From: MSN NicknameEagle_wng (Original Message) Sent: 1/5/2006 5:45 AM
January, 04, 2006
About reasons on account of
Salamu Talkhigov, for CHECHENPRESS, 25.12.05y.
Apparently, in the Chechen MASS-MEDIA after some break the discussion about conformity of democratic principles to precepts of the Islam is again developed. The first thing, that I would like to tell as a moslem: I am happy, that even during the discussion, Chechens verify any political or ideological doctrine with precepts of the Islam. And this deepens our knowledge of Islam and, hence, approaches all of us to Truth which, counter to the settled opinion, is born not in disputes, but in careful studying of the Koran and Sunns of the prophet (the peace to him and blessing of Allah!). The second thing, I would like to tell is, that the fact of discussion on pages of our MASS-MEDIA these or those kinds of the internal system of the Independent Chechen State is the most momentous proof of our confidence in final victory (insha Allah!) over Russian aggressors.
Now, on moving specifically to a subject of discussion, I would like to express the opinion concerning critical reasons which on the website agencies of "Kavkaz-Center" have been brought out by Dmitry Orlov against the statements of Akhmed Zakaev, contained in his article "Remarks to some reflections and propositions", published yesterday in leading Chechen MASS-MEDIA, particularly, on a website "Chechenpress". I will begin with the citation. Dmitry Orlov writes:
"At the first sight, just because I not a moslem, I with Akhmed Zakaev, standing on an universal democratic platform, should have much more in common, than with mojaheds. However in practice it turns out to be the opposite situation. The most surprising thing in the article of Akhmed Zakaev is his attitude to the United Nations. The thing that, the United Nations represent the private organization combined with narrow grouping of separate imperous clans from the several countries, not being the subject of even their notorious "international right", is known for each western nationalist. In nationalist newspapers, and besides, in editions of all christian fundamentalists, there is constantly written about it".
Further Dmitry Orlov produces rather detailed list of the facts and the reasons showing how much is the United Nations far from those principles of fairness and humanity which is proclaimed by the given organization in their Charter and Declarations.
"For me the United Nations, - concludes Dmitry Orlov, - is the criminal international organization playing not the last role in "satanization" of the world". And the reader gets the impression, that Akhmed Zakaev praises the United Nations, and Dmitry Orlov abuses him, being surprised how it is possible to praise such criminal organization engaged in "political covering of massacre of Chechen people".
However, having read the article of Akhmed Zakaev, I did not notice, that he even in single spot had praised the United Nations. Chechen vice-premier rather distinctly traces the idea, that principles of humanity and fairness, stated in the Charter of the United Nations and its Declarations, are in themselves good, however the bad thing is that these principles are not observed. I will bring the citation:
"The other matter is, that neither governments of the big and small powers, nor officials of the United Nations today do not think to fulfill the principles of fairness and humanism to which they are obliged to observe. They just not only observe them, but also criminally break! In other words, representatives of restrained peoples, and first of all Chechens, personally see that overwhelming majority of leaders of the international community do not observe the norms of international law, which was earlier signed and ratified, undertaking to accomplish. In the international practice it refers to as a policy of double standard".
As we see, Akhmed Zakaev has from the figures being in session in the United Nations, no more respect, than Dmitry Orlov. But principles of humanity and fairness which are printed in authorized and declarative documents of the United Nations, do not cause any claims and it would be simply fine, if they were carried out by officials of the United Nations. But officials of the United Nations do not follow these fine principles, but roughly, openly, criminally break them, first of all - in relation to Chechens. However the object of our contempt and indignation should be not principles of the United Nations, but officials of the United Nations who break these principles - such idea is stated by A.Zakaev, asking: Does the selling judge-villain force us to cancel or despise laws if the principles of fairness are clearly stated in them, does not he? Do the slavish grovelling Russian liarmuftis in front of the Kremlin force us to doubt of sanctity and nobleness of the Islam, do not they?".
Further Dmitry Orlov writes: "I want to remind, that the concept of "international law" exists no more than 100 years. Earlier nobody heard about such strange "law". I was surprised by such application: "All people living on earth, should be guided by the general rules for the mankind, produced and stated in the international "law". Earlier I considered, that these rules are stated not in mythical "international law", but in Revelations and the Prophecies given from the God. I continue to consider in such way even now. "Arguments", more precisely the declarative postulates of Akhmed Zakaev about doubtful truth did not surprise me".
In turn, I would like to remind Dmitry Orlov, that the international law in its modern appearance was generated not 100 years ago, but much earlier, in the beginning of XVII century when Dutch lawyer Gugo Grotsy published, becoming widely known in the Western Europe work under the name of "About the law of war and peace". Regretfully having noted, that in practice modern to him the European states, he does not find proofs of observance of the universal right, Gugo Grotsy began to search for his sources in "God, nature and moral". XVII century is considered to be the time of origin of classical international law concerning rules of conducting war and the conclusion of the peace, the appeal with war prisoners, diplomatic immunity etc.
In a context of going discussion one more point of view about sources of international law is interesting. Many European historians consider, that norms of international law concerning rules of conducting war have come to the West from Near East in epoch of Crusades. They mark, that humanity of Egyptian sultan Salah ed-dyne (Saladdin) in relation to the christian opponents, war prisoners and peace population made on the European monarchs, leaders of crusaders, so deep impression, that "generous customs Saracen" began to be perceived in the Western Europe by the standard of the knightly code which, in turn, became a source of the international humanitarian right. How much this right was observed and is observed - is another question which returns us to the appeal of Akhmed Zakaev "not to dump in one heap" the principles and persons.
Further the classical international law has received development in epoch of Great French revolution (1789) when there were proclaimed "universal peace and principles of justice", and also refusal of any aggressive wars declared "criminal against humanity". In XIX century the international law was added to the specifications regulating free activity of post, telegraphic services and a railway communication. Rights and privileges of foreign diplomats were precisely determined, the legal regime for foreigners is established. In 1919 the League of the Nations was formed also its authorized document - the Statute in which it is reflected that which refers to as no "classic", but "modern" accepted by international law. The league of the nations subsequently has broken up, but in June, 1945 in San Francisco at special international conference the Charter of the United Nations which, as a matter of fact, is considered to be the main normative document of international law was authorized.
Such is the history of origin and development of international law in its modern kind, and this history as we have seen, totals not 100 years, but has more impressive age. And even the European historians do not deny that, on origin of international law rendered strong and direct influence the Islamic sense of justice showing in noble behaviour on war of Egyptian sultan Saladdin, the only thing from Muslim governors, to which name, as well as to names of four just caliphs, moslems add a wish an ode it Allah will be pleased!". It speaks about much, particularly, that nobleness and humanism of Saladdin is based on precepts of the Koran and Sunns. And, hence, we may speak that on origin of the European sense of justice known influence rendered Islamic principles - through activity of just moslem Saladdin.
Further Dmitry Orlov writes: "It is odd for me even such postulate: "The neglect of norms of international law by the Chechen Resistance may result in, that Chechens in eyes of many people will stand on shared board with ordinary bandits, robbers, murderers that very much would like the Kremlin center of world terrorism". I do not know, about what abstract "many people" here is said, and why the governments and the international organizations openly ignoring this most "law" (proclaimed by them) are not ordinary bandits, robbers, murderers as everyone who today kills appeal to this right in eyes of Zakaev or helps to kill Chechen people".
In my opinion, nothing is odd in words of Zakaev. "Many people", in whose eyes infringement by Chechen warriors norms of international law make them "bandits,robbers and killers" - it is not abstract, but the international society. It is possible to despise this society for its passivity and indifference to our troubles, it is possible to wave away from its opinion on us, but the fact remains the fact: in its eyes we really will be those whom false and shameless Russian propagation wants to see if we will not observe norms of international law. And it seems to me, that if our authority supports any political contacts nevertheless it is better to adhere to us to this international law as principles of humanism and justice do not contradict establishments of Islamic religion with this most international society, but follow from these establishments.
As for the words about "authorities and the international organizations openly ignoring this most "law" (proclaimed by them) are not in the eyes of Zakaev ordinary bandits, robbers, killers", that is, softly speaking, not absolutely precisely. After all, in discussed article Zakaev ascertains, that neither the governments of the big and small powers, nor officials of the United Nations today do not think to fulfill the principles of justice and humanism to which they are obliged to observe. They just not only observe them, but criminally break!". In my opinion, it is said rather clearly to understand, whom in the eyes of Zakaev are "authorities and international organizations", becoming helpers of genocide of the Chechens unleashed by Putin's checkist regime.
Further Dmitry Orlov quotes words of Zakaev: "It is possible to assert courageously, that before occurrence of the Islam and the Islamic right, in the world there was nothing, at least vaguely similar to what today is named international law. Between peoples and furthermore peoples representing various faiths, reigned an arbitrariness, wars, mutual destruction and the unique right - the right of strong". Also gives the comment: "and here, I think, that the author is absolutely not right. There was, for example, widely known Roman right, though even adjusted under interests of imperious groups. By the way, now, in one century of domination of "international law", people have much more flown into a rage. Reign an arbitrariness, violence and only the right strong which dictates the "norms of international law", required to it on every concrete moment".
It would be desirable to object Dmitry Orlov: the Roman right has no any attitude to that we name international law. Even for the reason, that the Roman right was made only for romans, and everything else mankind (with the exception of ancient Greeks) romans counted barbarians and adhered to the known recommendation of philosopher Aristotelja to put barbarians on a level of animals. Therefore neither the Roman right, nor laws of Khamurapi, neither legal codes of Khet kings, nor rules of law of ancient Greeks do not comprise anything, that even was vaguely similar to principles of humanism and validity in relation to other peoples and races. That is, these archaic legal systems, switching and the Roman right, are not the prototype of international law. I shall remind, as the christian Church down to XIX century denied not only rights, but even human essence black population of Africa, declaring, that negros are "descendants of Boor, damned by Lord", and consequently "the descendants of Sima and Iaphet" (representatives of white race) have the right to transform them into the slaves.
Indeed, only with occurrence of an islam and Islamic sense of justice on the ground there has come the era of international law in full sense of this concept. The islam recognizes existence of racial and national differences, but denies racism and chauvinism. Among the nearest associates of Prophet (the peace to him and blessing of Allah!) were, as it is known, Persian Salman and black Bilal who, by the way, the first in a history of an islam has called azan the believers on namaz. The honourable status of christians and jews, that is "people of Holy Writ" (akhl al-Kitab) was precisely determined. All questions of war and the peace, including the humane attitude to the peace population and war prisoners were adjusted.
The moslems who have got under jurisdiction representatives of other faiths were considered not "contemptible strangers", and full citizens. Their unique difference from moslems - the special tax "jizia", very easy. In exchange christians and jews, receiving all civil rights, received also the privilege which was no by moslems - they were released from military service. The set of cases when christians and jews occupied the highest state posts in the Muslim countries, including a post of "vizier" is known, that is, speaking the modern language, a post of the prime minister. All this - the facts of common knowledge of a history accessible to acquaintance in the popular literature and special proceedings. For this reason Akhmed Zakaev also writes, that before occurrence of an islam there was nothing, that even was vaguely similar to international law and maintenance of civil rights.
Dmitry Orlov continually comes back to the that fact, that presence of international law does not protect people from violence and an arbitrariness. He marks the next time, that "now, in one century of domination of "international law", the people have much more flown into a rage. Reign an arbitrariness, violence and only the right strong which dictates the "norms of international law", required to it on ever concrete moment". However, after all Akhmed Zakaev speaks the same. Only reminds, that principles of justice and the humanism, contained in are guilty in it not international law, and those villains and selling politicians who roughly break them. Also calls Chechens the contempt for these unscrupulous villains to not distribute to principles because principles these - really humane both fair, and their performance would protect people from an arbitrariness and violence.
Further Dmitry Orlov writes: "As for constitutions and other legal things I want to argue, what primarily - Divine Revelations and Prophecies or every time copied sheets of paper? Also it is not necessary to confuse "constitution" to other documents, to vague the truth. Charters are given from kings, the Prophecy - from the God, and "constitution" from the interested groups and clans. That was given from kings, operated within many centuries, that from the God operates eternally. And all these "constitution" vary on the average each 20-30 years. So "constitution" it is far from being truth".
Here, I think, relevantly to remind, that a point of issue was denying by some Chechen authors of the fact of presence of the constitution in practice of the Prophet (the peace to him and blessing of Allah!). These authors write, that existence of the Koran and Sunns releases moslems from necessity to have the constitution. Akhmed Zakaev what exactly has simply paid their attention to that fact, the Prophet (the peace to him and blessing of Allah!) is the first in a history of Muslim societies the author of the Constitution (Medinal Constitutions). To whom as not to the envoy of Allah, it was better to know, the constitution is necessary for moslems whether or not! Therefore necessity to moslems to have the constitution it is possible to deny the most different reasons of mind and logic, but only not references to an example of the Prophet (the peace to him and blessing of Allah!).
Dmitry Orlov writes: "Farther, definitions understand article. Akhmed Zakaev considers "the democracy in its primordial, initial kind, that is especially as a way of election of the highest public state of authority". It is fair to tell, I have not understood, what he means. Unless there are other ways of ELECTION? It turns out, whether that democracy - is simply empty process "voting" that? And what for the highest authority in general is constant to select? Well, time it only a way him, in any case, simply it is possible to throw out with pure conscience on rubbish heap of histories instead of to make of it a cult and object worship".
First of all, the fact of ELECTION of authority not in all cases makes authority democratic, national. Concepts "elected authority" and "democratic authority" at all always are synonyms. In Poland, for example, kings selected on a diet consisting of noblemen, deeply despising "villeins" (ordinary people). In the USSR the secretary general was selected members of the Political bureau, that is the limited circle of persons, the closed caste of the supreme partocraty. And the concept "democratic elections" are meant national, free from any violence and pressure as elections of the highest government. And it is far from being "empty process" which, in opinion of Dmitry Orlov, it is possible "with pure conscience to throw out on rubbish heap of history". Because only that authority which voluntary, without violence and compulsion was selected with people, will be in eyes of this people lawful, legitimate. And everything else - various forms of the disguised or open tyranny above people, than this tyranny of would not justify.
Too long comment to Dmitry Orlov's article turns out, however I will continue.
The author again quotes words of Zakaev that "no less than cynicism and immorality (than at democracy - D.O.) we see and in authoritative societies, including in what formally live "according to shariat". Also notices: "It is completely right". For it it is necessary to tell "thank you" to the western democracies corrupting all world.
"The whole world", ostensibly corrupted by the western democracies, to tell the truth, and without "putrid influences of the west" for a long time also has successfully acquired many nasty things. Want to remind simple true, it is equal convincing both for moslems, and for representatives of other religions monotheism. Since times of prophet Noja (the peace to him!) Supreme continually punished mankind penalties for his depravity, immorality. Hardly probable, for example, in the Flood in which the old corrupted mankind was lost, it is possible to accuse "west democracy", and furthermore USA (that, certainly, does not mean, that USA show a sample of morals).
By the way, old disputes between moslems are strange concerning, whether that Flood world or local was. He, probably, was world - otherwise prophet Nuh (Noj - the peace to him!) would not began according to Supreme to take on an ark on pair animals. What for, really, to rescue for the future duplication on two species all overland animal planets if the flood was local? After all these animals without any harm for themselves might go through a local flood in other, not flooded places. And the Koran testifies, that prophet Nuh (peace to him) has entered the world into an ark on pair all animals. I it to that punishment was very strong, total - and it mean, that was very strong, total, and libertinism of old mankind.
Whether there was it, this ancient dissolute mankind, democratic? It is not sure, because the Koran, describing antediluvial activity of prophet Nuh (the peace to him), frequently marks, that the main sinners and faithless sceptics were "to know from people of Nuh", that is as it is possible to believe, aristocracy. Was in an antiquity of these undone peoples much: people it Is thin, people Salekh, people of Lut etc. Means, nations of the world became corrupted and without noxious influence "decaying capitalism". And prophets and dogma teachers also were sent Supreme to pull out peoples from a whirlpool of immorality self-destructive for them and depravity, to pull out them for a way of virtuous, fair life.
Further Dmitry Orlov again has citation from article of Zakaev: "However the first societies due to democracy have chance to correct a state of affairs, whereas at the second societies because of absence of democracy of such chances do not exist". Dmitry Orlov on these words responds so: "disagree. Modern western democracy - is historical and spiritual impasse, the way from which conducts only in a devilish chasm, and the second societies have chance to be corrected at once after disposal of the local tyrants and of the western democracies with its rough military force by means of which they impose to moslems as these tyrants, and the "truth" and "values". These processes just occur now before our eyes".
Want to ask: unless "the creation of democracy" has imposed to Muslim societies of tyrants? In my opinion, these tyrants have imposed themselves to moslems in those old times when USA was not and in the project, and in Europe everywhere reigned royal dynasties. It is enough to recollect, that in all Muslim countries of a monarchy were ratified from epoch of early Middle Ages, and in many Muslim countries they exist and to this day though the Koran unequivocally condemns a monarchy: "When kings enter into the country, they plunder it and make its most noble people by the most humiliated. So they behave" (the Koran, 27:34). Thus not shall begin to argue with that, as USA, and the Western Europe, and Russia use these kings and a little from them distinguishable "perpetual presidents" like Mubarak or Karimov in political merrymaking, rather far from democracy and observance of human rights.
D.Orlov's following statement is no absolutely clear to me: "As a whole, I very much was surprised, that at Akhmed Zakaev very nationalist article has turned out. The matter is that Chechen Jihad in the world supports very many people, as moslems, so even the certain number of christians. They also support the Chechen side as jihad which helps to win not simply independence from Russian, and real Freedom".
It would be desirable to find out, what else bondage, in D.Orlov's opinion, threatens Chechens after clearing the Chechen Republic of the Russian occupation. After all only so it is possible to understand words that moslems and a part of christians "support the Chechen side as Jihad which helps to win not simply independence from Russian, and real Freedom". The matter is that in the foreseeable past, that is in more or less reliably the investigated Chechen history was not cases that any "internal forces" have enthralled our people. Because Chechens did not have neither princes, nor kings, exclusive estates. Enthralment (that is vain attempts of it to establish) are connected only to colonial presence of Russia at the Chechen Republic. Therefore clearing of the Chechen Republic of the Russian aggressors also is Freedom. If D. Orlov means that the Chechen Government may fall under influence or domination of other forces and to begin a conductor of this influence or domination democracy, that is the principle of democracy, and will help Chechens without blood and violence to send such selling governors in resignation.
More than arguable also the following paragraph in D.Orlov's article: "Chechen state structures have not sustained a pressure of Russian tanks of that were fastened false "truth" the soviet-western democracy. To restore these structures it is possible, but whether it is necessary, if they again will fail because of the same reasons? Present Chechen Resistance has no anything in common with those structures. It derives strength not at the soviet-western democracy and at Lord".
If concept "governmental structures" to mean buildings and offices these constructions really have not sustained a pressure of Russian tanks, (it is possible to note also a role of aircraft and artillery in destruction of these buildings). But if concept "governmental structures" to mean people on the ground only it would be possible to wish any state to have such indestructible hardness which has shown and to this day shows CHRI. The state, it, first, people which has founded the given state. Second, the state - is its institutes. People Chechen, praise to Allah, to this day is alive, as are alive, that is continuously function, and state institutes CHRI - the Government, Parliament, the President. Any brutality the invaders, any destructions of cities and settlements have not resulted in that the Chechen State on behalf of its institutes has stopped the existence and the activity.
At last, D. Orlov rises on unsteady ground of linguistic subtleties. He results A.Zakaev's expression "Soviet democratic state", and marks, that the word "soviet" on sense is not connected to concept "elite" (as it writes Akhmed Zakaev). In D.Orlov's opinion, the word "soviet" occurs not from a word "elite", and "simply in Russian there is no other word for latin "secular" (not church, godless), "temporary". Not being the expert in linguistics, nevertheless, I shall remind D.Orlov, that analogue of the term "secular" in Russian is the word "worldly" (the society shared on church and "world", not without reason, naming a name any church hierarch, in Russia till now it is accepted to specify, it carried what name "in world"). As to the term "soviet" I was not too lazy to glance in "etymological the dictionary Russian language" M. Fasmer in which this term in all slavic languages is marked, that, switching, certainly, and Russian, occurs just from a word "elite".
In the end, I want to wish all of us who searches for truth: Let set us Supreme for a just way!
Yours faithfully,
Salamu Talkhigov
25.12.05
http://chechenpress.co.uk/english/news/2006/01/04/04.shtml
