Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re:Jamestown: Salafists and Sufis square off over Chechnya

Expand Messages
  • paul
    This post on salafists vs. sufis is clear misinformation, and I m not sure why it would have been repeated to this list without comment, disclaimer, or
    Message 1 of 3 , Aug 1, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      This post on "salafists vs. sufis" is clear misinformation, and I'm not sure
      why it would have been repeated to this list without comment, disclaimer, or
      clarification. This sounds like some of the bad propaganda coming from
      kavkaz centre, which tends to favour the marginal, small pro-salafist
      segment. Just recently they posted a poorly written short essay decrying
      sufism on spurious grounds.

      The FSB has been trying long and hard for years to label the ChRI resistance
      as being Wahabbist or Salafist in character. It is in their interests to
      paint the struggle in Chechnya as one of liberal secularism against
      fundamentalism.

      The reality is that the resistance draws heavily from the Qadiri and
      Naqshbandiya tassawuf (Sufi orders). The historical antecedents of the
      resistance - Imam Shamil and his contemporary and later followers, were
      sufis. The imposition of Shari'a law was not a fundamentalist one, but an
      attempt to stop the inter-clan blood rivalries.


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Norbert Strade
      Dear Paul, I have a short comment (this time partly with the moderator cap on). As I already wrote in another context some time ago, an article like this one
      Message 2 of 3 , Aug 2, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Paul,

        I have a short comment (this time partly with the moderator cap on). As
        I already wrote in another context some time ago, an article like this
        one from Jamestown can be important even if its content is wrong.
        Actually, in my opinion, almost all stories posted here are in need of
        commenting. But we aren't a professional, well-funded site. The people
        who contribute here have no funding other than their spare time. It's
        physically impossible to add a thorough analysis to each of our
        postings. Therefore it's positive if others also take a turn and write
        those necessary comments. Thanks to you for this one.

        To the content: I agree with you that the Jamestown story about
        salafists and sufis is nonsense (or misinformation). As I mentioned
        elsewhere, a number of "N"GO-based sites, especially those financed
        through semi-official US channels, have gone through a strange evolution
        of their political standpoints by cautiously approaching the Russian
        propaganda version of the situation. We have seen the ACPC focusing away
        from Chechnya to the entire North Caucasus, we see some of Jamestown's
        analysts (in this case, "analysts") speculating up and down the emirate
        and producing nothing but spam, we see their "Chechnya Weekly" following
        the ACPC and becoming "North Caucasian", and we see e.g. Prague Watchdog
        wasting their valuable web space and translator capacity on Mr. Udugov's
        silly distortions. I have the feeling that things are going in a bad
        direction in the entire field. One wonders what change in the
        geopolitical context that might have caused this development.

        Best regards,
        Norbert



        paul wrote:
        > This post on "salafists vs. sufis" is clear misinformation, and I'm not sure
        > why it would have been repeated to this list without comment, disclaimer, or
        > clarification. This sounds like some of the bad propaganda coming from
        > kavkaz centre, which tends to favour the marginal, small pro-salafist
        > segment. Just recently they posted a poorly written short essay decrying
        > sufism on spurious grounds.
        >
        > The FSB has been trying long and hard for years to label the ChRI resistance
        > as being Wahabbist or Salafist in character. It is in their interests to
        > paint the struggle in Chechnya as one of liberal secularism against
        > fundamentalism.
        >
        > The reality is that the resistance draws heavily from the Qadiri and
        > Naqshbandiya tassawuf (Sufi orders). The historical antecedents of the
        > resistance - Imam Shamil and his contemporary and later followers, were
        > sufis. The imposition of Shari'a law was not a fundamentalist one, but an
        > attempt to stop the inter-clan blood rivalries.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.