Dagir Khasavov: “I myself consider the plot 100% extremist”

A criminal case has been initiated against lawyer Dagir Khasavov under Part 1 of Article 282 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (“Inciting hatred or enmity, as well as humiliation of human dignity”). The Moscow Prosecutor's Office, on behalf of the Prosecutor General's Office, checked the scandalous story of Valentin Trushnin and Elena Zanina on REN TV with Khasavov about the possibility of creating Sharia courts in Russia.

“In an interview with the TV channel, Khasavov made statements aimed at promoting the exclusivity or superiority of citizens based on their religious affiliation,” says a message on the official website of the Prosecutor General’s Office .

According to Khasavov himself, the plot was provocatively edited and became revenge for his advocacy work. He told PublicPost his version of the events, described in detail how the filming of the story took place, and also answered the question of why the interview with him on REN TV came out in such a provocative form.

Lawyer Dagir Khasavov may also be disbarred. After checking the story by the Prosecutor General's Office, the corresponding document was sent by the Ministry of Justice to the Moscow Bar Association.

— How was the filming of the REN TV story organized?

Before REN TV, the TV company Mir came to see me; a story was published there, a short interview was published in Moskovsky Komsomolets. With REN TV it happened like this: Ekaterina called me, introduced herself as the head of the information service, I don’t remember her last name, she resolved the issue with the cameras, the time and place of filming. She was in a hurry. The conversation with her took place a week or 10 days before the release of the scandalous interview. Ekaterina said that for their reporting they need people who are interested in the topic of Sharia courts; they would like to film their stories. I said: “Okay, I’ll talk, a few people will probably come and talk about their situations, what incidents happened in their lives.” I told them that people are afraid of this topic and are not always frank. The report was planned to be filmed in two passes, the first - just these people, and the second - at the mosque on Tretyakovskaya on Friday prayers, we had an agreement about this. Let me explain: we were talking about a report with different opinions on the Sharia court, and not just about me, about my opinion. I had to be among other speakers, express my opinion about the creation of Sharia courts in Russia, about their capabilities, how I see them, what needs to be done for this, whether the legislation allows this to be done.

There should have been discussion material. And just so you understand, before REN TV, the Mir television company came to film a story on the same topic. They followed each other. Unfinished material was aired. I prepared three people, you need to understand this, whom they removed, two of the three did not end up in the plot at all. They interviewed me first. We had an incomprehensible conversation, they arrived at my office before me, they were waiting for me. There were three people in the film crew. First there was a conversation, the journalist drove me crazy, and these words sounded: “Well, they say, you don’t want to integrate...”. The conversation began in the corridor. “You Muslims don’t want...” he constantly emphasized the division between Muslims and others. We walked to my office. I kept talking about incorporation, and they said: “You want to live in parallel.” I also told him: “Don’t you really know another word other than “parallel”?” I also remember that I gave him a deadline, that it would take three years to prepare the entire legal base, to consult with religious Muslim ulama, scientists, and lawyers. After that, filming continued, they talked with the girls.

— Could you please clarify how many people were in the film crew and who led the group?

There were three of them. Valentin Trushnin directed, he conducted interviews. In my experience, this was the first time with a journalist - he did not give me his business card or phone number. This surprised me.

— How did the shooting proceed?

Trushnin asked: “Can I shoot the second heroine in a slightly different atmosphere, not in the office?” The second girl was from Moscow Islamic University. They went outside with her and filmed it there. They asked questions: “Why do you need a Muslim lawyer?” All the time they wanted to draw a parallel between what would have happened if the situation had been considered by a secular court and a Sharia court. It seemed like they wanted to analyze. I didn't see anything bad. Then we returned to the office and interviewed another person. And then, as he was leaving, Trushnin told me that there would be further filming on Friday at the mosque, they would call you and tell you that they would agree on the material. They left, and I called the Mufti of Moscow Albir Krganov at the Public Chamber and told him that REN TV was filming a story, speak out. They needed different opinions. Krganov is an opponent of the introduction of Sharia courts, he is my opponent. I took the initiative and gave them Krganov’s contacts. After that, I called Ekaterina, but from that moment on she stopped picking up the phone. Of course, no opinion of Krganov appeared in the story. But something appeared that we didn’t talk about, we didn’t film it. The conversation was about the courts, about the possibility of changing legal proceedings, about the desire of Muslims to change something, about their relationship to secular courts. And that's how it happened. Without my knowledge, strangers told me that the interview had been published.

— Was the topic of the plot clearly defined and discussed?

The theme of the plot was clearly defined. They were interested in Sharia courts, that I did not make them up, that this was not some kind of nonsense, that there really are Muslims in the Russian Federation who live in big cities and need Sharia legal proceedings. REN TV journalists said that they needed the faces of these people. I advised them to go to Ingushetia, but they said: “No, we need to film this in Moscow.” It so happened that shortly before this, a girl and her father approached me, whom you can see from the back in the story.

— How long did the filming process last?

The interview aired on the third day after filming. And in my office they filmed for two hours, maybe longer.

— How was your communication with the journalist?

You know, he hurt me at the very beginning, and then when he received these words, he calmed down. Then I made a story with the girl, then I told how I see all this, then I talked about the role of the federal authorities, that many mosques had been built, we calmly discussed all this.

— What else is offensive, besides “You don’t want to integrate,” the journalist said?

The journalist behaved clearly dismissively and arrogantly. To my question about what direction he was working in, he replied that he had been to the mountains of Ingushetia and filmed a story about the reconciliation of bloodlines, and made me understand that all this was savagery for him, savage - in the tone of his communication - for him we are and we, Muslims. The entire context of the conversation cannot be called friendly - it took place in a rather tense atmosphere. Although, what is important, similar interviews aired by Channel Five and the Mir television and radio company, which were filmed in the same office, took place in a completely different context and on a different note.

— In what context did you talk about blood, what question did you answer?

This was not an answer to any question, it was my reaction to unequivocal reproaches against Muslims and non-Russians: they say they violate the rules and foundations of the titular nation. Although the plot was supposed to primarily concern the possibility of legalizing illegally operating Sharia courts. Moreover, many Muslims resort to these procedures, and the ban on their activities leads to conspiracy and their underground functioning. I spoke about this in the media starting in February of this year.

— Did you mean that Muslims will flood Moscow with blood if the Sharia court is not introduced?

Of course not. I did not mean that Muslims would flood Moscow with blood, I meant that such an intolerant approach to representatives of another religious group and a ban on establishing internal rules for oneself could lead to the shedding of blood. And with a different editing, these words would have evoked completely different emotions - after all, these were words of warning to precisely prevent this blood. By using the pronoun “we,” I did not mean Muslims or representatives of any nation, I meant our entire society.

— What did you mean when you talked about some kind of network within the borders of the caliphate?

This was an attempt to explain the general reasoning of the well-known norm that the revival of the Islamic caliphate is inevitable. Moreover, all Muslims are brothers in faith and should be together - help and support each other.

— Were you aware that the camera was running all the time?

The operator set up the camera, then moved it, turned it off, turned it on. They control their own cameras. I was on topic and didn’t pay attention to the camera. We talked, but I thought that the topic of the trial was important to them. They didn't discuss with me when they turned the camera on or off.

— Did you understand that you were being filmed when you spoke about blood and the caliphate?

It was in those episodes that we are talking about that I did not know that I was being filmed, since at that moment we were only agreeing on the range of issues that required my comments and thinking through the concept of the plot. Moreover, we initially agreed that the final version of the material would be agreed upon with me. A couple of days later we were supposed to continue filming near the historical mosque on Bolshaya Tatarskaya, and only after that this story was supposed to come out. Thus, all agreements were violated, the text was not agreed upon with me, which means that I not only cannot be considered the author of this story, but also bear responsibility for the entire context, because in the story itself the whole meaning of our communication was lost . I talked about why the state should pay attention to illegal parallel legal proceedings, but they prepared and broadcast extremist material.

— Was there an agreement to “approval” the interview?

Yes, I was. It was fundamentally important for me that the final plot be agreed with me, at least in the part where I appeared in the frame. To which he replied that they would contact me, and from that moment the contact person’s phone was turned off and no one else contacted me. At that moment I didn’t suspect anything wrong, but then, ahead of schedule, the plot itself came out...

I believe that, having received this material, they went to DUMER (Spiritual Administration of Muslims of the European Part of Russia - PP), and after the conversation that took place there, this program was hastily released. Otherwise it is impossible to explain how the television report came out without comments from my opponents from the clergy.

— Why do you think the REN TV story came out in this spirit?

Of course, this was done by someone on purpose, now I understand it. In order to remove me from the legal field. Still, if you look, I conducted serious, high-profile cases against difficult people. Agree, Ravil Gainutdin (head of DUMER - RR) occupies a key position, and no one has ever conducted a trial against him. On my website there is a whole section dedicated to the case of the Moscow Cathedral Mosque. I accused them of embezzling funds. This is why I fell out of favor, and this matter, I think, plays a key role.

The last three weeks of my work have been intense, quite serious trials were going on, and I was awaiting a court decision on a number of cases. Now that I have reviewed the entire chain of events, especially after the interview with the chairman of the Council of Muftis of Russia, I now understand everything. Let's start with March 21, when a very important decision was made in the Meshchansky District Court on my claim in the interests of the authors of the Moscow Cathedral Mosque, architects Ilyas Tadzhiev and Alexey Kalenteev for copyright protection. When I took on this business, I didn't know where it would lead. A year ago, when the authors of the project for the reconstruction of the Moscow Cathedral Mosque were removed from construction, judicial work began, everything took place within the legal framework, I believed that with the help of the court it was possible to achieve a fair hearing of the case. It is worth noting that, in accordance with the Civil Procedure Code, the period for consideration of such applications in the district court is 2 months. Our claim was considered within one year. On May 21, I have a court stamp that they received the application, and suddenly on March 21, already this year, the third judge who has been replaced in this case decides to reject the claims. She went to the meeting with the court decision in hand. I’m telling this because this is where the whole story began that ended up on the screens. We sought to stop any actions on the part of the Moscow Muftiate, the Council of Muftis of Russia, without the authors of the project, because we saw a threat to the safety of people, the safety of citizens. It is clear that this topic is now forgotten...

— How would you comment on the desire to deprive you of your lawyer status and the criminal case under Article 282 (“Extremism”)?

Legal status is granted by a qualification commission. In order to deprive this status, there must be compelling reasons. None of my clients appealed to higher authorities with a complaint about my work: violation of professional ethics or violations of the law on the legal profession and advocacy. You won’t find even a dozen lawyers in Moscow who would provide the range of services that I provide. To deprive me of my status, the legislation must be changed. If you change ethical standards, as happens, then, of course, it is possible. Within the framework of ethical standards, there is something to be attached to. Here I can agree with the prosecutor’s office: in general, this report is extremist, with this video sequence. 100% true! But I didn’t approve it! How could you miss this?

— Where are you now and what are you going to do?

A short answer to a short question. Currently, I am in a place where my life is not in danger, and, accordingly, I am going to defend my good name and professional reputation and prove to everyone that there has never been any radical activity behind my back, or, on the contrary, pro-government individuals. I have always acted within the framework of the Law, guided by the Constitution of the Russian Federation, and remained an independent figure. I will defend myself with all available means.