on 9 July on the website of Novaya Gazeta, on the night of 25–26 January, Chechen security forces secretly shot to death 27 young people detained in mid-January. All the detainees were being held in the headquarters of the Chechen Patrol Police in Grozny. According to the article’s author, Yelena Milashina, the detentions were connected with the killing of a Chechen police officer by a group of young men on 17 December 2016.

‘Following 17 December 2016, mass arrests began in Chechnya. In early January, special operations were carried out in Grozny and the Kurchaloy and Shali districts of Chechnya, during which mass arrests took place. The detainees, however, were not registered in any way, they were not charged, but instead were placed in the cellars and ancillary premises of police departments. The detentions lasted until the end of January. According to [our] newspaper’s information, about 200 people were detained’, Novaya Gazeta wrote.

According to the newspaper, on the night of the killing, influential Chechen security officials and chiefs of police departments from regions where the detainees lived were present at the Patrol Police headquarters in Grozny.

The men were detained illegally: they weren’t officially registered or charged, but instead placed in the cellars and ancillary premises of Chechen police stations. Their bodies were hurriedly buried in local Christian and Muslim cemeteries. The newspaper published a list of names and personal details of the victims to substantiate its claims.

Several western media outlets misreported that the killings were a part of the anti-queer campaign, despite the Russian LGBT Network refuting these claims.

Ruslan Kutaev

In February 2014, Ruslan Kutaev, an active human rights defender, was thrown in jail for alleged drug possession. This happened after he organized a conference on the seventieth anniversary of Stalin’s deportation of the Caucasian peoples. Ramzan Kadyrov did not approve of the event taking place. After the conference, Magomed Daudov, the chief of Kadyrov’s presidential office better known as “Lord”, invited all of the organizers to a meeting with the president. Ruslan challenged the request from Daudov. He was arrested the following day, on February 20, 2014. According to the official version, security forces randomly stopped him in the village of Gekhi. During a body search, they found that Kutayev, who is a teetotaler and non-smoker, was carrying three grams of heroin in his back pocket. During his detention he was tortured and forced to confess.

On February 19, Ruslan Kutayev received a call from Magomed Daudov, the head of the presidential office, an influential Chechen politician, and member of  Ramzan Kadyrov’s inner circle. Kutaev refused to meet with the president.

In the morning of February 20, Ruslan phoned everyone he was close to. His wife told him over the phone that their house, where he had left from, was under constant surveillance by the police. Kutaev was staying with distant relatives in the village of Gekhi. Because he anticipated that his phone was bugged, he made a point of repeating during his telephone conversations that he was in Pyatigorsk outside of Chechnya’s borders. However, around two in the afternoon he was arrested in the village of Gekhi.

According to Kutaev’s testimony, the Deputy Minister of Interior of Chechnya, Apti Alaudinov, and the Head of the Presidential Office Magomed Daudov, also known as Lord, played an active role in his torture. They kept Kutaev naked in a cellar, placed an axe on his neck while shocking him with an electric current. He was also tortured with an electric baton. He lost consciousness several times during the torture. He suffered a concussion and extensive bruising, along with injuries to his ribs and jaw. They showed him photographs of his nephews. From the up-to-date nature of the pictures, he was supposed to understand that his family was being constantly monitored.

The physical pain has subsided and my wounds are healing, but knowing that the government uses the state security forces for such things, to fight with politicians, civil society activists and human rights defenders, fills me with horror that they will face similar processes. I want to remind everyone that no matter how long the night lasts, it cannot last forever and dawn will break one day,” said Kutaev during his closing arguments before the court on May 7, 2014.

Kutaev was at risk of being sentenced to 12 years in prison. On July 7, 2014, he was sentenced to four years in prison. Kutaev and many human rights defenders like him in Russia are convinced that his case is part of the Russian government’s current tendency to discredit opposition politicians, human rights defenders and activists.

Abdul-Yezit Askhabov

In 2009, the Askhabov family lost their son Abdul-Yezit, he disappeared without a trace. The Askhabovs probably found themselves in the sights of the Chechen security forces because of the wartime past of their other son, Yusup, who fought against federal troops during the Second Chechen War (1999-2000). After the war he did not report to the armed groups, but he also didn’t live with his family at their permanent address. On May 28, 2009, Yusup was killed during a special operation in the center of the Chechen town of Shali. His father had to come there to identify the body. According to his testimony, masked men beat him up over the corpse of his son, the first blow was from the then chief of the local police in Shali Magomed Daudov, who also went by the nickname ‘Lord’.Later that summer, on August 5, masked men arrived at the Askhabov home at 3 o’clock in the morning. They introduced themselves as being from the Federal Security Service and took Abdul-Yezit away to an unknown location. Later, the family learned that Abdul-Yezit was most likely being held at the police station in Shali.

When I saw my slain son, I said to myself in Chechen: how will Allah receive him. When ‘Lord’ heard these words, he came to me and struck me in the face. At the same time, other men threw me down and started kicking me and beating me with their rifle butts. They beat me terribly, almost to death. I lost consciousness almost immediately, I do not remember anything. I was allegedly grabbed from the site by unknown people and taken to the hospital. I had suffered two heart attacks,” said the father of the Aschabov family about what happened that day.

“On the very day that Yusup’s corpse was brought to us, they dragged it around the yard and mocked it. They beat my two daughters, Ayshat and Nurzat with the butts of their rifles. I attempted to get out of the house, but they hit me again with the butt of a rifle. Afterward they loaded Yusup’s body and drove off without giving it to us so that we couldn’t bury him. I still don’t know what they did with him,” the father of the Askhabov family told human rights defenders about the behavior of the police.

On the night of August 5, 2009, Abdul-Yezit was taken away from him home in a car without license plates. The family immediately reported the abduction of their son to the relevant authorities. In late September, the Askhabovs approached human rights defenders from the Russian organization Memorial. According to his mother Tamara, Abdul-Yezit had never held a gun in his hands. Since childhood he was visually impaired and had a second-degree disability.

On August 7, 2009, Tamara set off with relatives to the Grozny office of the ombudsman. A staffer received them and immediately called the police in Shali. They heard him speak to someone and he insisted that Abdul-Yezit be released from detention. He then went on to say: “Even if he was the brother of an insurgent leader, you have no right to detain him beyond the period specified under the law.” From this encounter, Tamara Askhabova understood that Abdul-Yezit was in Shali.

Abdul-Yezit is missing to this day. The investigation into his disappearance has been stopped, “because it was not possible to determine the culprits”. The former police chief from Shali has since then become the Chief of the Administration of the Chechen president Ramzan Kadyrov. Legal action on behalf of the Askhobovs is awaiting assessment at the European Court of Human Rights.

Women in the North Caucasus

рубрика: Bilder & Comics

CEDAW confirmed in point 23 that violence against women in the North Caucasus is increasing and practices such as child and/or forced marriage, abductions of women and girls for forced marriages, crimes in the name of honor, circumcision, polygamy and other crimes committed in the Russian Constitution to be classified as criminal, cause concern. These practices are socially legitimated and surrounded by a culture of silence and impunity. There would be no political will to tackle these crimes and to enforce the provisions of the Russian Constitution in the regions, ie the republics and autonomous circles of the North Caucasus. In Chechnya, the massive inequality, indeed the oppression of women, is part of the government policy. Even if Ramzan Kadyrov claims to lead a Muslim republic based on the rule of the traditional Chechen Adat and orientated on the Russian constitution, it is his own deeply chauvinist and anti-women policy that determines the everyday life of women in Chechnya.

More and more girls are married as minors. In mid-May 2015, the under-age Kheda Goylabiyeva and Nazhud Guchigov the local police chief, who is about 30 years older, took place. Guchigov, the groom, was initially said to be 57 but later claimed he was 46. (Neither forced, nor under-age nor polygamous marriages are permitted under Russian law.) The 17-year-old is the second wife of the policeman, who also has a son. In advance, this process had been sharply criticized in the Russian press. The well-known Novaya Gazeta journalist Elena Milaschina had visited the village of Gojlabijewas and reported on the planned marriage. But Kadyrov supported this wedding, to which the bride was obviously forced, and referred to the Chechen customs, the parents of the bride would have agreed. The journalist was threatened and had to leave Chechnya. Polygamy and the marriage of minors violated the Russian constitution, but several voices from the Russian government camp had defended the wedding.

This massive interference by Kadyrov in family affairs of the civilian population also disrupts the traditions in Chechnya itself. This closure is another step – after the introduction of a dress code for women 2010/2011 (headscarf, long skirts), the prohibition of long beards for men etc. – to a massive control of the private sector. Kadyrov is convinced that Chechnya and its citizens are his property, he said this in several television interviews.

The sociologist Irina Kosterina who conducted research on gender relations in the North Caucasus over a two-year period, explains in an interview that this marriage has once again massively contributed to women being afraid and at the mercy of others. »If you have the power and the necessary relationships, then you can take any girl as a woman, thereby breaking the laws of the Russian Federation, use force and get away with it.«

The number of honor killings has increased, as testified by witnesses from Chechnya and foreign sociologists working in Chechnya, even if there are no official figures. The rate of domestic violence is very high. In an interview with a lawyer specializing in cases of domestic violence in Chechnya whose names the Daptar website does not cite for security reasons, this lawyer and co-worker of a women’s rights organization in Chechnya states that women often approach lawyers only or a women’s rights organization if the domestic violence affects the children as well. Virtually every woman in Chechnya has already been beaten according to Irina Kosterina. The interviewee estimates that no more than ten percent of the victims seek help because they are afraid of their husband’s reaction. In December 2015, she herself represented four cases as a lawyer, one of whom eventually died as a result of her husband’s beatings. »Often the women are killed before they can seek help« says the interview partners.

»The State party should … ensure that all action of violence against women … are registered by the police and promptly, impartially and effectively investigated and that the perpetrators are brought to justice, and in the event of the establishment of their guilt – were punished. The State party should also take the necessary protective measures to ensure the safety of victims«

honor killing – the traditional practice in some countries of killing a family member who is believed to have brought shame on the family. When women in the North Caucasus are murdered by their families for «immoral behaviour» justice is rarely done as the article of Maria Klimova and Yulia Sugueva illustrates. There are nearly no reliable statistics on killings of women whose families believe they have brought shame on them. Now the study «Killed by Gossip» from a Dutch NGO investigated this subject in the North Caucasus.

The report is the first to document and analyze the phenomenon of honor-based violence in contemporary Russia based on field research conducted in the North Caucasus region. Despite the difficulties in collecting data in this area, the study was able to identify 33 incidents over the period from 2008 to 2017 in which 39 people were killed – 36 women (92.3%) and three men. Some of these incidents are also additionally corroborated by publicly available materials such as media reports. Young unmarried girls were the most likely victims, followed by women aged 20-30, mostly divorced but in some cases married. They were usually the daughters, sisters, wives, nieces or step-daughters of the murderer.

An analysis of “honor killings” illustrates that they are motivated not by tradition, custom (adat) or the norms of Sharia law, but rather by the arbitrary and self-styled ambitions of individuals and clans. The practice is borne out of and incited by the pressure of public opinion, gossip, rumors and slander.

The report examines the following aspects of the problem:

  • The depth, extent and enduring nature of practices that punish women for violating the behavioral norms and rules prescribed by society
  • The perceptions of men and women of these murders, and the pretexts and/or justifications for committing them
  •  “Honor killings” from the point of view of applicable provisions in Russian criminal law
  • The difficulties in investigating such crimes and prosecuting cases in the courts;
  • The prospects for change in the near future and steps to eradicate the practice;
  • Recommendations by international bodies to the Russian Government relevant to the situation

The study revealed that from 2008 to 2017, there were 33 cases, as a result of which 39 people were killed, of whom 36 were women (92.3%) and three men. An analysis of «honor» killings showed that the victims of such crimes are mostly young unmarried girls or divorced, less often married women aged 20 to 30 years. In relation to the murderers, they were daughters, sisters, wives, nieces, stepdaughters.

In the 33 cases that were identified and analyzed, only 14 cases (42.4%) went to court: in 13 cases, the accused was convicted, in one case he was acquitted. In different cases, the murderers were sentenced to 6 to 15 years of serving the sentence in a high security colony. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. In practice, only a few of these crimes are known and become the subject of legal investigation and media attention. It can be assumed that there is a high dark figure.

One of the main obstacles to effective investigation and prosecution of cases of murder of women in court is the limited access to justice of victims due to unequal treatment and prejudice at the legal, institutional, structural, social and cultural levels. Even if equality exists before the law, everyday life can look different.

Chechen women complain: «Honor killings are not uncommon»

Excluded from the majority society many women go through a martyrdom. »We are caught in the 18th century.« Malika stays calm when she talks about the conditions in her community. »It is common among Chechens, that women have to obey their husbands, fathers and brothers – if they do not follow often even fatal consequences can be the result.« she says.

When it comes to Chechens in the media, mostly only men and possible crimes are making the headlines. The oppression that many women from this culture are exposed to in a private environment hardly penetrates the public. Malika is in her early 20s and from a – by Chechen standards – liberal family. She and her siblings enjoy many freedoms and live in many ways like the «normal» Austrian youth, but such a life is an exception in the community.

Worldwide there are about 2 million Chechens, about 30,000 of them live in Austria. The majority of them fled, as Malika’s family did, during the two Chechen wars in the 1990s and 2000s. Domestic violence and honor killings, often because of the girls‘ mate choice, are not uncommon, says Malika. »I’ve even heard my male relatives tell their friends to kill their daughters when they find out that the girls are in a relationship.« Maria Rösslhumer, managing director of the «Association Autonomous Austrian Women’s Shelters» (AÖF) knows the situation and says in the interview with Lukas Kreimer and Bernardo Vortisch »The young women are under strong family control, whereby not only the next blood relatives, but also the extensive family is involved. Families are well connected with each other.«

Breaking out of the system is almost impossible, and even if women manage to escape, they are not even safe in women’s shelters: »If a Chechen father feels the honor of his daughter in danger and does not want to let her stay alive, he will manage to find and kill her. They are incredibly well organized,« confirms Malika. Even if a girl gains a new identity and changes place of residence there is no guarantee for safety, »she just has to see some Chechen on the street« and [he] forwards this information to the family. »The name change does not help much,« says Malika.

But why did Chechen society – both at home and in the Diaspora – develop in this direction? Three factors are crucial: the traditional concept of honor, the Chechen wars and the resulting Islamic radicalization.

The concept of honor has a central position in Chechen community law «Adat». According to Kerstin Susanne Jobst, professor at the Institute for Eastern European History at the University of Vienna, the «Adat» strictly regulates the role of women and various social sectors of the Chechens. If the family honor is polluted, drastic measures such as blood revenge and honor killings are resorted to. In the debate, however, experts repeatedly point out that Chechens are not a homogeneous population group and that, as in every culture, there are different trends. Chechens have isolated themselves in the diaspora over the past three decades, making integration difficult, says University Professor Jobst.

The conflicts with Russia have also caused trauma among the population. Since the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991, Chechnya has been shaken by two long wars that caused massive flows of refugees. In this chaos, many people found support in religion, but were also radicalized by external influences, according to Malika: »Since any Arabs moved to Chechnya and spread radical Islam there, the attitude of the Chechens has changed, not only in Chechnya but also here in Austria.« According to intelligence reports, about 1700 Chechens are among ISIS militants worldwide – Russian is the most widely spoken language in the Caliphate after Arabic and English.

But Malika also emphasizes the positive aspects of her culture and tells about the hospitality of the Chechens, where guests are naturally cooked a feast, or the great respect for the mother. She also sees hope for the future of young Chechens in Austria: There are quite a few girls – and also boys – who are dissatisfied with the current structures. Which shows that the community emancipates itself – albeit slowly.

Abduction after invented rape

Two brothers from Chechnya forcibly took their own sister to a car in August 2018 and kidnapped her. The reason: The young woman had led in the opinion of her family to a western-oriented lifestyle. Now the brothers were in court. And not only these two young men – they once came to Austria as refugees from Chechnya and grew up here – had to answer for themselves. A third man from Chechnya who assisted in the kidnapping by driving the car was also charged. And on top of that, an 18-year-old who works for the Vienna Student Aid Authority, as such has access to the central register of migrants and had passed the young woman’s address illegally to one of the brothers.
What has happened? The young woman, 22 years old, wanted to lead a self-determined life. She found the traditional rules of the family restrictive. Accordingly, she should have married a man from Chechnya and dressed in public in a certain way. Veiling was not required, but the skirts had to reach over their knees. Knowing that although she was an adult woman, she could not easily break away, she invented something: she wrote to her two brothers, the older one 23, the younger one 19 years old, she had been raped. Judge Daniela Zwangsleitner described the ulterior motive that the woman had with her on Wednesday in the Vienna Provincial Criminal Court: »She invented the rape because she hoped that she would be cast out, as is sometimes the case in these circles.« This stunt did not have the hoped-for effect.

As a next step, the 22-year-old capped all connections. She moved from Vienna to Saalfelden, Salzburg, where she lived with her Austrian friend. She gave up her Chechen name and assumed a common name in Austria. She even had her social security number changed as well as accepted a new job. All in vain. The younger brother brought the above-mentioned employee of the student aid agency to betray the – by note – locked information of her registration address. Then the brothers and their helper drove to Saalfelden, lurking on the victim and dragged her «cinematic», as the judge noted, in a car. Lying behind the front seats, the woman had to leave Saalfelden. She cried in the car and said, »You want to kill me« – this was what the woman said as a witness. The renegade, in the eyes of the family, landed in his parents‘ apartment in Vienna. She was released after nine hours by an access by the police unit Wega. In fact, the woman managed to send an SMS to a relative of her boyfriend in the car.

»We are ashamed of our actions« say the brothers now. The younger one said, »I just got emotional. I wanted my sister back.« The deeds themselves (even before the kidnapping they had taken the mobile phone from the sister and controlled) were confessed by all the brothers and their helpers – defended by Nicholas Rast and Alexander Philipp. The brothers were now given the court order not to contact the sister. All three men received because of severe coercion and imprisonment two years in prison. Two-thirds of the sentence was conditionally imposed. The accused 18-year-old, who had betrayed the reported data, was convicted for abuse of office. From a punishment the court however looked away because of the youthful age. The judgments are not yet final.

Fear of death even after the escape

Because the government of Kadyrov is also active within the EU for most in need there is only the possibility of assistance if the anonymity is guaranteed. One of the few exceptions is the fate of Aminat Avturhanova. Yelena Milashina of Novaya Gazeta reported that: »Following 17 December 2016, mass arrests began in Chechnya. In early January, special operations were carried out in Grozny and the Kurchaloy and Shali districts of Chechnya, during which mass arrests took place. The detainees, however, were not registered in any way, they were not charged, but instead were placed in the cellars and ancillary premises of police departments. The detentions lasted until the end of January. According to [our] newspaper’s information, about 200 people were detained«

This information about the murder of 26 men from this group on the night of the 26th to the 27th of January was reported by the «Novaya Gazeta» on the 9th of July 2017. Among the killed was also the husband of Aminat.

Shortly after the publication of this article, Avturhanova approached the «Novaya Gazeta» and said that she would report her husband’s disappearance to the Russian investigative authorities and the Human Rights Commissioner. Only little later the newspaper reported her disappearance. Similar to other cases before, after the article appeared an interview of her on Grozny TV aired.

In the broadcast of January 21, Aminat could be seen in a short excerpt how she proclaimed that she would be safe at home with her children as well as asking foreign media to not spread false information about her fate. As reported in the article of the «Caucasian Knot» several residents said, on the condition that their anonymity is ensured, that they doubt the voluntariness of these statements.

The correspondent of Novaya Gazeta, Olga Bobrova, had several times met with Aminat Avturhanova in Grozny and at these talks she had reported the reporter of death threats. Bobrova wrote about the fate of Aminat in the «Novaya Gazeta» and immediately after the disappearance of her on 8 January 2018, the newspaper appealed to the Russian Human Rights Commissioner Tatyana Moskalkova, to find out more about the whereabouts of the disappeared. She was only released after intervention by Bobrova and a little later, the Chechen woman fled with her two children, two-year-old Sumai Avturhanova and one-year Saifullah Avturhanva, via Poland to Germany.

Currently the Chechen woman is threatened with the deportation from Germany to Poland. That a deportation to Poland is problematic, not only shows the interview of Bernahrd Clasen with Olga Bobrova in which she refers to the well-known fact »not only are among the refugees in Poland, the supporters in the majority, the risk of further deportation to Russia is much more serious» or the report of the Global Detention Project but also the case of Azamat Baiduyev.

For Taus Tasurkayeva the case is completely different. And yet, like Aminat, she must fear for her life. She fled in fear of her brother’s death threats. She has been living in Germany for four years and her application for asylum is still not granted. She only seems to be sure about one thing: after being deported to Russia, she would not have to live long. The Chechen woman had married a third time after the death of her second husband. But her brothers Jakub and Adam, members of the Chechen security forces of Republic chief Kadyrov, had rejected this marriage. In 2013, relatives murdered Taus’s husband. His body showed signs of torture. Taus was also abused by her brothers. For several months, they held her in a cellar. In 2014, she finally managed to escape. But it could have been different, as the fate of Rumis, the daughter of her brother Salam, shows. After she had declared against the will of her two uncles that she would marry a third time, she had disappeared a few days before the wedding without a trace. Taus is also threatened with death in Germany. This is reported by a relative living in a neighboring European country who does not want to reveal her name. Taus himself refuses any press contacts.

A pregnant woman is forced to pick up papers in Chechnya

Milana is also speechless about the incomprehension of the German authorities. In 2017 she was lured by her mother on the pretext that she had cancer and wanted to see her daughter one last time, from Germany to Chechnya. Once there, her brothers immediately took her passport. And they planned to forcibly marry her with a Chechen against her will. With the support of Russian human rights activists and the German Embassy in Moscow, she finally returned to Germany. In the meantime, she became pregnant and would like to marry her German friend. That’s why her relatives currently prosecute her even in Germany.

The German authorities show little understanding of their situation. She did not enter with a visa required for a marriage. The pregnant woman is therefore expected to travel back to Russia, apply for a new visa and must provide a certificate from Chechnya confirming that she is not yet married. But human rights activists warn »to send Milana back to Russia would be her sure death« said Svetlana Gannushkina. The Russian human rights activist was awarded the Alternative Nobel Prize in 2016 for her work with refugees in Russia. In the conversation with Bernhard Clasen she draws the alarming conclusion that Chechen refugees in Germany and other European countries are no longer safe. »Unfortunately, Russian authorities and Russian propaganda media have managed to paint a glossy picture of Chechnya. What’s really going on inside the republic is hard to find out. The people from there are afraid to report what is happening. This fear of not being safe even outside of Chechnya is not unfounded when you look at the list of crimes against Chechens outside of Russia.« Says Gannushkina. Even within the EU some Chechens are loyal to Kadyrov and punish alleged apostates.

The consequences include an increasing radicalization of Chechen Young people in Europe, says Gannushkina. She could also understand that some police officials in Germany developed an impulse to apply one standard to all Chechens and to view them with reservations. »Carry out your conflicts, but please do not do it in Germany!« This is not rightfully, so Gannushkina. Rather, Germany should do even more for integration, especially be more careful in conducting hearings with asylum seekers. Decision makers should strive to really understand the situation in Russia and not be guided by suspicion.

»beware of women!«

As funny as this sentence may sound, it reflects in reality a serious problem under which many Muslims today suffer. The isolation of the woman in a room in the mosque, in a society where the men and women interact with each other in everyday life, is an attitude that has schizophrenic features. Often, these so-called prayer rooms for women are smaller rooms, poorly equipped and totally isolated from the main prayer room. The separate women get what the Imam tells only by loudspeakers, which often do not correspond to the hi-end technology, so that one sometimes gets the feeling, the Imam would preach from a space mission!

Much worse, however, is when I see a generation of young men and women who understand this isolation as a sign of piety and believe that this artificial separation belongs to the self-evident of »Islam«. Often I have had the experience that young men are seriously asking me whether the women and men are sitting in a common room in the mosque. And I have often noticed that some men and women did not want to come to class because men and women were sitting in the same room, which in their opinion was a kind of sin. The schizophrenically aspect of this story is that there is no separation at school, at work, at university, in training, in a waiting room, on the train or bus, and you get clear with it and there are no orgies on the street or at work, just because man and woman work in a room. If you can »control« yourself in a bus or in other public spaces, then why not in the mosque?

The segregation of women, I would call it condemnation of women into separate rooms, is in itself a very modern development. If you look at the old mosques, you will surprisingly find out that there were no rooms for women. There were also no walls separating an area of women from one of the men. The women have usually either prayed at the back or at the sides and sat in the same room during the lesson. There was no kind of women’s club within the mosque. The best example here are the mosques of Mecca and Jerusalem.

I am almost certain that many Muslims today would be shocked if they learned how Muslims (man and women) were dealing with each other during the time of the Prophet ﷺ. That would be too much for some, and I would not be surprised if they would discredit how people were dealing with each other in the past as not pious enough. We read, for example, in Sahih al-Bukhari that Abdallah b. Umar – the prophet ’s companion – delivered the following: »In the time of the Messenger of God, the men and women carried out the ritual washing (‚Wudu‘).« In one version of this tradition, a translator added »from the same vessel« and in another one »In the time of the Messenger of God, we performed the ritual washing with the women from the same vessel, and we dipped (both) our hands in it.« Clearly, these traditions do not correspond to the perverted notions that many people today have from the »Prophetic time«. However, one must never forget that the action that the prophet ﷺ himself has confirmed is the standard and not the customs and traditions that contradict these actions.

In Sunan an-Nasa’i, we read that Asmaa, the daughter of Abu Bakr, once sat in the mosque and she did not hear the Prophet ﷺ acoustically correct – she asked a man who was sitting next to her. Yes, you read and wonder: Sitting next to her! It is well known that in the time of the Prophet ﷺ there was no separation between men and women. Yes, the women sat behind and the men in front, but even this rule was not binding. Nowadays we hear a pseudo-argument, which says that the Prophet’s companions were not like us.

Today, people have become »spoiled« and it is better for the sexes to be separated. This argument shows the ignorance towards the times of our ancestors. It shows how romantic the image of the past is drawn. For in the time of the Prophet ﷺ, not all men were angels and sinless. Yes, there were men who have looked at women voyeuristically, even in the prophets‘ mosque and during prayer, as we can read in a tradition, which is, among other things, in Sunan at-Tirmidhi. In the same tradition, a very beautiful woman prayed in the first ranks behind the Prophet ﷺ. And neither did the Prophet ﷺ separate his mosque with a wall, or »condemn« the women into a separate room, as it is the case today.

We also read in the biographies of hundreds of female scholars that they held their meetings in the mosque. In most cases the listeners were men. There was also the custom of visiting these female scholars at home and taking lessons with them. That men and women can sit together in a room and learn from each other does not mean disregarding the etiquette of intercourse between the sexes. But neither the excessive uptightness nor the libertarianism correspond to the Sunnah. It’s just not right at all, that the women have to listen to the teachings and sermons of the Imam in another room. Thus they are deprived of the opportunity to ask questions and to participate in the discussion, a possibility which, for example, the female companions had in the past. Furthermore, in the women’s rooms in the mosques, mothers sit with their babies and children, who can disturb the concentration. It does not correspond to the Sunnah to send women who are interested in listening directly to the words of the Imam, to a room where they only get half of what has been said. But the problem is sometimes with these imams and in the minds of many men … and women.

Кто дал Абузайду Висмурадову визу в Германию?

рубрика: Bilder & Comics

Правозащитники возмущены тем, что командир чеченского СОБРа Абузайд Висмурадов, открыто путешествует по Европе.

Высокопоставленный чеченский военный командир Абузайд Висмурадов, которого обвинили в причастности к похищению, пыткам и убийства в Чечне, посетил Германию. Его визит вызвал вопросы по визовой политике ЕС в отношении людей, подозреваемых в нарушениях прав человека.

Для Висмурадова это не первая поездка в Германию, именно в ФРГ «Патриот» восстанавливался после серьезной автомобильной аварии, в которую попал летом 2012 года.

Даудов и Висмурадов в 2014 году неплохо провели время в Германии

 

Весна 2015

Осень 2015

В голландском Роттердаме он посетил 2017 турнир по смешанным единоборствам, в котором участвовал член элитного бойцовского клуба „Ахмат“ Абдулкерим Эдилов.

В Германии его сопровождал экс-спортсмен Тимур Дугазаев. Мужчина является сторонником Кадырова и участвует в митингах в его поддержку. При этом в свое время он получил там политическое убежище.

Следует отметить, что о приезде Висмурадова в Германию, стало известно из его личного аккаунта в Instagram, а также из аккаунта Тимура Дугазаева, который называет себя «представителем главы Чечни в Германии».

В Германии живут не только чеченцы-беженцы, но и сторонники власти в республике.

В Германии он профессионально занялся спортом. В 2011 году под флагом Германии выиграл чемпионат Европы по боевому самбо. В том же году ему дали немецкое гражданство – до этого у Тимура был только статус беженца. И в том же году он подружился с главой Чечни. По словам Дугазаева, отношения сложились, когда на одном из спортивных мероприятий в Берлине он взял в руки флаг с изображением Рамзана Кадырова.

Кадыровец, как он сам себя называет, занимается в Европе спортивным промоушеном, взаимодействует с консульствами и посольством России.

Тимур и его соратники, тоже чеченские беженцы, часто проводят общественные акции в Германии: например, на 9 мая собираются в Берлине у Бранденбургских ворот с российскими и чеченскими флагами. Устраивают благотворительные акции. Деньги на все это присылает фонд имени Ахмата Кадырова.

Главной своей задачей Дугазаев называет поддержание хорошего имиджа чеченцев в Европе: „Чтобы мы тоже здесь не нарушали. Пытаемся наш народ и наших людей сохранить в первую очередь, чтобы их не использовали сомнительные группировки“.

Летом 2016-года в берлинском районе Лихтенберг был расстрелян член известного немецкого байкерского клуба «Нация Герилья» (Guerilla Nation) по имени Дирк. Его убийство все еще не раскрыто. Однако немецкие силовики полагают, что к убийству причастны члены конкурирующей группировки «Guerilla Nation Vainakh», состоящей преимущественно из чеченцев и ингушей. Эта группировка не только частенько всплывает в криминальных сводках немецкой полиции, но и позирует в байкерских куртках на фоне Бранденбургских ворот в Берлине. В руках члены группировки держат транспаранты с портретами Ахмата Кадырова, а также так называемые «кадыровские флаги», то есть флаги с эмблемой сегодняшней Чечни. Нетрудно догадаться, куда ведут следы позирующих на других фотографиях в камуфляжных одеждах членов «Вайнахской герильи».

Kaukasischer Knoten

рубрика: Bilder & Comics

Das Dilemma von Diktatia: Im Land der Endurier, dass so klein ist, dass es niemand außerhalb des Kaukasus kennt, ist die Regierung nicht sonderlich beliebt. Um ehrlich zu sein, sie ist sogar ziemlich verhasst. Leider gibt es kein demokratischse Verfahren, mit dem die Bevölkerung ihren Unmut ausdrücken könnte. Deshalb ist im Untergrund eine Widerstandsbewegung entstanden, die immer wieder Anschläge verübt. Nach einem besonders furchtbaren Attentat, bei dem eine Bombe neben dem Regierungspalast explodiert ist, lässt der Präsident 30 bekannte Mitglieder der Opposition verhaften und stellt ihnen ein Ultimatum. Entweder verraten sie die Namen der Attentäter, oder sie werden alle hingerichtet. Er erwartet mindestens zwei Namen. Die inhaftierten Oppositionellen bekamen Zeit, um über das Angebot nachzudenken. Es ist alles andere als verlockend. Selbstverständlich ist keiner von ihnen an dem Attentat beteiligt gewesen. Sie wissen nicht einmal, wer es begangen haben könnte. Wenn sie aber keine Namen angeben, sollen alle 30 hingerichtet werden »um den anderen Oppositionellen eine Lehre zu sein« wie es der Polizeichef mit grimmigem Lächeln ausgedrückt hatte. Die Drohung ist durchaus ernst zu nehmen, es hat bereits genügend frühere Vorfälle gegeben, bei denen die Regierung ihre Zuverlässigkeit in dieser Hinsicht unter Beweis gestellt hatte. Schließlich macht einer der Gefangenen einen Vorschlag – man könnte losen, wer von der Gruppe zugeben soll, die Bombe gelegt zu haben. Die beiden Verlierer würden sich opfern müssen, damit die anderen freikämen.

Der Vorschlag scheint besser als das Todesurteil für alle aber ist er korrekt?

Für alle mit Ausnahme der beiden Unglücklichen schien das eine sehr sinnvolle Übereinkunft zu sein, zumindest bis zum nächsten Anschlag – denn nun wurden alle wieder zusammengetrieben. Jetzt brachte einer aus der Gruppe vor, moralisch korrekt sei allein, sich aus der Entscheidung über eine Hinrichtung ganz herauszuhalten. Sie sollten alle ihre Unschuld verkünden, dazu die Schlechtigkeit der Regierung usw. und wenn sie alle hingerichtet würden, dann wenigstens mit unbefleckten Händen und reiner Seele. Das sei besser, als erneut zuzulassen, dass zwei Unschuldige, ob nun per Losentscheid oder als „Freiwillige“ sterben, damit die anderen ihre Haut retten konnten. Denn sonst würde man sich etwas beteiligen, was vollkommen falsch sei. Damit sind natürlich nicht alle in der Gruppe einverstanden. So sagt einer, man solle abstimmen, weil das die einzige faire Möglichkeit sei, ein so verstecktes Dilemma aufzulösen. Aber ist es ethisch?

Ein derartiges Dilemma ist nicht so fern, wie der Elbrus von Europa erscheinen vermag. Man denke nur an die Zeit des Nationalsozialismus, in der nach Anschlägen der Widerstandsbewegung ganze Gruppen von Verdächtigen festgenommen und auf ähnliche Weise unter Druck gesetzt wurden. So mancher sieht dieses Problem als rein mathematisches an – entweder sterben alle dreißig oder nur zwei Personen. Andere halten jedoch dagegen, dass auch auf mathematischer Ebene die Antworten nicht so einfach ist. Geht man nämlich auf das Angebot der Regierung ein, gibt man ihnen die legale Handhabe für zukünftige Ungerechtigkeiten ungeahnten Ausmaßes. Andere würden argumentieren, dass es grundsätzlich falsch ist, Menschenleben zu opfern, unabhängig von Kalkulation und Konsequenz. Iskander sagte einmal, dass der kaukasische Knoten komplizierter sei, denn wer will nicht lieber leben? Wenn wir von mathematischer Wahrscheinlichkeit sprechen, wünschen wir Exaktheit um eine konkrete Antwort für die ethischen Fragen zu erhalten und Verschließen uns dabei der Realität, denn die Annahme, dass dich eher einer deiner Gruppe verrät, sehen wir nicht als gegeben.

Gespräch im Gefängnis:

– Warum sitzt du hier?

– Wegen Faulheit. Wir haben spät am Abend mit den Freunden Witze erzählt. Ich habe gedacht: ich will jetzt nicht rausgehen. Ich werde sie morgen früh beim Geheimdienst melden. Und sie sind sofort zum Geheimdienst gegangen.

Der Präsident der in einem prächtigen und protzigen Palast lebte, sah es pragmatischer: Iskander? Die Rakete oder der Schriftsteller? Egal denn der Herr lebt in einem Elfenbeinturm beim Elbrus und sollte es sachbezogener sehen. Weshalb sollte der Polizeichef so primitiv sein? Der „Tod aus natürlichen Gründen“ ermöglicht die Eliminierung von Dissidenten ohne Dissens. Herzinfakt, hypertensive Krise oder plötzlicher Hirntod machen sich im politischen Portfolio besser.

Wie würden Sie diesen kaukasischen Knoten lösen?

Doch dies ist nicht das einzige Dilemma in Diktatia. Die Menschen, die dort leben, sind ein einfaches Volk, das alten Traditionen folgt und seinen eigenen Weg geht. Durch die Gaben der Natur gesegnet, waren die Bewohner das ganze Jahr über mit Früchten und Gemüse versorgt. Zusätzlich bauen die Endurier, von denen jeder ein kleines Stück Land besitzt, gerne Weintrauben an. Es gibt eigentlich nichts, worüber sie sich streiten müssten, wenn man mal von Frauen und Geld absieht – und die Endurier sahen davon ab. Im Laufe der Zeit haben die Endurier ein politisches System entwickelt. Einmal im Monat tritt ein Ältestenrat zusammen, der alle ihm vorgelegte Probleme zu entscheiden hat. Alle Entscheidungen müssen einstimmig gefällt werden, und solange die Bewohner der Bergdörfer zurückdenken können, hat diese Form der Selbstverwaltung sehr gut funktioniert. Nur einmal kommt es zu Unstimmigkeiten: dem Rat der Ältesten wird ein Vorschlag vorgelegt, wonach die gesamte Ernte des Landes gesammelt und dann je nach Bedarf an die Bewohner verteilt werden soll. Dieser Vorschlag kommt von einem Kommunisten aus der Stadt, der die Berge gerade besucht. Im Ältestenrat gibt es kaum Unterstützung für diesen Vorschlag. Warum sollte sich jemand die Mühe machen, Weintrauben anzubauen, wenn er den Wein direkt aus dem Kelch des Kollektiv trinken kann, fragte eines der Ratsmitglieder. „Das bestehende System ist das fairste, das es gibt. Jeder hat alles, was er braucht, und wer mehr haben möchte, muss eben etwas mehr arbeiten. Wir sollten es so lassen, wie es ist.“

Hat das Ratsmitglied recht?

Der Rat stimmt dem Mitglied zu und der Vorschlag wird verworfen. Kurze Zeit später gerät das kleine Land unter großen Druck. Das Klima verändert sich und ein großer Teil des Ackerlandes verdörrt. Erstmals können die Bewohner kaum noch genug ernten, um zu überleben. Eine Ausnahme bilden allerdings die zehn Prozent der Einwohner, die das Glück haben, eine eigene Quelle zu besitzen. Ihre Ernte übersteigt ihren Eigenbedarf bei Weitem, deshalb lassen sie die anderen Endurier für sich arbeiten und bezahlen sie mit Wein. Als der Kommunist dem Rat der Ältesten den Vorschlag erneut vorlegt, kommt es zu einer deutlich hitzigeren Debatte. Vielen Enduriern geht es inzwischen nämlich sehr schlecht. Die Kinder mehrere Familien sind bereits verhungert. Sie verlangen, dass die zur Verfügung stehende Nahrung an alle verteilt wird. Die Endurier, mit eigenen Quellen wollen jedoch, dass die Situation bleibt, wie sie ist, sodass sie mehr Nahrung haben, als sie brauchen und ein wenig die großen Herren spielen können. Sie behaupten, es wäre selbst dann nicht genug für alle da, wenn man die vorhandene Nahrung aufteile. Außerdem wird das Argument wiederholt, mit dem der Vorschlag schon einmal abgeschmettert wurde – niemand würde noch auf seinem eigenen Acker arbeiten, wenn die Reicheren ihre Ernte nicht behalten könnten. Der Rat der Ältesten kommt nicht zu einer einstimmigen Entscheidung, also müssen alle Endurier weiter mit den immer härteren Bedingungen fertig werden. Der Vorsitzende des Ältestenrats weist jedoch darauf hin, dass es wichtiger sei, das Prinzip aufrechtzuerhalten, nach dem niemand gegen seinen Willen etwas gezwungen werden dürfe, als dass einige Endurier leiden.

Ist der Rat immer noch im Recht?

Einige Jahre später dringt Kunde von einem neuen Bewässerungssystem in das Land. Indem man die Quellen und die Felder durch Kanäle verbindet, kann das ganze Land wieder fruchtbar gemacht werden. Die armen Bauern sind davon überzeugt, dass der Rat diesem System zustimmen wird, denn schließlich hätte jeder dadurch nur Vorteile. Einige Endurier und nicht nur die Quellenbesitzer, haben sich aber inzwischen an die neuen gesellschaftlichen Verhältnisse gewöhnt und sind gegen die Bewässerung. Daraufhin verlassen die armen Bauern die Versammlung und setzen das neue Bewässerungssystem zwangsweise durch.

Ist dieses Verhalten gerechtfertigt?

Nach diesem Vorfall entschließt sich der Ältestenrat für das Prinzip der Mehrheitsentscheidung. Schon ein paar Jahre später denken die Bewohner, die sich nun Bürger nennen, kaum noch an die frühere Regelung einstimmiger Entscheidungen. Die Meinung der Mehrheit scheint durchaus für eine faire Gesetzeslage sorgen zu können. Mehrere Jahre lang funktioniert das Prinzip zur Zufriedenheit aller. Dann aber kommt es zu einer tödlichen Epidemie, die in direktem Zusammenhang mit den lebenswichtigen Wasserkanälen steht. Nachdem man die Bergbäche begradigt hatte für die Kanäle, haben sie sich als ausgezeichnetes Brutgebiet für Mücken erwiesen. Der Derwisch von Diktatia, ein der Medizin kundiger, weiser Mann, prophezeite, dass zwei Drittel der Bevölkerung an der Krankheit sterben werden, wenn man nicht sofort Gegenmaßnahmen ergreift. Der Rest ist gegen die Krankheit von Natur aus immun. Der Derwisch schlägt vor, dass jeder Einwohner die Blätter der Bärenkralle kauen soll, weil diese angeblich schütze. Dieser Vorschlag wird beim Rat eingebracht und steht kurz davor, einstimmig angenommen zu werden, als jemand das Wort ergreift und den Derwisch fragt, ob es denn wahr sei, dass nicht jeder die Bärenkralle vertrage und sogar an ihrem Genuss sterben könne?

„Nun ja, schon.“ antwortet der Derwisch. „Ich erwarte, dass etwa ein Zwanzigstel der Bevölkerung an der prophylaktischen Behandlung sterben wird – aber das sind viel weniger als die zwei Drittel, die durch die Mücken dahingerafft würden!“ Der Derwisch fügt mit ernster Stimme hinzu „Im Übrigen, ist es essenziell wichtig, dass jeder einzelne Bürger immunisiert wird, denn sobald jemand infiziert ist, wird die Krankheit hoch ansteckend, der Virus verändert sich und spricht danach auf die medizinischen Gegenmaßnahmen nicht mehr an.“

Sollten gemäß dem Vorschlag des Derwisches alle Bürger gezwungen werden, die Bärenkralle zu kauen?

Noch bevor über den Vorschlag, modern nach Mehrheitsentscheidung, abgestimmt werden kann, meldet sich ein weiterer Endurier zu Wort: „Warum soll ich mein Leben riskieren und eines dieser albernen Blätter kauen? Ich war bereits erkrankt und habe mich wieder erholt. Lieber stecke ich mich noch einmal an, als dass ich mich dem Risiko der Bärenkralle aussetzte – schließlich weiß ich, dass ich wieder gesundwerden kann. Niemand kann mich zu der prophylaktischen Behandlung zwingen!“ Die anderen Endurier sind jedoch mit dem Rat einer Meinung, dass das Risiko für Mitbürger wie den vorherigen Sprecher zwar vorhanden, aber klein sei und dass im Übrigen ein wirksamer Schutz für das Land nur durch die konsequente Behandlung aller Bürger gegeben sein könne. Das Immunisierungsprogramm wird mit großer Mehrheit angenommen.

Da die Endurier nicht wissen, ob sie der Epidemie zum Opfer fallen könnten, scheint die Zwangsbehandlung mit Bärenkralleblättern eine akzeptable Idee zu sein. Aber ist die Durchführung wirklich fair und demokratisch oder unfair und despotisch?

In dieser Diskussion spielen mehrere ethische Grundsätze eine Rolle. Aus einem Sinn für Gerechtigkeit heraus könnte man etwa beklagen, dass manche Menschen mehr haben als sie brauchen, während andere Mangel leiden. An den bestehenden Verhältnissen ändert dieses Unbehagen allein jedoch nichts. Aber inguschische Ironie beiseite, der Vorsitzende hat vielleicht recht, wenn er sagt, dass zum Wohl der Allgemeinheit sowohl reichen als auch armen Bürgern Anreize geschaffen werden müssen. Die Überlegungen der Kritiker, die Erträge anders zu verteilen, ist möglicherweise etwas kurzsichtig und illusorisch. Das „Recht“ der Armen, nicht zu hungern, steht dem „Recht“ der Mehrheit auf Freiheit diametral gegenüber. Die Endurier haben es hier mit einem typischen Problem zu tun – das System funktioniert ausgezeichnet, solange es keine Schwierigkeiten gibt, wird aber ungerecht und geradezu despotisch, sobald Probleme auftreten. Gerade in schwierigen Zeiten zeigt sich, ob sich Regierte regieren lassen.

Die Vorstellung, dass das Volk in einer solchen Pflicht steht, findet sich zum Beispiel in dem imaginären „Gesellschaftsvertrag“ des Philosophen Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes merke an, dass die Natur keine Gesetzte kennt und keine Unterscheidung zwischen Gut und Böse trifft. Allerdings ist das Leben in der Natur „ekelhaft, tierisch und kurz“. Deshalb hielt es Hobbes, der während des englischen Bürgerkriegs lebte, für besser, dass Einzelne im Notfall auf sein Recht, selbst zu bestimmen, was für ihn das Beste sei, verzichtet und – falls nötig – auch unter einem Diktator lebt, als dass die staatliche Autorität untergraben wird. Er ging davon aus, dass ein Diktator weniger Schaden anrichten könne als eine anarchische Gesellschaft. Dem hielt ein Jahrhundert später John Locke – der allgemein als geistiger Vater der amerikanischen Verfassung angesehen wird – entgegen, dass ein solcher Gesellschaftsvertrag für die Menschen schlimmer sei als jener „Naturzustand“ vor dem sie eigentlich geschützt werden sollten, da sie damit der Willkür der Obrigkeit ausgesetzt wären. Wer, so fragt Locke, würde denn einen vertrag unterschreiben, der ihn vor „Iltissen und Füchsen“ schützt, wenn er sich dafür „den Löwen ausliefern“ muss? Der wirtschaftliche Erfolg liberaler Demokratien mit ihrem „unnatürlichen“ Grundsatz, dass alle Menschen gleich sind, hat zur weitgehenden Anerkennung der Vorstellung geführt, dass jeder Mensch unveräußerliche politische Rechte besitzt.

Teilen die Endurier diese eurozentrische Sicht?

Was ist wenn alle die gleichen Rechte haben, nur manche mehr?

Nach ein paar Wochen sind einige Bürger durch das Kauen der Blätter zu Tode gekommen, darunter auch der, der sich während der Versammlung zu Wort gemeldet hatte. Die Mehrheit der Endurier ist jedoch jetzt immun. Die Immunisierung scheint also prinzipiell gerechtfertigt zu sein, und doch dürfte so mancher einen nagenden Zweifel verspüren…

Wie bei vielen ethischen Problemen hängen auch hier die unterschiedlichen Argumente auf komplexe Weise zusammen. Der Zeitgenössische Philosoph John Rawls hat darauf hingewiesen, dass man nur dann gerechte und vernünftige Entscheidung treffen kann, wenn keine persönlichen Interessen von der Entscheidung berührt werden. Die Frage der Bewässerung kann also am besten von einem Außenstehenden getroffen werden (das Grundprinzip des Utilitarismus) der das Wohl der Allgemeinheit gegen die Freiheit des Einzelnen aufwiegen kann. Das größte Problem besteht darin, dass einige Leute glauben, mit einer Wiederansteckung ein geringeres Risiko einzugehen als mit dem Kauen der Blätter. Rein rechnerisch ist die Gefahr, nach dem Verzehr der Blätter zu sterben, viel kleiner, als durch die Krankheit dahingerafft werden (1:20 beziehungsweise 2:3). Von einem objektiven Standpunkt aus ist das Programm also notwendig. Wüssten wir jedoch von vorneherein, wer die Krankheit überlebt, wäre es unethisch, diese Person einem tödlichen Risiko auszusetzten, das ihn keinerlei Nutzen bringt. Für die Nochtschi ist die einzige Lösung einzusehen, dass selbst die, die gegen die Krankheit immun sind, ein so hohes Risiko auf sich nehmen müssen, um der Mehrheit zu helfen – zu denen ja auch ihre Freunde und Verwandte gehören.

Einer der Endurier erwidert: etwas an dieser Ethik verstehe ich immer noch nicht. Gibt es denn Unterscheide zwischen moralischen Geboten und staatlichen Gesetzten? Wenn ja, weshalb? Wie sind Menschen wirklich? Eigennützig und gierig oder großzügig und nett? Sind einige Menschen »besser« in Moral als andere oder ist jeder Mensch gleichermaßen zum Guten fähig? Gibt es gute Methoden, Kinder moralisch zu erziehen? Hat überhaupt jemand das Recht, anderen zu sagen, was Gut- oder Schlechtsein heißt? Gibt es Typen von Handlungen (z.B. Kindesfolter) die immer schlecht sind? Wenn ja, welche? Wie lautet wohle eine gute Antwort auf die Frage: »Warum soll ich ein guter Mensch sein?« Ist Ethik eine Sonderform des Wissens? Wenn ja, welcher Art und wie können wir es uns aneignen? Heißt Moral, bestimmte Regel zu gehorchen oder bedeutet es, Folgen von Handlungen genau abzuwägen? Wenn jemand sagt »Ich weiß, dass Mord Schlecht ist.« ist das Wissen oder lediglich sehr starker Glaube? Ist die Ethik einzigartig und dadurch universell oder haben Europäer und Endurier eine andere Moral? Wenn jede Antwort nur eine neue Frage ergibt, wer beantwortet denn alle Fragen am Ende? Weshalb wissen wir, dass wir glücklicher wären, wenn wir die Antwort hätten? Ein anderer Endurier antwortet: Als Waise weiß ich wenig, aber wie können wir die Antworten auf die großen Fragen erwarten, wenn wir kaum die kleinen beantworten können?

Zwei Brüder, dazwischen ein Berg. Die Brüder laufen, laufen, begegnen sich nicht. Was ist das?

Vier Brüder. Einer läuft dem anderen hinterher, sie laufen, aber können sich nicht einholen. Was ist das?

Auf einem Klotz sind zwei Pilze, was ist das?

Ich hebe es hoch, es weint. Ich lege es hin, es ist wieder still, was ist das?

Auf der Spitze eines Berges ist eine Schlüssel Joghurt, was ist das?

In einem Weingefäß ist zweierlei Wein, was ist das?

Wir haben eine Braut, sie räumt das Haus auf und bleibt in der Ecke stehen, was ist das?

In einer Bäckerei sind zweierlei Brot: eins ist warm, eins ist kalt, was ist das?

In einer Grube ist eine Schlüssel Reis, was ist das?

Ich habe ein Haus, es hat weder Tür, Dach noch Boden. Rundherum ist nur eine Wand, drinnen jedoch ist es voller Menschen, was ist das?

Ich habe ein Handtuch, ich falte und falte, kann es aber nicht zusammenfalten. Was ist das?

Der Wahnsinn der Geschlechtertrennung

рубрика: Bilder & Comics

In Tschetschenien ist die massive Ungleichbehandlung, ja Unterdrückung der Frauen Teil der Regierungspolitik. Auch wenn Ramsan Kadyrow behauptet, eine muslimisch geprägte Republik zu führen, die sich nach den Regel des traditionellen tschetschenischen Adat richte und an der russischen Verfassung orientiere, ist es doch seine eigene zutiefst chauvinistische und frauenfeindliche Politik, die den Alltag der Frauen in Tschetschenien bestimmt.

Die in der russischen Verfassung garantierte Gleichheit von Mann und Frau ist in Tschetschenien ausgehebelt. Die Unterdrückung der Frau ist elementarer Bestandteil der Regierungspolitik von Ramsan Kadyrow geworden. Für Diskriminierung und Unterdrückung von Frauen herrscht völlige Straflosigkeit – selbst wenn sie Opfer von Verbrechen werden.

Diese massive Einmischung Kadyrows in Familienangelegenheiten der Zivilbevölkerung widerspricht auch den Traditionen in Tschetschenien selbst. Erzwungene Eheschließungen sind ein weiterer Schritt – nach der Einführung einer Kleiderordnung für Frauen 2010/2011 (Kopftuch, lange Röcke), dem Verbot, Bärte, bzw. lange Bärte zu tragen für Männer etc. – hin zu einer massiven Kontrolle auch des Privatbereichs.

Tschetschenische Mädchen nach der Schule vor der Achmad Kadyrow Moschee – das „Herz Tschetscheniens“ ist angeblich die größte Mosche Europas, obwohl die „Die Große Moschee in Machatschkala“ in der Nachbarsrepublik Dagestan 6.000 Gläubigen mehr Platz bietet. Anfang 2012 würde durch die Regierung ein neues Gesetz eingeführt, das alle Mädchen, ungeachtet ihrer Religion, dazu auffordert, ein Kopftuch zu tragen, bevor sie öffentliche Schulen und Regierungsgebäude betreten.

Eine Gruppe von tschetschenischen Männern steht am anderen Ende des Raumes auf einer Party in Grosny den Frauen gegenüber. Die geschlechtsspezifische Segregation wird in Tschetschenien durch Erlass von Ramsan Kadyrow strikt durchgesetzt.

Eine Gruppe tschetschenischer Frauen steht am anderen Ende des Raumes, das Ergebnis der strengen Durchsetzung der Geschlechtertrennung durch von Ramsan Kadyrow.

Ein Pärchen muss für ein Date sich in der Öffentlichkeit treffen und im Abstand voneinander sitzen. Jeder körperliche Kontakt ist vor der Ehe verboten.

Das leere Schlafzimmer, das Elina Aleroyeva, 25, einst mit ihrem Mann geteilt hatte. Am 9. Mai 2011 wurde er an seinem Arbeitsplatz von Sicherheitskräften entführt und beschuldigt, ein Militanter zu sein. Das Verschwindenlassen von missliebigen Personen war ein Merkmal, der beiden tschetschenischen Kriegen und findet trotz Ende der Kämpfe im Land weiterhin statt.

Seda Makhagieva (15) umhüllt ihren Kopf mit einem pastellfarbenen Tuch. Sie kämpfte darum, den Hijab zu tragen – ein scharfer Bruch mit den Traditionen ihrer Familie.

Tschetschenische Mädchen machen sich auf den Weg zur Moschee. Bilder ©

„Achtung Frauen!“ Ich kann mich erinnern, wie dieser Satz vor ungefähr 13 Jahren auf einem Schild einer Leipziger Moschee zu lesen war. So lustig dieser Satz auch klingen mag, so spiegelt er in der Wirklichkeit ein ernstes Problem wider, unter welchem viele Muslime heute leiden. Die Isolation der Frau in einem Raum in der Moschee und zwar in einer Gesellschaft, wo die Männer und Frauen im Alltag miteinander interagieren, ist eine Haltung, die schizophrene Züge aufweist. Oft sind diese sogenannten Gebetsräume für Frauen kleinere Räume, schlecht ausgestattet und total von dem Hauptgebetsraum isoliert. Die abgesonderten Frauen kriegen was der Imam erzählt nur durch Lautsprecher mit, die oft nicht der Hi-End Technologie entsprechen, so dass man manchmal das Gefühl bekommt, der Imam würde aus einer Weltallmission predigen!

Schlimmer ist aber, wenn ich eine Generation von jungen Männern und Frauen sehe, die diese Isolation als ein Zeichen der Frömmigkeit verstehen und meinen, dass diese künstliche Trennung zu den Selbstverständlichkeiten „des Islams“ gehöre. Oft habe ich die Erfahrung gemacht, dass junge Männer mich allen ernstes fragen, ob im Unterricht in der Moschee die Frauen und Männer in einem gemeinsamen Raum sitzen würden. Und ich habe nicht selten mitgekriegt, dass einige Männer und Frauen nicht (mehr) zum Unterricht kommen wollten, weil eben Männer und Frauen in einem Raum saßen, was nach ihrer Meinung eine Art Sünde wäre.

Das schizophrene an dieser Geschichte ist, dass es in der Schule, auf der Arbeit, an der Uni, in der Ausbildung, in einem Wartezimmer, im Zug oder Bus keine Trennung gibt und man kommt damit klar und es finden auch keine Orgien auf der Straße oder auf der Arbeit statt nur weil Mann und Frau in einem Raum arbeiten. Wenn man sich in einem Bus oder in anderen öffentlichen Räumen „beherrschen“ kann, dann warum dann nicht in der Moschee?

Die Absonderung der Frauen, ich würde es Verdammung der Frauen in separate Räume nennen, ist an sich eine sehr moderne Entwicklung. Schaut man sich die alten Moscheen an, dann stellt man überraschenderweise fest, dass es keine Räume für Frauen gab. Es gab auch keine Wände, die einen Bereich der Frauen von einem der Männer trennte. Die Frauen haben normalerweise entweder hinten oder an den Seiten gebetet und während der Unterrichte im gleichen Raum gesessen. So eine Art Frauenclub innerhalb der Moschee gab es nicht. Das beste Beispiel sind hier z.B. die Moscheen von Mekka und Jerusalem.

Ich bin mir fast sicher, dass viele Muslime heute, wenn sie erfahren würden, wie die Muslime und Musliminnen in der Zeit des Propheten ﷺ miteinander umgingen, geschockt wären. Das wäre für manche zu viel und es würde mich nicht wundern, wenn sie den damaligen Umgang miteinander als nicht fromm genug abstempeln würden. Wir lesen z.B. in Sahih al-Bukhari, dass Abdallah b. Umar – der Prophetengefährte – folgendes überlieferte: „Die Männer und Frauen haben in der Zeit des Gesandten Gottesﷺ zusammen die rituelle Waschung (Wudu’) vollzogen.“ In einer Version dieser Überlieferung fügte ein Überlieferer hinzu „aus dem gleichen Gefäß“ und in einer anderen Version steht: „In der Zeit des Gesandten Gottes ﷺ vollzogen wir die rituelle Waschung mit den Frauen aus dem gleichen Gefäß und wir tauchten (beide) unsere Hände darin ein.“ Klar entsprechen diese Überlieferungen nicht den verkehrten Vorstellungen, die viele heute von der prophetischen Zeit haben. Man darf jedoch nie vergessen, dass die Handlung, die der Prophet ﷺ selbst bestätigte der Maßstab ist und nicht die Bräuche und Traditionen, die diesen Handlungen widersprechen.

In Sunan an-Nasa’i lesen wir, dass Asmaa, die Tochter Abu Bakrs, einmal in der Moschee saß und sie den Propheten ﷺ akustisch nicht richtig gehört hat; so fragte sie einen Mann, der neben ihr saß. Ja, man lese und staune: Neben ihr saß!

Es ist allgemein bekannt, dass es in der Zeit des Propheten ﷺ keine Trennung zwischen Männern und Frauen gab. Ja, die Frauen saßen hinten und die Männer vorne, aber auch diese Regel war nicht bindend.

Heutzutage hören wir ein Scheinargument, welches besagt, dass damals die Prophetengefährten nicht wie wir waren. Heute sind die Menschen „verdorben“ geworden und es ist deswegen besser, wenn die Geschlechter getrennt werden. Dieses Argument zeigt die Unkenntnis über die Zeiten früher. Es zeigt, wie romantisch das Bild von der Vergangenheit gezeichnet wird. Denn in der Zeit des Propheten ﷺ waren nicht alle Menschen Engel und sündenfrei. Ja es gab genauso wie heute Männer, die Frauen voyeuristisch angeguckt haben und das sogar in der Prophetenmoschee und während des Gebetes, wie wir es in einer Überlieferung, die u.a. in Sunan at-Tirmidhi steht, nachlesen können. In der gleichen Überlieferung steht, dass eine sehr schöne Frau in den ersten Reihen hinter dem Propheten ﷺ gebetet hat. Und weder hat der Prophet ﷺ seine Moschee mit einer Wand getrennt noch hat er die Frauen in einen Extraraum „verdammt“, wie es heute der Fall ist.

Wir lesen auch in den Biographien von hunderten weiblichen Gelehrten, dass sie in der Moschee ihre Sitzungen veranstaltet haben. In den meisten Fällen waren die Zuhörer Männer. Es gab auch den Brauch, dass man diese weiblichen Gelehrten zuhause besuchte und bei ihnen Unterricht nahm.
Dass Männer und Frauen in einem Raum zusammensitzen und voneinander lernen können, heißt nicht, dass die Etikette des Umgangs zwischen den Geschlechtern außer Acht gelassen wird. Aber weder das exzessive Verklemmtsein noch der Libertarismus entsprechen der Sunna.

Es ist einfach nicht in Ordnung, dass die Frauen die Unterrichte und Predigten des Imams in einem anderen Raum hören. So nimmt man ihnen die Möglichkeit weg, Fragen zu stellen und sich an der Diskussion zu beteiligen, eine Möglichkeit, die z.B. die Gefährtinnen und die Frauen in der Vergangenheit hatten. Des weiteren sitzen in den Frauenräumen in den Moscheen Mütter mit ihren Babies und Kindern, die die Konzentration stören können. Es entspricht der Sunna nicht, Frauen, die Interesse haben, die Worte des Imams direkt zu hören, in einen Raum zu schicken, wo sie nur die Hälfte des Gesagten mitkriegen. Aber das Problem liegt auch manchmal bei diesen Imamen und in den Köpfen vieler Männern…und Frauen.

Ali Ghandour

Art of Aardakh

рубрика: Bilder & Comics

The art of Aardakh is the visual art from the immediate and indirect sphere of influence by the Soviet terror, originated from the mid-1920s to the end of the 1990s in the Soviet Union or in the areas occupied by Soviet troops. The art of Aardakh comes from a political territory, does not pay tribute to a virtuoso idea, its subject is nothing great, sublime, too often the not very distinctive artistic talent is noticeable. Artistic genius is in this art not even important. It does not stand in the art history so important tradition of the Renaissance or antiquity. From a work aesthetics cannot be spoken in most pictures. Presumably, this is the main reason why both the art trade and the museums beyond the historical presentations do not adequately consider this art. More important is their humanistic claim. I avoid the term testimony, it is usually diametrically opposed to the claim of a work of art. This forgotten art of Aardakh lies in the archives of Nazran or Norilsk, in the depots of many regional and time-specific museums in Magas or Magadan. This particular art is sometimes even derogatory referred to as depot goods. This abuse reveals the critic who is unwilling to abandon the usual art standards and approach the artistic objects with the necessary sensitivity. The art of disaster always reflects personal responsibility.

Picture by Ayshet Daurbekova

Picture by Bagaudin Sagov

Picture by Kh.A. Imagozhev

Picture by V.V. Bizhovsky

Apti Bisultanov: You cannot separate what’s happening in Chechnya and talk about politics here and about civil life as well as art there. We have no professional politicians – Zakayev is an actor, I am a poet, our former president Yandarbiyev was a poet; two friends who died next to me in the trenches were excellent artists. A very popular singer had his legs torn off right next to me – we did not make a decision for power, but a decision of conscience. I always say: we Chechens do not need followers of the Chechens, we need followers of the truth. And in this world, I am on the side of the truth. I know, for you in Germany and in the world today that sounds archaic – but there are values, if you betray them, you’re a nobody.

Is there only one truth in this conflict – or more?

It’s easy to choose the truth in this conflict. They speak as if there were only two sides: occupiers and resistance. According to the journalist Anna Politkovskaya, however, they are dived into the »Westerners« supporters of the moderate President Maskhadov, »Arabs« – followers of Islamization – and small groups fighting for personal revenge. I admire Ms. Politkovskaya for her courageous reports, but here she tries to be too smart. Which war against occupiers was ever uniform? You have to see the core of the conflict. Our people have not been deported because of Al-Qaida! Certainly, some fight for revenge, some fight for other goals, some in the name of Allah, – but only because the occupiers came to Chechnya and turned it into a concentration camp. If you ask if the Chechen society is radicalized and tends to extremism – for sure! That’s obvious. What else remains for a man besides religion? Where is law and order, where is the law of nations? Europe does not do anything, it does not even tell Putin that this is bad, what happens there! But one thing I assure you is that in the end Europe will have to solve the problem anyway – the sooner it does that, the better.

What were your literary role models when you started writing in Chechen?

During the deportation, all Chechen poets were either shot dead, or imprisoned, or sent to the camp for up to twenty years. The literature was almost completely destroyed. Afterwards came people who wrote in completely unnatural Chechen and nobody wanted to read what they wrote, but they had apartments, dachas, as well as membership of the Soviet Writers‘ Union. And then our generation came, the generation »Prometheus«.
Why Prometheus? We founded a literary club in Grozny. If you consider – that was the heyday of socialism, and we found a club that seeks a synthesis with the international, European contemporary literature, with the modern age. The club was banned. But for me, there is a tradition that every artist can go out of – folk art. This applies to all artists, even the modern age. I was lucky enough to grow up in the mountains, with a grandmother who was over one hundred years old. I was very inquisitive and memorized many poems, in Chechen and Russian, even before I went to school. Later in »Prometheus« I was influenced by poets like Rimbaud and García Lorca, poets from Peru to Chile like Gabriel Mistral and Cesar Vallejo.

What about Mandelstam or other Russians?

Of course also Mandelstam and Pasternak, they are both real, great Russian poets. Obviously, everything came to me in the form of the Russian language, in Russian translations etc. Russian culture has influenced me a lot. But we oriented ourselves to the West. Like Mandelstam and Pasternak, too. The task of the poet is to get to a place where no one was before him. This was said by the Russian poet Joseph Brodsky, and his words may also be applied to the poetry of Apti Bisultanov.

Before the war, Apti Bisultanov worked as an editor and lecturer, and during the first Chechen war, he remained a poet. However, when the second Chechen war broke out in 1999, he did not want to be a victim again, but joined the partisans. Only through these events he was drawn into politics, which takes the time for his actual work, says Bisultanov. »But that’s my life. The most important thing is that I am natural and sincere, but I would love to spend my entire time on Art for the remaining days of my life.«

The suffering of the Chechen people, the wars of centuries, the deportation under Stalin and finally the tragedy of the present war – these events are the subject of many poems by Apti Bisultanov. For example »Khaibakh!« a poem about the Khaibakh Massacre on February 27,1944 during the Operation Lentil (the mass deportation of Chechen nation to Central Asia and Sibiria on February 1944). As it was impossible to convoy deportees to the railway stations on the plain due to a snowstorm, 700 villagers, including women and children, were locked in the stable and burned alive, while those trying to escape were shot.

I know nothing, not where head or foot
A beak gnaws away at my heart
Sharp claws force out a scream
My song resounds over ruins
Soft tissue oozing from spine
No pain remains, no fear,
Wings fanning ash
Echoes catching cries:
»Khaibakh, ach, Khaibakh, ach, Khaibakh!
Bodies – people, animals – burning!
Prayers for the dead burning!
Graves of our fathers burning!«
I must stand – am nothing but bones
Must walk – my knees are crushed.
Rocks towering form a dungeon
Shadows flickering enclose me:
»Who is your father? His name?«
»Leave me be, ghosts of the dead.
Would you shatter my skull?«
Gradually the ghosts assume form.

Childhoods:

My grandmother used to say
if you see your childhood three times
you will live a long life
My father saw his childhood twice
The first time when he went to war
through the carriage window
he saw it there on the platform
It had come from his mountain village
all the way to say goodbye
The second time he saw it
was when soldiers
marched him off to exile
He turned and saw it
on the edge of the village
too scared to come with him another step.
Later it hid
at night
in an old defence tower with the wild doves
But NKVD soldiers blew up the tower
and it died
The third time
returning from exile
when they weren’t allowed home to the mountains
my father left his family on the plains
and went in search of his birthplace
On his way back
he turned
but he could not see his childhood
Then he understood
that one doesn’t always have
to want to live so much
I was small and didn’t take his point
But now I think I understand
his all too early death
I only saw my childhood once
When I went to war
I turned around
and saw it at the gate
too scared to come with me another step
Bombs tore up the streets
Then
with timid terrified children
it went to hide in a cellar
But a valiant pilot dropped a bomb on the house
My son never saw his childhood
He went to war as a child.

Ilman Yusupov is a well-known Chechen poet who was born in Kazakhstan after his family was deported by Soviet government in 1944. The death of Stalin in 1953 led to a loosening of the control regime. The repressions went back, but the status of the exiles changed nothing at first. Only three years after the death of the dictator, on July 16, 1956, the restrictions imposed by the special status on the exiled were lifted by decree. However, the right to return to home was not granted at that time. When thousands returned home on their own, the Central Committee of the Communist Party on 24 November 1956 decided to allow the peoples to return and restore the national territories.
In 1970 Ilman Yusupov was graduated from the Mahketinsky High School in Chechnya. Between 1972 to 1977, he studied in the Faculty of History at the Leningrad State University in Russian city Leningrad (nowadays Saint-Petersburg University) and graduated it in 1977. Afterwards he worked as a teacher of history and social sciences in Chechnya between 1978 and 1993. In the same term, he worked also as the Principal of High School. He served as a deputy editor of «Marshonan Az» (Voice of Freedom) newspaper from May 1993 to August 1993. And in August 1993, he became the editor of a literary and art magazine «Orga» (Argun). During the first Russian-Chechen war, he was a member of editorial board of government newspaper «Ichkeria» that was released in secret ways in Vedeno until 1995. In September 1996 he was appointed as the First Deputy Minister of Education and Science in the government of the President of the Chechen Republic Ichkeria of Aslan Maskhadov.

He began to writing very early when he was 13 years old; and his first poem was published in 1969 by a popular literature newspaper «Leninan Nek» (Lenin’s Way). Since 1980s he has been publishing regularly in various literary magazines. In 1991 his first volume of poems appeared «Zamanan Mazlaga» (Apiary of Time). In 1997, his second poetic collection «Dönallin Mäzhdig» (Mosque of Resistance) followed his first publication. In 1999 his third volume of poems appeared: «Iesan Ghu» (Well of Memory). The poems here are dedicated to the victims of the deportation under Stalin. Since 2005, Ilman Yusupov has been living in Sweden, and in 2006 he participated in poetic festival in Härnösand town. He has translations of his verses into the Swedish language. The name of his book in the Swedish language is «The Chechen Hearth». His poems translated into English, Spanish and Russian too.

Sad Thoughts:

The graveyard expands more and more each and every day
A dozen of graves are added to an old tombstone.
The mattock of death daily weeds amid those lying in clay
Always keeping an eye on the tillage of life, on its own
The jar of my fate will break in flinders some day
Breaking suddenly off the wonderful dream of my life.
Learning the death ABC from inscriptions on tombstone plates, so to say.
I shall have to make up my last will while I am alive.
I often come to the graveyard and stop deep in thought:
The last trace of my life will break on this spot.
My flesh will become tasteless food for this land, and I,
Along with my soul, will become a delicious meal for the sky…

The Breath Of The War:

The breath of the war is touching the smoking skyline,
Bloody rain is falling on the burning forest expanse.
Mortal foes turn to ashes the homes of the country of mine,
Mothers, hunched up with grief, weave shrouds for their sons.
The memory springs slake the thirst of the stone roads of war,
And in honour of freedom, give out the herbs alms of spray,
Straining the tempered thread of the fight ever more
The centuries threaten the foes with the sword of gazavat*, to-day.
The mountains call one another, so the echo is hoarse
Hordes of enemies trample the sacred land of fathers of ours
The towers of ancestors call this place Nokhchicho, as a matter of course,
Reading the letters of courage with the eyes of loopholes in the towers.
*Gazavat – holy struggle for freedom.

Lonely Evening…

Lonely evening, old mom, tearful eyes, graveyard, tombstone –
There they are the gloomiest words of Chechen mother tongue.
Twilight darkness falls dragging worry and anguish along
From which lonely evening will creep out for someone alone.
Filling with memory moments the handful of salutary prayer
An old mother pays due in excess to the time somewhere there.
It seems that the tearful eyes are, if you do some hard thinking,
Writing characters gripped by bitter sobbing and weeping.
There are village graves with their lances of churts* in hand
That gripe in their bellies those who have trodden the sunny land.
Every lonely evening an old mother is crying in cemetery, and
Her tears spill over on the back of a grave, hunched and bent…
*Churts – tombstones

Regret:

The wasp always flies around choosing only the ripest pear,
The grey-haired dandelion opens its arms to the piercing blast.
Yesterday’s state of reality hasn’t yet gone very far from there,
And tomorrow’s troubles already jostle the present day’s fuss.
Boring and bothering, the frog gives a croak in the swamp
Looking for happiness lost in the rustling bushes of cane,
The instants, my lines, never written, depart, very prompt,
Leaving unspoken regret on the tip of my fountain pen…

To Nokhchichoh:*

Nokhchicho! You will hear my whisper, I know.
When I breathe my last on the final verge, and
Merging with the steam of silence, I’ll go
Rising over the peasant’s arable land.
When they lay me to rest, your azure blue sky
Will hang over graveyard with its eyes, all wet.
My unfinished songs about you will bitterly cry
When, for the very last time, I breathe in your scent.
I softly and silently say to you my goodbye
Raising my breast in the last throe and moan.
My churt** will be the shining moon in your sky
And that on the earth will be a mountain stone.
But where shall I put the banner of your calm:
Hang it on clouds, or take it along to the burial spot?
Remember, I carried it, like a child in my arms,
Caressing and fondling it with most ardent thought…
*Nokhchichoh – Chechen name for Chechenya.
**Churt– a tombstone.

To Motherland:

Chechen Land, every trace that I leave on your soil is fair,
I should like to turn them into food to feed all your roads;
Year in and year out, my body is striving to be light as air,
So it might not, willy-nilly, cause pain with its loads.
He who’s performed the ablution with water from your waterfall
Can hear the voice of your light calm though his ears are shut.
I will take your wind in my arms, like a cat rolled up in a ball,
And I need your hailstorm to grind it in the mill of my heart.
In spring I will throw the log of your sun into the stove of my breast,
In summer, let your doctor, the rain, make an injection into my brain.
In fall, on a thread of cranes I will string the beads of soul in my chest.
In winter I‘ll make a song lace from the grey-haired yarn of your haze.
You have always shared your sinless assets with me, and hence
You know I don’t squander the gifts you send from above,
With the marble of your crescent I am building a blest happy fence,
And with gravel of your stars I am paving the road to my love.
When, death, like a wolf, creeps up to me, and puts out my brain
Remember always, I, too, will want to have this for my own:
The twines of your grass to bind the black neck of my grave,
The white hands of your fog to wash the inscription on tombstone.

Lonely Night:

Lonely night, aged mom, tearful eyes, graveyard, tombstone –
There they are, the glomiest words of Chechen mother tongue.
Twilight darkness falls dragging worry and anguish along
From which lonely night will creep out for someone alone.
Filling with memory moments the handful of prayer
The old mother pays overtax to the time somewhere there.
The tearful eyes are, if you do some hard thinking,
Writing characters gripped by sobbing and weeping.
There are village graves with lances of churts* in hand
That gripe in their bellies those who have trodden the sunny land.
Every lonely night an old mother’s crying in cemetery, and
Her tears spill over on the back of a grave, hunched and bent.

The Neverending story of the North Caucasus

рубрика: Bilder & Comics

No other region on the European continent has suffered over the last twenty years as much as the North Caucasus. The region has endured two devastating wars, terrorism, and pervasive violence and injustice up to the present. The situation in this piece of land on the borders of Europe is far from being peaceful today and the people have continued to be legitimately worried about their safety.

Today can hardly be compared with the war years, when as a result of the fighting in Chechnya tens of thousands of civilians were killed and entire neighborhoods of cities were bombed. The capital of Chechnya, Grozny, has been sumptuously reconstructed over the last few years, but behind the new facades fear rules far and wide. The state can call for anyone anytime and a person can just disappear. There is no one that can be turned to for justice; often it is impossible to even figure out what exactly happened. In Chechnya, Ramzan Kadyrov governs over the land and his armed units, commonly known as the Kadyrovtsy, are connected to a range of accusations over torture and other horrific crimes. Free media, independent courts or police simply do not exist – everything is subordinated to Ramzan Kadyrov. Chechnya can be considered, within the area of the North Caucasus and Russia, in its measure of totalitarianism as an extreme case. However, torture, abductions and extrajudicial executions also occur in other regions in the North Caucasus. In recent years, especially in Dagestan, the army and police have been struggling with rebels – whether real or imagined – who want to impose a strictly Islamic character on the country. Among other things, shootings, explosions and other operations using heavy military equipment happen often.

Chechnya, Dagestan, and Ingushetia – each of the republics of the North Caucasus has its own problems in many respects, but the common denominator is the impunity of security forces, which in these societies has incrementally led to a sense of injustice and helplessness, and only complicates and delays finding a real solution to the problems of the region. As pointed out by Russian human rights defenders, torture, murder and disappearances are made possible precisely because the state security forces, in practice, do not have to follow the laws – they are in fact protected by the highest levels of leadership of the state. The only hope for justice, however delayed and somewhat distant it might be, is through the European Court of Human Rights, which is swamped with legal cases from Russia, a large portion of which currently are cases from Chechnya and the other republics of the North Caucasus.

In comparison with other times in the past, today is it naturally far more difficult for local human rights defenders, who are trying their best even under these difficult conditions to find justice, to attract international attention about the complex issues of the North Caucasus – through this exhibition we would like to contribute to their efforts.

The disappearance of Abubakar Tsechoev in 2012 caught the interest of Ingushetia’s president Yunus-Bek Yevkurov more so than other similar cases, to the point that he felt compelled to react to citizens’ complaints demanding that he put an end to such abductions. The Ingush people were threatening to take to the streets. On March 22, 2012, Abubakar was abducted straight from his workplace, which was a water management station in Ingushetia. At around 9 p.m., about ten masked men entered the water management company’s premises. They cut the barbed wire around the station and cut off the electricity. There were three witnesses of the armed abduction – Abubakar’s colleagues. They were the ones who informed Abubakar’s family about what happened. The family tried to notify the relevant authorities immediately. However, they recommended to wait before submitting the notification about the abduction and to see if perhaps Abubakar managed to return home in the meantime.

The Tsechoev family already had experience with unlawful detention. Abubakar’s brother Islam was abducted in 2001. On top of that, he was abducted with his supposed accomplice, a Chechen called Salambek, whom he said he had never seen before. Both men were tortured and unlawfully transferred to different locations in the Russian Federation. Islam eventually filed a criminal complaint with the European Court of Human Rights. The Court ruled against Russia for breaching the European Convention on Human Rights. Since filing the complaint, Islam has not been able to live in Ingushetia out of fear for his safety. Abubakar Tsechoev has not been found.

»There were three other people working with my brother at the station – an electrician, a machine operator and a security man. At around 3 a.m. the machine operator came to our house and told us what had happened, saying how at about 9 p.m. armed men broke into the water management station,« says Ibragim Tsechoev, another brother of the abducted Abubakar. »Abubakar was assaulted by at least three men, who beat him with the butts of their assault rifles, as well as with their fists and feet. Then they put handcuffs on him, carried him out of the station and left in their cars, most likely in UAZs,« added Abubakar’s brother Ibragim, giving the details from the machine operator’s testimony.

»The machine operator said that he and his colleagues were tied and threatened that they would be shot to death if they moved. At around 2 a.m. the machine operator succeeded in freeing himself out of the ropes, untied his other colleagues and went right away to our house. He had to go on foot since the abductors had immobilized the car. They also took all of their phones, radio transmitters and even the change out of their pockets,« Ibragim, one of the abducted man’s brothers, told journalists. Abubakar Tsechoev’s brother said he immediately went to report the abduction to the police.

»However, they did not accept my official notification. Instead, I was told that in such cases one must wait for three days. So I went there again with the machine operator who worked at the station. This time, they finally recorded the testimony. Still, they only went to the scene of the abduction the next morning,« said Ibragim Tsechoev.

The death of Magomed Yevloyev, the owner of the opposition website Ingushetiya.ru, is considered by many to be another victim in a series of many unclear deaths of »inconvenient« independent journalists in Russia.

On August 31, 2008, Magomed coincidentally happened to find himself on board of a plane from Moscow to Ingushetia with his »ideological enemy« Murat Zyazikov. While they were still on board, he was already texting his friends and his family saying it might be a better idea for them to meet him right at the airport. In 2008, his life was constantly filled with fear. After his arrival, Magomed was immediately arrested and taken away.

His friends, who were waiting for him at the airport, followed the cars that were taking Magomed. They managed to stop one of the cars. They found out that in the vehicle were members of the security detail of the Minister of Interior Musa Medov, who had been at the airport to personally welcome the plane with the president on board. Magomed’s friends who continued following the vehicle with Magomed, then saw the abductors throw Magomed, who was already dying, out of the car outside of a hospital. He died on the operating table, having suffered a gunshot wound to the head. Based on the official explanation, Yevloyev’s injury occurred when Yevloyev fell on a gun belonging to one of the security men during a fight in the car after he had been arrested. During the investigation one of the security guards was charged with a crime deemed as »manslaughter resulting from negligence, while carrying out one’s duties.« Having had his sentence commuted after two years in prison, this man was shot to death by unknown perpetrators in a café in Nazran, Ingushetia’s capital city.

After his arrival in Nazran, president Zyazikov briefly stopped to talk to Musa Medov, the Minister of Interior. Afterwards, he left the airport. According to witnesses, Musa Medov then waved his hand – and UAZ vehicles, which were prepared there, came up to the plane. Two policemen entered the first class cabin and asked: »Who here is Magomed Yevloyev?« Magomed said that it was him and stood up. He was told to follow them. The Yevloyevs heard later on that the airport’s security service was informed two hours prior to the arrival of the plane that an arrest would occur at the airport.

When, on the way from the airport, Magomed’s friends stopped one of the cars, the men in it shouted at them in Ingush: »This blood is not on our hands.« Magomed Yevloyev’s friends only completely grasped the meaning after they learned of their friend’s death. When Yevloyev’s family and friends came to the hospital, it was completely surrounded by members of the federal security forces. Only one friend of the injured Yevloyev was allowed to enter the hospital. It was Magomed Chazbijev. Based on his words, there was blood on the stairs that had clearly come from Yevloyev’s wounds when he was being taken into the hospital. Magomed died on the operating table without having regained consciousness. Yevloyev’s funeral turned into an opposition demonstration in the center of Nazran after around one thousand people showed up. The people gathered there called out protest slogans: »Zyazikov, resign!« and »Yevloyev’s murderers must be held accountable!« The opposition speakers spoke openly at the demonstration about their doubts, saying this was not an accidental death while accusing the Ministry of Interior and president Zyazikov of their involvement in the murder.

Ramazan Umarov was taken by the police directly from his apartment in the capital city of Dagestan Makhachkala on April 28, 2007 at 8 a.m. Two other men were detained with him at the same time, but they were released after being interrogated. Ramazan, on the other hand, ended up disappearing without a trace.For several weeks his family tried in vain to find out where he could be. They met with people who allegedly had some information about him, but without any real results. The police only started to investigate Ramazan’s disappearance on May 18, 2007.

In December 2007, Ramazan’s father and sister took the matter to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The Russian side claimed at the hearing that during the investigation it was impossible to confirm Ramazan’s death, as well as the claim that state security forces had been involved in his disappearance. According to Russia, the investigation had been effective.

However, the Court in Strasburg highlighted the fact that the investigation had already been interrupted six times, which made it extremely difficult to identify the culprits and to hold them accountable. After several years, the family of the abducted man finally received the verdict from Strasbourg: the Russian side was to pay 60,000 EUR in compensation for breaking several articles of European Convention on Human Rights that had taken place during Ramazan’s detention, as well as over the course of the investigation of his disappearance.

Before Ramazan Umarov’s disappearance in 2007, he was detained by the police, together with two other men, in his apartment in Dagestan’s capital city, Makhachkala. All three of them were turned over to Dagestan’s Department for Combating Organized Crime. Investigations were launched against two of the men, but Umarov disappeared without a trace. After Ramazan’s disappearance, his family feared that it would be a repetition of the same incident that had happened in 2005 when Ramazan was arrested, tortured and eventually released. According to the testimony, his detention at the time happened in such a way that they threw a hood over his head and took him to the examination room, where a pistol and three bullets were planted on him.

Afterwards, he was detained for three months in a holding cell, where he was beaten and tortured, so that he would confess to offences that he did not commit. After one year, Ramazan was fully acquitted by the court and the High Court upheld the acquittal in its entirety. About ten days after Ramazan’s disappearance, unknown people started calling Ramazan’s father. They also put the kidnapped Ramazan on the phone, so that he could quietly whisper to his family instructions that were dictated to him by his kidnappers. For a few days, the Umarov family was being offered meetings in various Chechen cities. Ramazan’s father went to some of those places. However, he did not succeed in finding the unknown people. According to the Strasbourg Court the Russian government had breached an Article of the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. As the court stated, the respective authorities should have proceeded with better care and in a more expeditious manner. Furthermore, Umarov’s unlawful arrest was a violation of the right to liberty and personal safety.

On August 22, 2013, Omar Valibagandov left by car for his former workplace in order to collect some money. After he did not return home and did not answer his phone, Omar’s relatives started to search for him. Yet, it was all to no avail. They filed a report about his disappearance to the police on that very day. The following day they learned from unofficial sources that Omar was in a public hospital in the Dagestan town of Izerbash.

On August 24, they set out to go there. From hospital records they learned that Omar had been admitted to the hospital on August 23 with cuts, bruises, contusions and evidence of electrical shocks. According to the doctors, Omar had been given the help he needed and, allegedly, the police came to the hospital about an hour later and took Omar to an unknown location.The family was unable to get the recording of the hospital camera. There are testimonies available that say that the hospital was visited by the local chief of the police Ruslan Daudov himself. There are also camera recordings that show unknown men manipulating with the car in which Omar had left his home. The investigation of Valibagandov’s case was only initiated after an intervention by the Russian ombudsman, but without any result to this day. Omar was a follower of a Sufi branch of Islam, which the Russian administration considers to be a breeding ground of terrorism.

According to the testimony of the doctor of the emergency services, on August 23 at 6:08 am the rescue team received a phone call from the police station in the village of Karabudachkent saying that there was an injured man, who was under the protection of the Federal Security Services in the village of Achi-Su. Doctor Sharapov and her team left for the stated location. In the arranged place, the doctor took over the care of Omar, who was wrapped in blankets and handcuffed. Based on what the doctor said, Omar had multiple injuries on his head and over his entire body. She gave him an injection to reduce his pain and, accompanied by the security service workers, she took him to the hospital. When they were approaching the hospital, they could see that it had been surrounded by the police. The hospital staff stated that Omar had suffered a gunshot wound to his left thigh and that he had bruises on his lower limbs and in the buttocks area. The doctors removed a rubber bullet from the wound. In compliance with standard procedure, the hospital notified the local police about a patient with a gunshot wound having been admitted.

A group of policemen came to the hospital to interrogate Omar. Based on police documentation, Omar offered the police a strange story about him taking a walk on a beach in Izerbash and finding a rubber bullet pistol on the ground. Supposedly while looking at it, the pistol accidently fired and injured his leg. Then he crawled to a road, stopped a car and asked the people in the car to take him to a hospital. He signed off on this story as well as the statement that he was leaving the hospital alone and on his own accord. Afterwards, the police took him away from the hospital. There is a text message sent out from Omar’s phone. The message was supposed to create an impression that it had already been sent on August 22 to one of Omar’s friends. He gave instructions in it as to where he was leaving his car, which was not his; he also said that the keys were on the radiator and that he was having some troubles and was going to lay low for some time. It is most likely that the message was not written by Omar, since he was already probably in the hands of unknown members of security forces at that time. This is even clearer since a street camera showed that the car was parked by somebody else and that someone else had put the keys on the radiator.

Umar Israilov most likely paid with his life for giving evidence about the cruel acts perpetrated by the so-called Kadyrovtsy – troops directly subordinate to Chechen president Ramzan Kadyrov. As Umar Israilov had been a member of Kadyrov’s security forces for a brief period of time, he was an ‘insider’. He was assassinated on January 13, 2009 in Vienna in broad daylight. In 2010, an Austrian court sentenced the three perpetrators, to 16 and 19 years in prison, and the third to life imprisonment. The prosecution mentioned Ramzan Kadyrov as a person directly connected to the assassins.

When the first Chechen war broke out, Umar was thirteen years old. During the second war, he joined the rebels. In 2003, he was captured by the Kadyrovtsy – who by that time had already become adherents to Kremlin’s politics. After being tortured for some time, he joined them in order to save his own life.

In 2004, Umar and his wife left Russia and obtained political asylum in Europe. In response to this, the security forces detained his father. They detained him for ten months hoping they would force Umar to return. The old man was tortured and was a witness to the torture of others. Eventually, however, he was lucky enough to be released – or more precisely thrown out of a car outside of his home some twenty kilos lighter.

The Russian prosecutors later demanded that he make a statement that he fabricated the story about being tortured for ten months because he had wanted to spend time with his mistress. Both the father and son filed complaints in 2006 with the European Court of Human Rights. Since the court had no information as to their whereabouts, it could not proceed further with their examinations and did not open the cases. Umar provided a lot of details and materials to the New York Times, which focused on the topic of cruel acts of the Kadyrovtsy.

At the beginning of the Chechen war in 1995 Umar was herding cows near the Chechen area of Mesker-Yurt when he heard an artillery attack. After he got home, he found his mother’s body torn into pieces by shrapnel. He was thirteen and his heart was hardened. According to the New York Times »Umar always insisted that he had never been in combat or committed violence.

However, such claims are common among former fighters«. In Umar’s own words, in 2003 when he was caught and captured by the Kadyrovtsy, he was victim to a number of violent acts in a former gym that had been turned into a torture chamber. When the Kadyrovtsy did not succeed in forcing him to admit to various crimes that he had not committed, they brought him into a former sauna where Kadyrov himself presented him with a choice: to accept a pistol and join the Kadyrovtsy which meant he would live. When he was later asked by journalists why he did not turn the pistol against the men who had tortured him, Umar replied: »Because I wanted to survive«.

In an interview with The New York Times in the autumn of 2008, Umar talked about the practices of the Kadyrovtsy. He mentioned, for example, the fact that Kadyrov admired devices used for administering electrical shocks. While watching these devices at work, Kadyrov was known to say: »That is really something!« He also spoke about men being sodomized with various objects. He also said that Kadyrov had a motto: »The best way to get the rebels out of the forest is to do it through their families«. Umar described having seen a lot of innocent and unlawfully detained people; some who were rebels, but also relatives of someone who had had some relation to the rebels. »You feel like your muscles are going to explode« said Umar about the electrical shocks.
Israilov was attacked in Vienna, not far from his apartment when he had stepped out around midday to buy yogurt, leaving his three children at home. Most likely Umar saw the attacker and started to run. Over a few minutes, he was struck by several bullets and he died soon after.

In February 2014, Ruslan Kutayev, an active human rights defender, a fighter for better Chechen-Russian relations, and an upstanding man in his fifties, was thrown in jail for alleged drug possession. This happened after he organized a conference on the seventieth anniversary of Stalin’s deportation of the Caucasian peoples. Ramzan Kadyrov did not approve of the event taking place. After the conference, Magomed Daudov, the chief of Kadyrov’s presidential office better known as »Lord«, invited all of the organizers to a meeting with the president. Ruslan challenged the request from Daudov. He was arrested the following day, on February 20, 2014.

According to the official version, security forces randomly stopped him in the village of Gekhi. During a body search, they found that Kutayev, who is a teetotaler and non-smoker, was carrying three grams of heroin in his back pocket. During his detention he was tortured and forced to confess. Kutayev was at risk of being sentenced to 12 years in prison. On July 7, 2014, he was sentenced to four years in prison. Kutayev and many human rights defenders like him in Russia are convinced that his case is part of the Russian government’s current tendency to discredit opposition politicians, human rights defenders and activists.

On February 19, Ruslan Kutayev received a call from Magomed Daudov, the head of the presidential office, an influential Chechen politician, and member of president Ramzan Kadyrov’s inner circle. Kutayev refused to meet with the president. In the morning of February 20, Ruslan phoned everyone he was close to. His wife told him over the phone that their house, where he had left from, was under constant surveillance by the police. Kutayev was staying with distant relatives in the village of Gekhi. Because he anticipated that his phone was bugged, he made a point of repeating during his telephone conversations that he was in Pyatigorsk outside of Chechnya’s borders. However, around two in the afternoon he was arrested in the village of Gekhi. According to Kutayev’s testimony, the Deputy Minister of Interior of Chechnya, Apti Alaudinov, and the Head of the Presidential Office Magomed Daudov, also known as Lord, played an active role in his torture. They kept Kutayev naked in a cellar, placed an axe on his neck while shocking him with an electric current. He was also tortured with an electric baton. He lost consciousness several times during the torture. He suffered a concussion and extensive bruising, along with injuries to his ribs and jaw. They showed him photographs of his nephews. From the up-to-date nature of the pictures, he was supposed to understand that his family was being constantly monitored.

»The physical pain has subsided and my wounds are healing, but knowing that the government uses the state security forces for such things, to fight with politicians, civil society activists and human rights defenders, fills me with horror that they will face similar processes. I want to remind everyone that no matter how long the night lasts, it cannot last forever and dawn will break one day.« said Kutayev during his closing arguments before the court on May 7, 2014.

In May 2014, Suleiman Edigov was sentenced to fourteen and a half years in prison for the attempted murder of a police officer and the unlawful use of a weapon. Suleiman insists that he is not guilty, claiming that the security forces used torture to make him confess. Suleiman’s case has no precedent in the Russian legal system. In November 2013, during the trial, Judge Vakhid Abubakarov recused himself, saying that Edigov had been forced to make a confession by the Minister of Interior of the Chechen Republic and therefore his verdict could not be impartial.Edigov had not been residing in Chechnya since 2009. In August 2012, he came home to sell his car. On August 3, in front of many witnesses, he was driven away by masked men and held at the county police department until September 12, when, according to official records, he is supposed to have been detained. During this time he was forced to confess with the use of torture. The confession served as the only piece of evidence of his guilt, for which he was given 14 and a half years in prison.

There is still a pending appeal to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. The fourteen-year prison sentence was then ordered by a different judge. Judge Abubakarov, however, had gathered enough evidence already in 2012, which showed that during his forty-day illegal detention, Suleiman Edigov had been tortured with electric shock. His fingers had been wrapped in aluminum wires that carried an electric current, which caused Suleiman to have festering wounds on his hands and around his fingers.

Suleiman had not been continuously residing in Chechnya during the two wars. He returned after the end of the second war and got a job with the security forces. He had this job between 2008 and 2009, at which point he moved to Sweden. From there he went into trading in used cars. In his words, he had left Chechnya because he was constantly being harassed by Timur Isayev who urged him to join the rebels. Isayev did not stop pestering him by telephone in Sweden, but Suleiman resisted taking him up on these offers.
During more than a month in captivity, his jailers wrapped Suleiman’s fingers in aluminum wires that were connected to an electric current. When the wounds began to fester, they called for the local morgue worker, who was a trained nurse, to take care of it. She treated the wounds and they healed.

However, the scars have remained. There is unusually extensive evidence in Suleiman’s case, yet prosecution for his case has not been initiated. »The man, who introduced himself as Minister of Interior of the Chechen Republic, Ruslan Alkhanov, and whose number was not displayed whenever he called me on my mobile phone, told me that, based on confidential sources, the defendant Edigov had committed the crimes with which he was being charged. And he warned me against acquitting him,« said judge Abubakarov.

»Despotism and unlimited power of the security forces in Chechnya, it seems, is of concern not only for ordinary people, but also for members of the judiciary.« Edigov could hear the new judge’s verdict sentencing him to 14 and a half years of imprisonment from the stretcher on which he was brought to the courtroom. The reason was that fourteen days before the verdict he began a hunger strike. »Based on the precedents of the European Court of Human Rights, evidence acquired through use of violence falls into the category of false evidence. The use of such evidence is indicative of an unfair trial,« said lawyer Anton Ryzhov from the Committee against Torture about this case.

During the investigation into the disappearance of Said-Saleh, both the witnesses and people affected in this case were subjected to coercion. The investigating officer threatened the kidnapped young man’s mother saying to her that if she were to give the true account of what happened, she would put the whole family in danger. It seems that the kidnapped Said-Saleh knew that three insurgents were hiding overnight at the family’s estate in the village of Goity.

The following day, October 21, 2009, two of the men in hiding died during a special operation carried out by security forces. They were killed by members of the so-called Oil Regiment as well as other security forces. The third insurgent escaped. One policeman died during the operation. Said-Saleh, who knew about the insurgents’ hiding place, was caught on a street in Grozny and was turned over to the Oil Regiment. Also Said-Saleh’s uncle Adnan was made to show up at the regiment’s base.

It was in the office of the regiment commander, Sharip Delimkhanov , that his uncle Adnan managed to see Said-Saleh for the last time. The investigators later indicated that uncle Adnan’s testimony about what he had seen in Delimkhanov ’s office would create serious problems for the family. The whereabouts of Said-Saleh are unknown. Despite this, the investigation was postponed on April 3, 2010, since »it was impossible to determine the culprits«. The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg acknowledged that Russia was responsible for such an ineffective investigation and that in the case of Said-Saleh’s kidnapping several human rights agreements had been breached.

Said-Saleh’s mother Raisa and his uncle Adnan said that as soon as they arrived home, they were surrounded by people in uniforms. Adnan was shown a dead body of a young man while he was told that this man was an insurgent who had been hiding in the attic of their house since October 20th. When Raisa and Adnan were taken to the police station for questioning, only the roof was on fire. By the time that they returned at 9 pm, two out of their three buildings had burned down. According to witnesses, the firemen who arrived at the scene did nothing.

After Said-Saleh found out about the military operation happening at their house through a phone call from his cousin during the day, he left to stay with his relatives in Grozny. There, he explained to his other cousin why he had allowed the insurgents to hide in their house: »What would you do if you were in my shoes? If they were aiming a gun at you while saying that unless I let them stay overnight they were going to kill all the women in the house as well as me?«

At around 11pm the investigator called uncle Adnan telling him to come back again quickly to the police station. Adnan was then seated in the office of the Oil Regiment commander Sherip Delimkhanov. Said-Saleh was also brought in, looking terrified. His face had blood and bruises all over it. The police officers claimed that their colleague had been killed in Said-Saleh’s house and in accordance with the customs he must be avenged. Based on Adnan’s testimony, they said they would kill Said-Saleh. Later on, they said they would not kill him if he helped them find the fighter who escaped into hiding. The investigator threatened Said-Saleh’s mother saying that she should not file a criminal complaint because of her son’s disappearance.

»If you file a criminal complaint, you will be killed and all your relatives in the house will be burned to death«, he said to the mother. Adnan was allegedly told that he would feel sorry later on if he insisted on receiving the investigation records, including the information that both Adnan and Said-Saleh had been taken to Oil Regiment’s premises. Afterwards, both Adnan and Raisa did not request the official protocol, which included the information that Said-Saleh had been taken to the Oil Regiment’s premises.

In 2009, the Askhabov family lost their son Abdul-Yezit, he disappeared without a trace. The Askhabovs probably found themselves in the sights of the Chechen security forces because of the wartime past of their other son, Yusup, who fought against federal troops during the Second Chechen War (1999-2000). After the war he did not report to the armed groups, but he also didn’t live with his family at their permanent address.

On May 28, 2009, Yusup was killed during a special operation in the center of the Chechen town of Shali. His father had to come there to identify the body. According to his testimony, masked men beat him up over the corpse of his son, the first blow was from the then chief of the local police in Shali Magomed Daudov, who also went by the nickname »Lord«. Later that summer, on August 5, masked men arrived at the Askhabov home at 3 o’clock in the morning. They introduced themselves as being from the Federal Security Service and took Abdul-Yezit away to an unknown location.

Later, the family learned that Abdul-Yezit was most likely being held at the police station in Shali. Abdul-Yezit is missing to this day. The investigation into his disappearance has been stopped, »because it was not possible to determine the culprits«. The former police chief from Shali has since then become the Chief of the Administration of Ramzan Kadyrov.

»When I saw my slain son, I said to myself in Chechen: how will Allah receive him. When Magomed Daudov heard these words, he came to me and struck me in the face. At the same time, other men threw me down and started kicking me and beating me with their rifle butts. They beat me terribly, almost to death. I lost consciousness almost immediately, I do not remember anything. I was allegedly grabbed from the site by unknown people and taken to the hospital. I had suffered two heart attacks,« said the father of the Aschabov family about what happened that day.

»On the very day that Yusup’s corpse was brought to us, they dragged it around the yard and mocked it. They beat my two daughters, Ayshat and Nurzat with the butts of their rifles. I attempted to get out of the house, but they hit me again with the butt of a rifle. Afterward they loaded Yusup’s body and drove off without giving it to us so that we couldn’t bury him. I still don’t know what they did with him.« the father of the Askhabov family told human rights defenders about the behavior of the police.

On the night of August 5, 2009, Abdul-Yezit was taken away from him home in a car without license plates. The family immediately reported the abduction of their son to the relevant authorities. In late September, the Askhabovs approached human rights defenders from the Russian organization Memorial. According to his mother Tamara, Abdul-Yezit had never held a gun in his hands. Since childhood he was visually impaired and had a second-degree disability. On August 7, 2009, Tamara set off with relatives to the Grozny office of the ombudsman. A staffer received them and immediately called the police in Shali. They heard him speak to someone and he insisted that Abdul-Yezit be released from detention. He then went on to say: »Even if he was the brother of an insurgent leader, you have no right to detain him beyond the period specified under the law.« From this encounter Tamara Askhabova understood that Abdul-Yezit was in Shali.

The investigation into the disappearance of Zarema Gaysanova is an example of the Russian investigating authorities’ inaction and sabotage. During the investigation of this crime – in which state representatives were involved – evidence was falsified and the falsifiers have gone unpunished. Zarema, a Chechen, was 40 years old and was working in neighboring Ingushetia for the Danish Refugee Council, a humanitarian organization that helps refugees.

She returned home to the Chechen office in Grozny on October 31, 2009 and wanted to spend the night in an otherwise uninhabited family house. That day, Zarema was kidnapped during a special intervention, which was carried out by armed forces against insurgents on her property. The operation was ordered by the Chechen President Ramzan Kadyrov himself. During the operation masked men loaded Zarema in an SUV and took her to an unknown location. Since then, her family has been unable to learn anything about her fate.

The date appearing on the notice of Zarema’s disappearance, according to evidence from human rights defenders, was manipulated. The European Court of Human Rights is looking into the inconsistent investigation of the case. Zarema’s mother, Lida Gaysanova, has filed a lawsuit against the Russian state with the court.

Special intervention, which was carried out by the armed forces on Gaysanova’s property, was ordered, as he later admitted himself, by the Chechen president Ramzan Kadyrov. One evening when Zarema’s mother Lida was watching TV, she saw coverage of her family’s house burning in Grozny. According to the Ministry of the Interior, the insurgent Ali Chasanov had been discovered in the house – number 7 Darwin Street. A neighbor also called Lida to inform her that Zarena had been taken away to an unknown location.

Later in an interview, Ramzan Kadyrov told the human rights defender Igor Kalyapin from the Committee Against Torture that he ordered the operation and that Zarema had been detained, but was released soon after. Investigating authorities did not even want to open criminal proceedings over the falsification of evidence, which human rights defenders had revealed in the criminal case file. The date used for the filing of the notice of Zarema’s disappearance had obviously been manipulated by someone. The case to initiate criminal proceedings over the falsification of evidence was dismissed in June 2010. The documentation for Zarena’s story includes the sentence »It isn’t possible to interrogate R. A. Kadyrov, due to the fact that he is overloaded with work.«

Human rights defender Natalia Estemirova was abducted according to eyewitnesses on July 15, 2009 near her home in Grozny. Later that day, her body was discovered with several gunshot wounds to the head in the village of Gazi-Yurt in Ingushetia. Her death has brought grief to her loved ones, colleagues and many others, for whom she was often the only hope of finding out the truth.She was originally a history teacher from a Chechen-Russian family in Grozny, but began working as a journalist during the first Chechen War. She brought to light many stories about the war, about hundreds of its victims, and especially about children. Since the beginning of the second Chechen War, she cooperated with the Russian human rights organization Memorial, focusing on the kidnappings and murders of Chechen civilians.

Estemirova’s work was »inconvenient« for Ramzan Kadyrov who repeatedly threatened her. In 2008, feeling uncomfortable after one of these conversations, she made a decision to spend several months abroad for safety reasons. In the fall of 2008, she returned to Chechnya and resumed her human rights activities. Neither her loved ones nor colleagues have any doubt that she was murdered. And as it happened in the majority of similar cases, her killer has gone unpunished, as has the person who ordered the hit.
War photographer Dmitri Belyakov has said of Estemirova that she was an invaluable source of information. »She never cheated; she never claimed something that would suit her interests to be the truth. Besides, she had a very humane approach…. It is such a loss. It is hard to live with the fact that the person responsible for her death has not been punished.«

Natalia Estemirova met with Kadyrov on March 31, 2008 and he was extremely unpleasant to her. He reprimanded Natalia, saying that her behavior was unacceptable and he also asked her: »Why are you doing these things? Don’t you have a daughter, aren’t you afraid for her sake?« said Tatyana Loksina, from the Russian branch of Human Rights Watch, when she spoke in court about the relationship Natalia had with Kadyrov. After this conversation with Kadyrov, Natalia took advantage of the offer to hide abroad for a while for the second time in her life. Estemirova was abducted close to her home in the morning. Her colleagues began to worry when she didn’t show up for a previously arranged meeting and set out to look for her at her place of residence. There, they questioned two witnesses who saw the incident from a balcony. They said that she only managed to scream out that they were taking her against her will.

»I am a total pacifist. I am against war in any form, unconditionally. Pacifism isn’t in vogue with us. Nor is the defense of human rights, but that doesn’t mean that the situation is hopeless. I am saying, again, that many times during my work, it was words that worked, all the more powerfully when voices of journalists from various publications from different countries were unified.« Natalia Estemirova

Sapiyat decided to devote her life to advocacy. She has been working in Dagestan under difficult conditions to defend the rights and ensure rightful legal procedures for all of her clients. Often, these are very sensitive cases that other lawyers refused to take on, out of fear for their own safety. During her legal work she has witnessed a multitude of illegal activity which went unpunished. Sapiyat has criticized the connections between politicians and the armed forces to armed groups. According to Sapiyat, corruption is the most pressing problem for state authorities and institutions. She believes that in places where there is corruption, instruments of power are unable to ensure respect for human rights. Criminal activity that goes unpunished only generates more crimes.

This slender, young lawyer has herself been the victim of violence that has not been punished. In 2010, Sapiyat was beaten by police officers when she came to visit a client, who was being detained. After sustaining a concussion and other injuries, Sapiyat spent three months in the hospital with broken ribs and internal injuries. At the time when the police were looking into Sapiyat’s legal complaint about the violent actions of the police, the police officers simultaneously filed a complaint claiming it was Sapiyat who had physically attacked them. The investigation into both of the cases were terminated due to the fact that it was impossible to determine who had beaten whom. Sapiyat has appealed to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Sapiyat says that she fears for her life just as anyone else in her position might. She has won several international awards for her courageous work – which, besides being a motivation to keep working, also provides some guarantee of safety.

Sapiyat Magomedova was already somewhat of a rebel in college. She never gave bribes to sit for any of her exams, as was the custom at the faculty. She assumed the same honest approach in her first workplace at the City Collegium of Lawyers in Makhachkala. Her engagement there resulted in a number of complaints filed against a judge for prolonging a process and inciting Sapiyat’s older colleagues against her.

In 2010, Sapiyat was beaten at a police station when visiting a client. Afterwards, she was thrown out on to the street. According to Sapiyat, a number of the injuries were very painful. Sapiyat Magomedova is convinced that her parents died of grief because of what was happening around their daughter. Her mother died shortly after Sapiyat came round from surgery after being attacked by the police. Sapiyat is determined to keep fighting in the name of justice. In 2014, Sapiyat received People in Need’s Homo Homini Award for the defense of human rights. In her speech, she said, among other things, that »human rights simply cannot be violated like this, with impunity. The level of corruption in our country is directly contingent on what we have achieved in the area of human rights, and silence is exactly what is needed for the absolute triumph of corruption.

 

Super-Mudschahedin #Munāfiq

рубрика: Bilder & Comics

Für manche, und besonders für unsere Super-Mudschahedin, scheint es sich ja schon an der Grenze zum Glaubensabfall zu bewegen, Empathie für Nichtmuslime zu zeigen. Möge Allah die Umma vom Übel der Handschar-SS befreien.

Mullah Nasreddin lief mit einer großen Gruppe von Anhängern über den Basar. Was auch immer Nasreddin tat, seine Anhänger kopierten es sofort. Alle paar Schritte blieb Nasreddin stehen und schüttelte seine Hände in der Luft, berührte seine Füße, sprang auf und schrie »Hu Hu Hu!« Seine Anhänger taten genau dasselbe. Einer der Händler, der Nasreddin kannte, fragte ihn leise: »Was machst du mein alter Freund? Warum imitieren diese Leute dich?« – »Ich bin ein Sufi-Scheich geworden« antwortete Nasreddin. »Dies sind meine Muriden [spirituelle Schüler] ich helfe ihnen, Erleuchtung zu erlangen!« – »Woher weißt du, wenn sie Erleuchtung erreichen?« – »Das ist der einfachste Teil! Jeden Morgen zähle ich sie. Die, die gegangen sind – haben Erleuchtung erlangt!«

»Als ich einmal in der Wüste war« erzählte Nasreddin eines Tages »habe ich einen ganzen Stamm schrecklicher und blutrünstiger Beduinen zum Rennen gebracht!« – »Wie ist dir das denn gelungen?« »Ganz einfach! Ich bin weggerannt und sie rannten hinter mir her.«

Nasreddin behauptete, er sei in Mekka gewesen und habe lange in Arabien gelebt. »Sag uns, was Kamel auf Arabisch heißt« sagte einer seiner Freunde im Teehaus. »Man sollte mehr Sinn für Größenordnungen haben und nicht nach so einem riesigen Tier fragen« sagte der Mullah.

»Wie steht es denn mit dem arabischen Wort für Ameise?«

»Viel zu klein!«

Jemand rief: »Nun denn, welches ist das arabische Wort für Lamm?«

»Ich bin überzeugt, sie haben dafür ein Wort, aber ich war nicht lange genug dort, um es herausfinden zu können. Ich reiste ab, als die Lämmer gerade eben geboren waren, und sie hatten noch keine Zeit für die Zeremonie der Namensgebung gehabt.«

Eines Tages wollten die Dorfbewohner sich mit Nasreddin einen Spaß machen. Da man ihn für einen heiligen Mann, wenngleich von nicht recht verständlicher Art, hielt, gingen sie zu ihm mit der Bitte, er möge in ihrer Moschee eine Predigt halten. Als der Tag kam, bestieg Nasreddin die Kanzel und sagte: »O Leute! Wisst ihr, was ich euch erzählen werde?« – »Nein, wir wissen es nicht« riefen sie. »Ehe ihr nicht wisst, kann ich es auch nicht sagen. Ihr seid zu unwissend, als dass ich damit anfangen kann« sagte der Mulla, übermannt von Entrüstung über so unwissende Leute, die ihm seine Zeit stahlen. Er stieg von der Kanzel und ging heim. Leicht verärgert ging eine Abordnung wieder zu seinem Hause und bat ihn, am kommenden Freitag, dem Tag des Gebetes, zu predigen. Nasreddin begann die Predigt mit derselben Frage wie beim vorigen Mal. Diesmal antwortete die Versammlung wie aus einem Munde: »Ja, wir wissen es!« – »In diesem Fall« sagte der Mulla »besteht für mich keine Notwendigkeit, euch länger aufzuhalten. Ihr könnt gehen.« Und kehrte heim. Nachdem man ihn bewegt hatte, auch am dritten drauffolgenden Freitag zu predigen, begann er seine Ansprache wie zuvor: »Wisst ihr es oder wisst ihr es nicht?« Die Versammlung war darauf gefasst. »Einige von uns wissen es, andere nicht.« – »Ausgezeichnet!« sagte Nasrudin. »Dann lasst diejenigen, die es wissen, ihr Wissen denen mitteilen, die es nicht wissen.« Und ging nach Hause.

Im Teehaus erzählten einige Soldaten prahlerisch von ihrem letzten Feldzug. Eifrig umdrängten die Dorfbewohner sie und hörten zu. »Und ich« so erzählte ein furchterregend aussehender Krieger »ich nahm mein zweischneidiges Schwert und stürmte gegen die Feinde, wie Spreu wurden sie zur Rechten und zur Linken zerstreut. Wir waren die Sieger!« Er erntete begeisterten Applaus. Nasreddin, der zu seiner Zeit Feldzüge mitgemacht hatte, mischte sich ein und sagte: »Das erinnert mich an den Tag, als ich einem Feinde auf dem Schlachtfeld ein Bein abschlug. Tatsächlich ganz abgeschlagen!« – »Du hättest besser daran getan« erwiderte der Hauptmann der Soldaten »ihm den Kopf abzuschlagen.« – »Das war nicht möglich« entgegnete der Mulla »denn weißt du, das hatte schon jemand anders getan.«

Ein Nachbar bittet den Hodscha um dessen Esel. Der Hodscha aber, der das Tier nicht weggeben möchte, antwortet: »Der Esel ist nicht hier, ich habe ihn zur Mühle geschickt.« Kaum hat er das gesagt, fängt auch schon der Esel im Stall lauthals an zu schreien. »Du hast doch gesagt, der Esel sei nicht da, und jetzt schreit er«, meint der erstaunte Nachbar. Da antwortet ihm der Hodscha: »Mir, mit meinem weißen Bart, mir glaubst du nicht, aber einem Esel glaubst du!«

Der Hodscha predigt in der Moschee. Er erklärt, es sei Sünde, wenn Frauen sich schminkten. Da weist einer der Zuhörer darauf hin, dass die Frau des Hodscha sich doch auch schminke. Da entgegnet er: »Tja, wem es steht, dem steht es!«

Anfrage an Radio Jerewan: Stimmt es das Russland gezielt syrische Krankenhäuser mit Fassbomben bombardiert?

Antwort: Im Prinzip ja. Aber es war nicht eine Fassbombe, sondern eine Iskander. Und es war kein Angriff auf ein ziviles Ziel, sondern ein militärisches – denn Russland bekämpft den Terrorismus bereits bei der Entstehung weshalb die Entbindungsstation ebenfalls eliminiert wurde.

»Was bedeutet Schicksal, Mulla?« – »Mutmaßungen« – »Wie das?« – »Du nimmst an, die Dinge nehmen einen guten Lauf, aber sie tun es nicht – das nennst du Unglück. Du vermutest, die Dinge werden schlecht ausgehen, und sie gehen gut aus – das nennst du Glück. Du nimmst an, gewisse Dinge werden geschehen oder nicht geschehen – und daher fehlt es dir an Intuition, und du hast keine Ahnung, was sich ereignen wird. Du setzt voraus, die Zukunft sei unbekannt. Wenn man dich bei irgendetwas etwas ertappt – das nennst du Schicksal.

Nasreddin hatte Geld gespart, um sich ein neues Hemd zu kaufen. Voller Freude suchte er einen Schneider auf. Der Schneider nahm Maß und sagte: »Komm in einer Woche wider und – wenn Allah will – wird dein Hemd fertig sein.« Der Mullah fasste sich eine Woche lang in Geduld und ging dann wieder in den Laden. »Es hat eine Verzögerung gegeben. Aber – wenn Allah will – wird dein Hemd morgen fertig sein.« Am nächsten Tag kam Nasrudin wieder. »Es tut mit leid« sagte der Schneider »aber es ist noch nicht fertig. Frage morgen noch einmal nach, und – wenn Allah will – wird es fertig sein.« Gereizt fragte Nasreddin: »Und wie lange wird es dauern, wenn du Allah aus dem Spiel lässt?«

Bei der Überquerung des Mittelmeeres wird den Flüchtlingen auf die Frage der Ankunft oder Sicherheit meist nur geantwortet: In schā‘ Allāh

The Caliphatism

рубрика: Bilder & Comics

One of the misapprehensions, which is now common among many Muslims, is the assumption that the Prophet ﷺ would have established a state. Apart from the fact that the concept state, as we know it, has existed only since the 17th century, this assumption is false, because when we take a look at the sources of the Prophet ﷺ we find nothing of a state or a rule. The Prophet was neither a leader nor ruler of a kingdom, there were no clear boundaries, no organized army, no office. Of course, the Prophet is a messenger of God, who also declared the normative side of Islam to his followers, and also ensured that it was more or less respected in the case of norms concerning public life. However, the fact that the Prophet ﷺ waged wars against his opponents who persecuted him and his congregation, made the rules of the market certain, and made judgments, does not make him a secular ruler. For such activities have existed among many other tribal leaders in their communities, tribes, and oases in the Arabian Peninsula of that time. There must be a clear distinction between a head of a congregation and a ruler or king. The Prophet himself said clearly: „I am not a king /ruler. I am merely the son of a woman from the tribe of Qurayh, who used to eat dry flesh.“

Medina was a simple city, with simple structures and infrastructures. Outside of Medina, the Prophet ﷺ hardly interfered in the administration of other cities and oases. At that time, only the loyalty to the Muslims against their opponents as well as the release of Zakat, had been expected from the other tribes. Otherwise, they were economically and politically quite independent. The initial features of a rule are found at the earliest in the first successors of the Prophet, especially under the leadership of Sy. Umar, who, among other things, took over the governance and administrative structures of the Persian and Byzantine empires. The adoption of these structures has intensified in the Umayyad empire. This is a phenomenon which has often been repeated in the course of history when new empires replace the old empires.

But what is important in this context is that the early Muslims were pragmatic. The assumption of the tax administration, the coinage, the armaments of the Byzantines, the Diwan system and the judges of the Persians are just examples of the fact that the form of rule was simply a child of their time. For nowhere in the Qur’an nor in the Sunnah of the Prophet is spoken about the form of a rule. There are no places that dictate to us how a country, empire, or a government should look, let alone how they should be structured.

The forms of dominion were and always are changing, according to the time, space and context in which these empires arose and subsided. Change is even included in the Arab concept used for domination/state. Change is, so to speak, dominion. Dawla comes from the root d-w-l, which means spatial change. The Reign of Sy. Umar was not one-to-one like the reign of the Umayyads, and the Abbasids were organized differently from the Umayyads, the Mughal Empire, unlike the Ottoman Empire – even the early Ottoman Empire, was organized differently from the late Ottoman Empire. This is the most natural thing in the world. Whoever believes that there is a clear form of rule »in Islam« has no idea, neither of the Quran and Sunnah, nor of history.

It is often the result of supposed consensus – taken out of their historical and normative context – that one should appoint a caliph for all Muslims, and that if that did not happen, the Muslims would sin. If in the works of some theologians it is a duty to have an »imam« in the sense of a political ruler, then they mean only two things: 1. There must be a political structure or a sovereign to avoid anarchy. 2. There must be a structure that ensures justice and security, the two foundations of every form of rule.

In the pre-modern period, both Muslims and non-Muslims knew only a few forms of domination, such as the monarchy or tyranny, which is why the theorists have interpreted the leadership (Imama) on the basis of the systems of domination known to them at that time, not because it is written in the Qur’an or the Sunnah. In other words, not an office called Caliph, Sultan, or Imam is meant and intended, but order, justice, and security. If they are guaranteed, then everything is all right.

There are, however, some sects, such as the Hizb at-Tahrir and other groups who sell the young Muslims an ahistoric dream of a united Umma under the direction of a caliph. Sects that tell people that the existence of a caliph is in itself a duty and foundation of religion. The whole understanding of religion revolves around these myths as if it were a part of the confession of faith. I wonder if it is so important, why does God not explicitly mention in the Qur’an that you need a caliphate? Why does God not tell us how this Caliphate should look like? „We did not leave out anything in the scripture.“ 6:38.

The fact is, whoever tells the people of so important basic principles of Islam, who find no mention in the main source of this religion, simply misleads people with this ideological nonsense. Have these sects not read the history?

Did they not read that three Caliphs were murdered? Have they not read that since the Umayyads there has been no uniform ruler for all Muslims and that the Muslims did not need it? Have they not read that there were always separate kingdoms, empires, and ironically also so-called caliphates? Have they not read that there were times when a caliph was in Baghdad, another in Cairo, and one in Cordoba? Have they not read that there were numerous small kingdoms in Africa, Central Asia, Southeast Asia? Whom do you want to fool with your Disneyland-caliphate-peace-joy-eggcake-myth?! Or do you only use the ignorance, regarding history, of the people?

And no, the caliphate is not the solution to the problems of Muslims. Apparently, most of the rulers and so-called caliphs do not know the biographies of history. Actually, the difference between the Sultan of Aghraba (in Aladin) and many other Sultans of the Umayyads, Abbasids, Ottomans and others is that the Sultan of Aghraba was perhaps prudish. For there were not a few sultans who had wine, women, and singing as motifs of life. But perhaps it is worthwhile to highlight some interesting pages of the caliphs in an extra article.

The task of the Prophet ﷺ is clearly described in the Qur’an, where we read in Sura 62: „It is He who has sent among the unlettered a Messenger from themselves reciting to them His verses and purifying them and teaching them the Book and wisdom.“ (62:2) In another verse, we read „Certainly did the almighty confer favor upon the believers when He sent among them a Messenger from themselves, reciting to them His verses and purifying them and teaching them the Book and wisdom.“ (3:164). The Qur’an, the cultivation of the self, and the prophetic wisdom have, in turn, aim to strengthen the relationship between man and his Creator. In this respect man is at the center of all that constitutes his humanity.

The Prophet ﷺ, showed us through his work that one cannot demand the same from all men. In his community, the most varied people were found, with whom he also handled differently. The Prophet ﷺ considered the fortune of everyone, because he was interested in people and not in abstract ideas. Numerous traditions testify how Bedouins came to him sometimes and stayed with him only for a short time. They only learned certain basic principles from him, then lived their lives and never saw him again. They were neither blotted with commandments and prohibitions, nor did the Prophet ﷺ demand from them a complete transformation of their lives. The relationship with God was accompanied by a serenity and above all a naturalness.

But if I look at the prophetic message today, I wonder: where is God and His Messenger at all? The political idea in the broad sense of the word has replaced not only man, but also God and His prophets. It is no longer the relationship to God and the realization of human being that is central but the realization of the idea.

Political ideas, such as nationalism, feminism, secularism, conservatism, liberalism, anti-colonialism or anti-racism, are spasmodically mixed with the prophetic message so that ‚to be Muslim‘ serves only as a bearer in this constellation. The political idea always stands in the foreground. Political ideas need their opposites, they need a dialectic so that they can exist. If this dialectic is projected onto faith, then faith and the relationship to God are spoiled with power struggles. For you will always be on the search for the other, which is a contrast to yourself, so that you can confirm your own thoughts and give them a right to exist.

Islam, which actually means devotion, and was not understood as the name of a religion by the Prophet ﷺ, since the concept of religion did not exist at the time, is today imagined as a being outside of us, indeed as a cake, of which each has a share. Some think they own this cake. Some go further and want to have the cake „Islam“ in the name of their ideology. However, when a person imagines „Islam“ as something outside her own self, one has already internalized the categories of modernism and secularism, even if that person considers himself as »conservative« or „traditional“.

It is no longer a matter of realizing the love of God and His Prophet, of telling people about this love, of being there for people, and I mean with man all men, just as the Prophet ﷺ was there for all men and was sent for them. No today, one goes to court with his fellow men, per the motto „Tit for tat“. But the very one who wants to follow the Prophet should be able to bear the burden and harassment of the world with an eye of grace and mercy, and be gentle with those who hate him. We live in times when faith is almost a miracle. One should look forward to anyone who still talks about God at all. The real question is what we want at all? Do we, at the expense of ideas and ideologies, try to trample the legacy of the Prophet by his feet, or do we want to carry his grace within us and pass it on to others? With mockery, merciless activism or arrogance, we only frighten people.

We know that „the caliphate“ and „the Islamic state“ were always just and great in history because they were directed to „the Shariah“ and „the Umma“ was a wonderful, functioning „unity“ from „Spain to China and Indonesia“.

A testimony to the righteousness of the Seljuk caliphate is given to us by Ibn al-Ǧawzī, who tells us of a high-ranking „civil servant“ whose brothels should be temporarily closed by an epidemic to ward off the punishment of God for Baghdad. In the end, „the Islamic state“ then justly paid compensation for the loss of earnings in the world’s oldest profession, which was only done in view of the imminent punishment by God.

How good that everything was better in the glory days – All human beings were angels, the caliph cared for the Shariah and everything else. Read it yourself: In the month of Ḏū al-Qa’da 469 AH [May / June 1077 AD], many diseases arose in Baghdad, Wasit and Sawad. There were so many dead that the fields in the steppe could not be harvested, since there was no one else who could have done this. Similar news also came from the Levante [aš-Šām]. On the twentieth day of the month Ḏū al-Qa’da 469 AH [15. June 1077 AD], the meeting places of sin and the houses of vice were closed down and demolished in Baghdad.

The viciously villagers had to flee because of an order from the caliph to his commander-in-chief, who, however considered these institutions as fiefs. The caliph wanted to give him 1000 dinars as compensation, which the military governor refused because the income was normally 1800 dinars. This was then matched with Niẓām al-Mulk, who, on his part, compensated the military governor and ordered compliance with the prohibition.

This alleged God-proclaimed Caliphate, which is supposed to be indispensable from the Shari’ah, which would create paradise on earth according to the demagogues, somehow, quite strangely enough, seemed not at all well-disposed to the prophets and true heirs of the Prophet, the interpreters of Shariah.

Many despots and tyrants were not exactly squeamish to massacre important people. Abdulmalik b. Marwān and his bloodthirsty general ǧǧaǧāǧ al-Ẓālim (the tyrant of Yūsuf aṯ-Ṯaqafī) were known to kill Sahaba when these hadiths or opinions were not in their interest. It is true that any killing of human beings of every kind is in our view terrible, but the caliphate ideologist could quickly excuse collateral damage: insurgents must be defeated, what else?

But the history of the passive insurrection of the scholars, the killing of Sahaba under the banner of the caliphate, cannot be avoided by the demagogue.
Here is another story from the dark chronicles of the caliphate: Imam Abū Ḥanīfa, probably the greatest Imma of the Fiqh after Ibn ǧaǧar al-Makkī al-Šāfi’ī, was given by Yazīd b. Amr convened to become judge and governor Kufas.

The Imam declined. He did not see it as a great opportunity to finally carry through the Shari’ah fully and neither as an honor and sincerity to serve the Caliphate. On the contrary, he feared injustice. Then he was quickly thrown into the dungeon and whipped. The honored face of this Imam swelled. The next day he was offered the job again and asked for time to think about it. He traveled to Mecca and stayed in Mecca for five or six years.

When the second caliph of the Abbasids, Mansur, came into power, the Imam was to be examined again. The Caliph Manṣūr greatly respected the Imām. He gave him 10,000 silver coins and a slave. The Imam rejected this gift.

Manusur, as a few before him, was a tyrant. In 145 AH, Ibrāhīm b. ‚Abdullāh b. Imām Ḥasan collected in Medina for the proclamation of his own caliphate soldiers. He came to Kufa and there was a rumor in Kufa that Imām Abū Ḥanīfa had supported him. Manṣūr, of course, was not pleased. He had the Imam of Kufa brought to Baghdad. There he forced the Imam to proclaim that he, Manṣūr, was the only true caliph, and Manṣūr offered him the highest judicial office.

But as the Imam was of high godliness and secular ranks did not interest him, he rejected this. This wounded Manṣūr and he dug Abū Ḥanīfa. His torture began the caning with 30 strokes – blood flowed from the feet of the Imam. Manṣūr regretted this and in an act of remorse and remedy and reflection, he sent the Imam 30,000 silver coins. The Imam rejected this again.

This went too far for the good Manṣūr! He revenged Abū Ḥanīfa again, but he ordered 40 strokes – every other day ten more. On the 11th day, Manṣūr feared the revolts of the people. The order to kill came promptly, the Imam was put on his back and poisoned him. So, he died in the year 150.

идти наверх