Analysts acknowledged the importance of the resonance in the release of Akhmad Batlukhsky

The arrest of Akhmad Batlukhsky caused a major stir, and the mitigation of his pretrial detention was a result not only of public outrage and the support of deputies, but also of the involvement of the republic's leadership in the decision, analysts believe.

Judging by Batlukhsky's Telegram channel and the videos he posted there, mostly in Avar, his conflict with the Muftiate of Dagestan, and specifically with the mufti, began in 2023, according to a Dagestani journalist, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "This all became public in March 2024. And sometime around 2024, A. Batlukhsky repeatedly publicly criticized the Mufti of Dagestan, his wife, and the Muftiate of the Republic of Dagestan in general, sometimes directly and sometimes indirectly accusing the Mufti, including of murdering his father," he noted.

Akhmad Batlukhsky's father is Abdul Gafur Magomedov, also a tariqa sheikh, and one of the most renowned and authoritative scholars of the tariqa tradition in Dagestan, the source added. "Let's say he was one of the undisputed leaders of the tariqah in Dagestan. And so Batlukhsky's criticism, both of the Muftiate and of the mufti himself, was a truly high-profile and serious event, and marked a very serious rift within the Muftiate of the Republic of Dagestan and within the Dagestani Islamic community in general," he said.

Until now, when people talked about Dagestan, they always emphasized the existence of traditional Islam in Dagestan, meaning the Muftiate and all the tariqah schools that are under the Muftiate of the Republic of Dagestan, the journalist emphasized. "There is non-traditional Islam, which included Salafis and, let's say, representatives of movements recognized as extremist, such as Hizb ut-Tahrir and others. And the conflict that arose between Akhmad Batlukhsky and the mufti gave rise to very serious processes, including discussions about the extent to which the current mufti is a legitimate person in terms of granting him the powers of a mufti, the leader of the Muslims of Dagestan, and even a sheikh who can have his own murids," he noted.

The last post in the Telegram channel "Akhmad Batlukhsky. About the Muftiate" (https://t.me/s/ahmad_batlukh) appeared on August 14, 2025.

The journalist also said that Batlukhsky's accusations sparked intense controversy and mutual recriminations. "Initially, the Muftiate of Dagestan did not want to make all this public "The field, but then, when the information began to spread at an incredible speed, they too entered the information war, accusing him of being mentally ill and slandering. Some kind of certificate even appeared, the legitimacy of which no one could confirm, claiming that Batlukhsky was a drug addict. Then a criminal case was opened, and since Batlukhsky understood that the Muftiate had a very strong position in law enforcement, he left the republic and went to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, trying to organize some kind of pilgrimage-related business there, his own Hajj line, acting as a kind of operator for visiting holy sites. But he didn't have much success, so he returned to Moscow. In Moscow, he was detained by prosecutors, taken to Makhachkala, and there he was placed in a pretrial detention center," he emphasized.

The journalist noted that because of Batlukhsky's accusations, In response to the mufti's remarks, disagreements arose between the head of the muftiate and a number of influential Muslim sheikhs and scholars, including Abduljalil Afandi Karanaisky, a student of Sheikh Said-Afandi Chirkey, who was killed by terrorists, and Said-Afandi's son, Abdulla Atsayev. "They presented a united front, not so much in support of Batlukhsky, but rather in terms of the legitimacy of what the Muftiate of the Republic of Dagestan was doing. This, in turn, also caused significant shifts among the tariqa Muslims. This all escalated greatly, and at some point could even lead to real clashes between the followers of different sheikhs. But then they managed to initially bring representatives of the Muftiate and representatives of Karanaisky to the same negotiating table, with Atsayev serving as a negotiator in this capacity. And they came to the conclusion that they needed to stop any mutual public statements, at least mutual grievances and "insults," he added.

Dagestan Public Monitoring Commission Chairman Shamil Khadullaev noted that, according to his information, at least one State Duma deputy and several people from the People's Assembly of Dagestan vouched for Batlukhsky. "Presumably, Saigidpasha Umakhanov was among them," Khadullaev said. According to him, the activist has been placed under a travel ban. "As far as I know, there are no other restrictions," Khadullaev stated.

Speaking about Batlukhsky's case itself, the Dagestan Public Monitoring Commission Chairman noted that this is the first time he has encountered a fourth expert examination being ordered in the case. "Usually, one expert examination is ordered, rarely two. "But a fourth—I've never encountered that before," he told a "Caucasian Knot" correspondent.

Regarding Batlukhsky's physical and psychological state, Khadullaev said he visited him on January 30 and didn't notice him experiencing any problems. "He wasn't depressed, but rather in good spirits," noted the chairman of the Dagestan Public Monitoring Commission.

Experts noted the role of public opinion in the change of Batlukhsky's pretrial detention.

The journalist reported that a meeting between the mufti and Abdulla Atsayev was recently held in the office of the head of the republic, Sergei Melikov. "And it's entirely possible that the issue of Batlukhsky's release was raised there, and he was released. It's unlikely that the decision to change his pretrial detention was based on the results of any expert assessments." "In fact, in the current legal environment, no expert analysis plays any role; only the positions of the investigative bodies matter, and most likely, this was, of course, influenced by the public outcry," he emphasized.

Khadullaev, for his part, noted that Batlukhsky's arrest had already caused a stir. "Many people wrote and called me about it. Therefore, it can be assumed that this outcry played a role in changing the preventive measure," he stated.

Batlukhsky's lawyer, Shakhban Shakhbanov, declined to comment, citing his client's request.