What is to be done? This is the question everybody asks in the wake of the series of terrorist acts in Uzbekistan and aggravation throughout the world. What is to be done to drive the genie of the aggressive extremism back into the bottle, the genie that does not care for life? What is to be done about the habitat that gives birth to it?

The spectrum of opinions varies between two polar views promoting two different solutions to the problem.

Solution One - fight Islamists to the end (victorious, of course). I.e. try to establish control over them, jail them, etc.

Solution Two: let absolutely everyone do what he or she wants in the hope that Islamists will be lost in the general chorus, their aggressiveness spent, they themselves become more tolerant and civilized. In other words, Solution Two means letting the steam off. There is the risk here, however, that radicals may come to power legally and immediately do away with democracy.

So, what is to be done? What shall Uzbekistan do? The opinion of the government of Uzbekistan is quite clear: Islamists should be crushed. Along with other opponents, that is. It happens, you know. Shall it be done this way?

We called some prominent men and asked them to answer the following question, "What is better - a state that suppresses religious extremism encroaching on democratic freedoms in the process or a state that permits everything to everybody, radicals included, upping the degree of risk to everyone?"

Bakhadyr Musayev, independent researcher and political scientist: The former, of course. Because the latter will cancel all of that. Freedom suggests responsibility. There is the legal aspect here - freedom implies certain responsibility. With regard to a human being or individual, the state is always the jailer and the individual an inmate - the state does restrain irrational impulses.

When we say "freedom", we cannot omit the problems of independence. Addressing the people not long ago, the president said he has two key tasks to perform now: everybody says that Al Qaeda is involved in the terrorist acts and not Hizb-ut-Tahrir, idea two - protect the house. I mean that he appeals to civil conscience - what we do not have. This appeal would have had sense, had it been a democratic society where the people are and feel free, where they have public conscience. That is when a man can be responsible for himself, his family, all the rest, the street, society, cities, and nations on the whole. All presidential slogans do not matter because they are without basis. The people is actually a herd. The president himself brought the people to this condition where everyone answers for him- or herself only. We are used to listening to the authorities lie to us, hence everything else. We do not trust anything the authorities tell us. When a rat is cornered, it becomes dangerous - prey becomes the hunter. This is what our government is after - it thinks that it will tighten the bolts some more and everything will be all right, but it is never what happens.

As for the statements of Hizb-ut-Tahrir concerning its non-involvement, we all know that with organizations such as this deeds and words differ. We know that this organization is connected with terrorist organizations in the East. Nabkhani (founder of Hizb-ut-Tahrir) in his book System Of Islam said that whenever physical obstacles are encountered, they may to be removed by force or violence. Besides, the idea itself of the caliphate stipulates brainwashing. These men would not balk at it. Hizb-ut-Tahrir publishes Al-Vai magazine. One of its articles in 2001 was titled How To Become A Shakhid.

I stand for freedom of conviction, but it does not mean that it should be applied to everyone. Talking of the necessity of democracy, Karimov made a herd of the people and he will pay for it. With every passing year, he throws the people back by a decade. The Soviet power plucked the people out of Medieval Ages, but it is being plunged there again, now. We are on the way to becoming a banana republic everybody will lord over...

Inera Safargaliyeva, independent journalist, author and founder of Arena website (freeuz.org): Had there been something in between these two extremes, I'd have chosen it. Since there is nothing in between, I choose the former. I choose suppression because Islamists choose violence and bloodshed.

I want to point out that I'm not an advocate of suppression as such. In this particular case, I choose what I believe is the lesser of two evils. Better to have things like that are prevented. On the other hand, suppression generates this reaction. In any case, this is not really my way, I would not have chosen it, were things different. Like any reasonable person, I hold dear to my heart the idea of the right to speak one's mind - i.e. the way of divine development, the way of love. These are two extremes that do not offer any other choice. Suppression in both cases. Where there is suppression, the principle of the coiled spring applies. History is full of these examples.

Atanazar Arifov, General Secretary of Erk [Liberty] democratic party (non-registered): As representatives of a democratic party, we stand for freedom and fundamental liberties: free speech, convictions, freedom from fear, and freedom from deprivation. That is why we believe that all shortcomings of society as it is in Uzbekistan now are corollaries of the deficit of democracy and freedom. It is this deficit of democracy that led to appearance of religious extremism. We are convinced that the armed religious opposition is a corollary of Islam Karimov's anti-democratic policy. Unless his policy becomes democratic, there can be no improvement in the economic or social life. And, consequently, the discord in society will deepen.

The government should stop fabricating crimes, including terrorist acts. It is falsification that is the worst evil in Uzbekistan, these days.

Bakhtiyor Shokhnazarov, lawyer with the free speech monitoring project in Uzbekistan: I'm in London now. I go out and see different skins and hear different languages. Moslem women wear the khidzhab and nobody cares. I saw three mosques in two days. I watched a BBC program on the life of Moslems in Great Britain. Everybody airs his or her opinion freely.

The first impressions here indicate the following: when there is no free speech and expression, when a person is not permitted to express his or her views openly, when people are harassed for their religious views - it is trouble waiting to happen. Tolerance is what everyone needs to learn.

Talib Yakubov, chairman of the Human Rights Society of Uzbekistan: in the early 1990's, heads of Central Asian republics faced a vital dilemma: what is to be done to remain in the driver's seat until the end of their lives? Every president settles the matter in his own way. The Turkmenbashi has settled the matter already, Rakhmonov extended his powers until 2020, Nazarbayev and Akayev are working on the problem now. Our president has chosen his own way. Ever since the early 1990's, he has been saying that religious terrorism threatens Uzbekistan and Central Asia. Using the fact that the West and Russia fear the Islamic factor, he has spared neither time nor effort to persuade the West of the validity of this myth. He succeeded and the international organizations and democratic governments eventually came to believe that this is what threatens Uzbekistan. Someone had to be jailed for appearances' sake or rather for the sake of convincingness. It would have been impossible without torture, hence the elevation of torture to the rank of state policy.

There are extremists or potential extremists in every country of the world. There is the national-socialist party in Germany nowadays - a Hitlerist party, a bunch of promoters of national-socialism. But the government of Germany does not make a tragedy out of it because national-socialists do not call the tune in the country. Society does not believe these men. There are lots of extremist groups in the United States, but they do not call the tune either. I'm convinced that there are extremists in Uzbekistan too. Perhaps, even among religious leaders. But they have never called the tune in the country - not in the early 1990's, nor later. The myth of Wahhabi, Hizb-ut-Tahrir, and other religious trends was created by the authorities themselves. I'm convinced that all three episodes with the explosions - in 1999 and twice this year - were arranged by secret services of Uzbekistan to maintain this myth. The effect of the terrorist acts was stunning in 1999, but the latter two episodes are so clumsy and unconvincing that they are actually a laugh.

We regard absolutely everything from the point of view of human rights. I know that men are not jailed for their convictions in democracies. Men are only jailed for their convictions when they commit crimes. Instead of suppressing secular opposition in the early 1990's, the authorities should have initiated democratic reforms involving this opposition.

Viktor Tsoi of Rabat Malik movement: The problem is, there must be a balance between the state and civil society in the country. The state dominates everything in Uzbekistan. That's its peculiarity - a strong state and a weak civil society. It goes without saying that civil society has to be developed along with its institutions, civil initiative has to be supported - and not only in the religious aspect.

The men promoting the ideas of Islam are particularly active nowadays. Hence the disparity in society - there are no sectors alternative to the Islamic ideology that offer anything else by way of ideology. The state should encourage the population into taking an active part in the decision-making process. Take, for example, the sector of environmental protection that is poorly developed. Citizens of Uzbekistan are practically uninvolved. Or the sector of self-government on the local level. As I see it, non-government organizations have to be given a chance now. An air went is needed. Whenever a person wants to serve society, he has to be given a chance to do it not only in Islam.

Every action implies reaction. The more force we apply, the more the opposition will be. I saw the blast at the US Embassy, saw what remained of the torso of the kamikaze... Had attention not been focused on these kamikaze, their numbers would have diminished. I was looking at what remained of the head of this man and trying to understand what his motives had been. Sure, he knew he would be remembered by his relatives and friends, by whoever had sent him. There was some element of fame in it.

Suppression is pointless here. I'd say that suppression is useless - this is a way nowhere. Tajikistan is a vivid example. Some radical Islamists there were promoted and elected into corridors of power. Soros Foundation was closed - and this was one of the projects that created an alternative. Projects like that should be stimulated. The state should promote nongovernment organizations instead of viewing them as a danger.

Professor Faisulla Iskhakov, Doctor of History: As for these events, I'd like to say that no religion encourages its believers to take extremist actions - save for the urge to defend the faith, that is.

These days, Takhir Yuldashev and some others remain abroad and speak in the name of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. I'm telling you right here and now that there is no such movement in Uzbekistan.

The Islamic Party of Uzbekistan was established in the early 1990's. It was headed by Abdulla Utayev. The party lasted until 1994. So far as I know, Utayev was reported missing one day and never seen afterwards. The Islamic Party was not registered. It was pretty much a local structure, mostly restricted to the Ferghana Valley. When Utayev became a missing person and upper echelons of the party were incapacitated, some members of the party went over to Yuldashev. The ones that had marched in Namangan screaming "Allah Akbar!" - against Russians and against Uzbek women with short hairdos. I saw all of that with my own eyes. The president was humiliated in Namangan, he was not even permitted to say a word. He got back to the capital and gave the order. These men fled to Tajikistan where the civil war was under way. They fought there. There are deputies on the Oly Majlis who watched all of that with their own eyes from the windows of the khokimiyat (administration) in Namangan. They were tolerated and watched, but not one of them was brought to answer even though it was quite possible to do so. We are dealing with the consequences of this failure now.

Different organizations claim responsibility for the explosions nowadays. It is because neither the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan nor Hizb-ut-Tahrir actually exists as a single integral structure. It should be noted as well that the program of Hizb-ut-Tahrir proclaims it as a party where there are no reverends. I mean they do not ask priests to join the party. What is the caliphate for, then?

Law enforcement agencies should take certain measures - preventive, not repressive. Still, it is the political leadership, power structures that should be even more active. First and foremost, the matter concerns efforts to solve the problem of unemployment and improvement of the serious condition of a part of the population in cities and villages. This is where destructive forces find recruits, after all. When a person does not have the money to feed his children and particularly when he is a religious person, it is all too easy to hire him to spread leaflets, for example.

Active propaganda is needed. This anti-social forces have to be exposed because very many of them only pretend to be religious while they are actually nothing of the sort. Ditto their activists. Just grow a beard and that is it. Our propaganda is pure demagoguery. The authorities say, "The explosions are organized by whoever is jealous of the progress Uzbekistan is making..." What progress are they talking about when even Tajikistan is ahead of us? The truth should be told. That is why I insist on reestablishment of Znaniye [Knowledge] society instead of the pointless activities of Majnavijat Va Majrifat [Spirit and Enlightenment]. Let men travel to villages and talk of all of that. As things stand, even in khokimijats nobody knows their program, and it is impossible to deal with the enemy without the knowledge of its weapons...

Political scientist Komron Aliyev: Democracy in itself is an eternal value. History of man, particularly the 20th century, is a proof that there can be no development without democracy. It follows that every person who wants a decent life and every country that wants economic development need democracy. The sooner the better. All references to mentality are... well, they do not really apply. The Constitution of Uzbekistan states that what we are building is democracy. Democracy has to be built - again, the sooner the better. And if somebody thinks that democracy has to be built slowly, without haste, then the Constitution should proclaim it.

A few words on radical Islamic organizations. There are new hypotheses of Hizb-ut-Tahrir's origin, nowadays. There is the opinion, for example, that Hizb-ut-Tahrir is an organization deliberately established by secret services of some countries to smear the image of Islam and discredit its values. Nobody, not even the government, knows how these so called radical groups are sponsored or by whom.

Turadzhonzoda, a prominent Tajik leader and theologian, is of the opinion that the ideas promoted by Hizb-ut-Tahrir have nothing to do with Islam and are actually anti-Islamic. I'd like to point out that when we say "Islamic groups, radical Islam, the state denies us democracy because of them"... no, all these organizations are sponsored by Western secret services that want destabilization. Hizb-ut-Tahrir is outlawed in all Islamic countries.

Independent journalist Elmira Khasanova: It will be better for the state to offer more freedom to believers and to suppress religious extremism. On the other hand, it requires truly smart, knowledgeable, and bold people in state security structures, the men who can oppose state bureaucrats on a major scale. I mean, we need men who are not like whoever we see in the police and State Security Ministry nowadays.

Even better if the state does not meddle at all and let society itself work out the political institutions that will suppress religious extremism on the one hand, and develop religious thought if it is necessary on the other.

Professor Bakhodyr Ergashev, Doctor of Philosophy of the Institute of Civil Society Studies: Appraising the terrorist acts in Uzbekistan, it is necessary to consider them from the point of view of the war on international terrorism as such and in connection with what is happening in terrorist acts in nearby countries. Uzbekistan is not alone in its war on the global terrorist network. Most civilized countries support it in its war nowadays. Historically and geographically, it has always been necessary for Uzbekistan to fight religious extremism. This is a difficult mission for a young sovereign state on its way to free market, a mission that requires a great deal by way of manpower and financial resources. It is wrong to accuse Uzbekistan of encroachment on the rights of believers when ethnic and religious values are being revived. It is clear I think that development of the population's legal and religious culture is needed.

Rukhiddin Kamilov, chairman of the Tashkent municipal organization of Ezgulik society: It is necessary to organize negotiations with the opposition and find out what generates extreme things like that in the first place. For starters, it is necessary to find out where men like that appear and take measures to prevent that from happening again, to prevent bloodshed. Nothing justifies bloodshed, you know. If they are criminal radicals, then they should be punished by the law. there is the law to abide by, you know.

A. Gudarzi, researcher and publicist: The state is forced to restrict activities of radical fundamentalists for a simple reason: the concept itself of radical fundamentalism calls for eradication of any other ideology save for "pure Islam". Nobody remembers nowadays that secular Moslems of Uzbekistan were not the only first victims of radical fundamentalists. Other victims were Moslems of all Mideast countries including official religious leaders and national leaders as well. Unfortunately, general public is never told that Saudi Arabia is at a peak of a war on radical fundamentalism represented by Tablig, Hizb-ut-Tahrir, and a dozen other organizations that want a Medieval caliphate as the only model of the world. They brainwash children, youths, girls, men, and women with these lies about caliphate. They always avoid a single question - why caliphate was never proclaimed anywhere, not even by the Taliban when it ran Afghanistan...

All these lies about the caliphate collide with the words of Mohammed as told by a famous verse, "The caliphate will last but 30 years after my death." Besides, Nabkhani, founder of the transnational sect Hizb-ut-Tahrir, claims in his books that religious culture of a caliphate and the policy of peaceful coexistence are incompatible. It means the impossibility of coexistence of the culture of a caliphate with other cultures and ideologies.

In the middle of August, I had a 4 hour conversation with a former activist of Hizb-ut-Tahrir. Here is my firm conviction: Hizb-ut-Tahrir does not want or need legalization or dialogues. To be more exact, its idea of the caliphate does not include them. The one and only thesis is this: getting state power without any discussions. Actually, this idea is emphasized in the literature and leaflets spread in the Central Asian region.

Here is a quotation from System of Islam, "Islamic intellectual leadership is the true one, and only this ideology should be proliferated throughout the world."

Here is a quotation from Party Consolidation, another book cherished by Hizb-ut-Tahrir, "They [Moslems] were not aware that an appeal for help to foreigners is a poison and betrayal of the umma [Moslem community]. Any attempt to connect our problem with others is viewed as political suicide, and that is why any consolidation poisoned by foreigners is doomed..."

Marat Zakhidov, Chairman of the Human Rights Protection Committee, vice president of the International Human Rights Society (Germany), chairman of the Agrarian Party (not registered): Where religious extremism is concerned, any freedom is out of the question. Unfortunately, state organizations and security structures (particularly in the regions) invented a plan of combating religious extremism - like quotas for arrests of extremists, you know - and invent reasons to punish somebody. It is for the sake of this plan that policemen in the regions harass the believers who never even thought of being extremists or terrorists. It means injustice and tyranny, actually. This is why believers come to sympathize with actual extremists. I was stunned to discover that very many men went to mosques in the wake of the terrorist acts to pray for the killed shakhid.

So many examinations everywhere - patrols in the streets, examination of vehicles, passport regime, and all of that - but these men had everything they needed for their purposes. Because this kind of war on terrorism is not effective. Khokim of the Ferghana region, for example, issued a directive where he managed to tie in human rights activists with religious extremists. That's marasmus, if you ask me...

Vyacheslav Akhunov, poet, prosaic, and artist: I do not support any point of view. The first point of view has already led to what we are dealing with nowadays. The second point of view - freedom - is possible only in theory for the time being. The situation being what it is - when the people is impoverished and economy is in ruins - the people will embrace everything - Wahhabi ideas, orthodox Islam, Talibs, and everything else.

Economy is the foremost question. When economy is healthy, then all other social spheres may function properly. There will be radicals then and others, but they will not threaten the country. I'm talking of the policy of counterweights. Nobody wants a war or extremism when he or she is leading a normal life. It is not ideology, it is despair - the matter of survival, if you get my drift. That is why it is necessary to bear the economic situation in mind and all related matters like corruption and clans. Besides, our government and president are not controlled by anybody, and that also has to be taken into account.

© Translated by Ferghana.Ru