On the propaganda of the Salafism movement of the Islamic religion of a negative orientation, which preaches hostility and discord, or on the distribution of audio videos
December 30, 2025 No. 5143-25-00-1 / 47 M District Court of the Turkestan region, as part of:
presiding Judge A. zh.Shindaliyev, Secretary of the court session U. Polatov, M. Amangeldiev, state prosecutor - Prosecutor D. Romanov, defendants B. M, E. A, F. G, S. T, M. T., defenders of the defendants-lawyers T. Saparov, zh. Bekbulatov, S. Moldabekov, G. Sarzhanov, Z. Asadov, defenders E. A, I. G, E. M, A. Bekmuratova, A. Omar,
in an open, main trial with the participation of the translator G. Alimbekova, the criminal case was considered in a general manner using an audio-video recording tool, on which:
Be M, born on June 23, 1991 in Turkestan region, Kazakh by nationality, citizen of the Republic of Kazakhstan, secondary education, engaged in the sale of mobile phones in the mobile phone repair center "SMARTTEL", married, a resident of the House No. 11 B Kazakhstan Street, Atakent Village, m district, was brought to court on charges of committing criminal offenses provided for in Part 2 of Article 174 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
EK a, born on November 6, 1986 in Turkestan region, Kazakh nationality, citizen of the Republic of Kazakhstan, secondary education, temporarily unemployed, family, M district, m Rural District, E Village, zh Street No. 2, absent from the court, applied a preventive measure "detention under guard", received a copy of the indictment, was brought to court on charges of committing criminal offenses provided for in Part 1 of Article 174 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
Defendant B. M. In order to cause religious discord on August 31, 2024 at 12:00 in the Center for the repair of mobile phones" SMARTTEL", located in the Central Market on Ibraev Street, Atakent village, m district, to promote the trend of the negative Islamic religion "Salafism", offering consumers who came to buy mobile phones for sale, while the consumer claims to buy a mobile phone, he downloaded the sermons of Dilmurat Abu-Muhammad and Nazratullah Abu-Mariam, which are prohibited by law, into his mobile phone, which he bought using his Fijutsu laptop.
Continuing the criminal activities of the defendant B. refinery, in order to cause religious discord on January 10, 2025 at 12:50 AM, several times in the mobile phone repair center "SMARTTEL", located in the Central Market on Ibraev Street, Atakent Village, district M, to promote the trend of the negative Islamic religion "Salafism", offering consumers who came to buy mobile phones for sale, while the consumer claims to buy a mobile phone, he downloaded the sermons of Dilmurat Abu-Muhammad and Nazratullah Abu-Mariam, which are prohibited by law, into his mobile phone, which he bought using his Fijutsu laptop.
E. A. in order to cause religious discord on October 4, 2024 at 12:00, in the group "ATAKENT brothers" on the social network "WhatsApp" with 40 people, what reasons should be taken for Dilmurat Abu-Muhammad", which is prohibited by law to promote the trend of" Salafism "of the Islamic religion of negative orientation, which he professes as inferior to representatives of other religions, to have a heart that accepts propaganda?"I don't know," he said.
At the main trial, the defendant B. M. did not plead guilty and said that he worked in the mobile phone repair center "SMARTTEL", located in the Central Market of the village of Atakent, but he himself did not put the Forbidden sermons on the phone to the mobile phone buyer, downloaded the sermons of "Dilmurat Abu-Muhammad" and "Nazratullah Abu-Mariam"in his notbug via the internet, he knew that Dilmurat was convicted under Article 174 of the Criminal Code, however, for what sermons are prohibited by law" I don't know, " he said. (file 5143-25-00-1_47_23122025142701_mix. mp4, time 15:11:13-15:21:43)
At the main trial, the defendant E. A. said that he admits that he preached in the group"ATAKENT brothers" on the social network "WhatsApp", uploaded sermons via the internet, regrets his crime, that in the future such a crime will not happen again, asks for forgiveness, and the court will appoint a light punishment that does not deprive him of his freedom. (file 5143-25-00-1_47_23122025142701_mix. mp4, time 15:21:49-15:34:41)
During the main trial, the specialist N. Mukanova, the defendant E. A., stated that there are no ideas that cause religious discord, as determined in the sermons of 8 video recordings sent to the group "ATAKENT brothers" on the social network "WhatsApp" and in his conclusion No. 776/1-I dated June 5, 2005. (file № 5143-25-00-1/47_2025-07-18_1000mix.mp4, time 10:13:09-11:26:41)
At the main trial, the specialist K. Tleubayeva, on the basis of the decision of the APB M, said that the defendants gave full answers to the questions of EA, F. G, S. T., M. T. regarding 45 video recordings sent to the group "ATAKENT brothers" on the social network "WhatsApp", the investigator had to ask a question to him and the defendant, but after the general question was asked, in the conclusion of the expert number No. 61 dated April 21, 2025, the texts of the materials studied showed that the ideas belong to the Salafism movement of the Islamic religion and of the group (supporters of salafizim) to the second group (Jews and Christians, Ahlu Bidda, Shiites, rafidites, Sufis) said that there are ideas that preach enmity and discord in religion. (File No. 5143-25-00 - 1_47_14112025102910_mix.mp 4, time 10:56:04-12:15:59)
At the main trial, specialist S. Omargazin, on the basis of the decision of the District Court m, an additional examination was appointed, a separate personal question was asked about the defendants, questions and video recordings from the court dated October 23, 2025 No. 1436 / E/25/16/5189 according to the results of the number, the propaganda and sermons sent by the defendants to the group "ATAKENT brothers" showed that one religious group has no ideas of religious enmity against another. (File No. 5143-25-00 - 1_47_14112025102910_mix.mp 4, time 12:16:03-12:22:001)
At the main trial, specialist A. Shyngysov noted that on the basis of the decision of the District Court m, a repeated examination was assigned to B. M, E. A, F. G, S. T, M. TKE, B. MKE dated October 23, 2025 No. 1436 / E/25/16/5189 the number was excluded from the list of studies because it was not indicated in the additional conclusion, and in the propaganda and sermons sent by E. A. to the group "ATAKENT brothers" there are ideas of religious enmity, the words of religious discord and religious enmity are synonymous words, F. G., S. T,
In the propaganda and sermons sent by M. T., It was stated that the ideas of religious hostility of one religious group against another were not identified, and each expert made his own assessment when giving an opinion. (file №5143-25-00-1_47_23122025111112. mp4 (mp3), time 11:29:23-12:38:11)
The court, having listened to the answers of the defendants, comprehensively studied the case documents, assessing each evidence in terms of relevance, admissibility, correctness, and all the collected evidence in their totality, sufficiency to resolve the case, the court, the criminal offense of the defendants is substantiated by the following arguments.
Although the defendant did not recognize the criminal offense committed by B. Mözi, he believes that his guilt was fully justified by the answers of witnesses and other materials of the case studied at the main trial.
According to the normative resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated April 20, 2018 No. 4 "court verdict", it is based on the evidence collected in compliance with the requirements of the law and fully, comprehensively and objectively checked and analyzed directly at the court session, given an appropriate assessment.
In particular, studied in court and registered as evidence in the materials of the criminal case:
According to the protocol on the withdrawal on October 1, 2024, a mobile phone of the Samsung Galaxy S10 brand was received from a citizen named "A" on October 1, 2024 at 12:05 am from a citizen named "C".
Protocol and photos of the inspection of things on October 1, 2024 for the Samsung Galaxy S10 brand phone.
Theologians of the KSU "center for the study of religious issues" of the Department of religious affairs of the Turkestan region A. Bulat, N. Abukhan, D. Ziyabek from the convict B. M. District, Atakent Village, Kazakhstan Street № 11 and from the kiosk selling telephone accessories "Mobil" in the Central Market of the village of Atakent No. 5 from laptops, memory cards, mobile phones and books, notebooks prohibited on the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan, nazratullah Abu Maryam, more than 100 audio lectures by Sheikh Fauzan, more than 30 YouTube, Instagram links, pdf books and" three foundations, texts of the creed in Arabic " 4 copies of the book are identified.
On January 10, 2025, the protocol on the processing and re-delivery of money, that is, on January 10, 2025, at 12:30 am, the nickname "Vasya" was presented with 4 5000 tenge bills of 20,000 tenge.
On January 10, 2025, the protocols on the transfer and re-admission of a special device under the nickname "Vasya".
According to the protocol on receipt of things and documents on January 10, 2025, a citizen named "B" received a mobile phone of the brand "Samsung A14", Imel 355009522206830/01, 357237922206831/01, and 1 piece of 5000 tenge № GK 7852993.
On February 25, 2025, the protocol of examination of evidence objects in the presence of theologians of the KSU "center for the study of religious issues" of the Department of religious affairs of the Turkestan region.
In the protocol of the search of a residential building and its outbuildings as of February 28, 2025, attempts were made to search a mobile phone repair kiosk in the Central Market of the village of atakent.
In the protocol of the search of a residential building and its outbuildings dated February 28, 2025, search attempts were made at the address: Atakent village, Kazakhstan Street No. 11b.
According to The Conclusion No. 98 of November 1, 2024, of an expert who conducted a judicial psychological and philological and judicial religious examination, the study was presented with a CD "SOKCK DVD+R 4.7 GB/120 min 1-16x RW DVD+R", in the texts of the audio recording "d-lm-rat-bu - muhammad-bida-ft-a-erush-lerd-flay-zhek-r-rem-z.mp3", which was presented to the study there are ideas of enmity.
According to The Conclusion No. 7 of the expert who conducted the judicial psychological and philological and judicial religious examination of February 7, 2025, the study was presented with a CD "SOKCK DVD+R 4.7 GB/120 min 1-16x RW DVD+R", in the texts of the audio recording "d-lm-rat - bu-muhammad-bida-ft-a-erush-EWD-flay-zhek-r-rem-z.mp3", presented for the study there are ideas of enmity.
According to the conclusion of the judicial religious expert No. 61 dated April 21, 2025, 2 copies of the CD "DVD+R" from the phone of B. M. were presented, the materials presented for the study contain ideas that preach religious enmity and discord of one religious group (supporters of Salafism) to another group (Jews and Christians, Ahlu Bidda, Shiites, rafidites, Sufis).
The court dated December 12, 2025/25/4/7839 according to the conclusion of E. Your Name (registered in the social network"WhatsApp" under the name Dosan bauyr) "videoplayback (47). mp4 "under the name" No. 145 is not self-evident, not to look at the people of svysoka! Sheikh Nazratullah Abu Maryam?", "What reasons should we take to be a heart that accepts propaganda? "I'm Sorry," He Said. mp4 ""videoplayback (25). mp4" introduction of Sheikh Nazratullah Abu Maryam?»,
«Screenshot_20250313_132336_ WhatsApp.jpg" in his sermons with propaganda sent to the group "ATAKENT brethren" through the social network "WhatsApp" forms religious hatred, incitement to enmity on the basis of the predominance of the Salafist direction in Islam and the signs of the disadvantage of Christianity, Judaism, Shiism, Sufism, the faith of Christians and Jews; asharites, matrudites, Sufis, jahmites, muatazilites, kuburites, heresies; the preaching of the ideas of dividing Muslims into true believers "Ahli Sunnah" and "Ahli Bidaa", deluded by the community, revealed signs of a call to avoid such people, to reject their views.
After evaluating the above-mentioned evidence, the court assesses the evidence provided by the parties in terms of relevance, admissibility, validity, internal conviction, and considers the sufficiency of all the accumulated evidence to resolve the case, studying the circumstances of the case, guided by law and conscience, evidence that the defendants committed a crime is proved by objective factual data that is not in doubt, and the evidence that determines the guilt of the defendants in the case is fully accumulated during the pre-trial investigation.
The court also considers that the indicated evidence proving the guilt of the above defendants was obtained in accordance with the requirements of the procedural law.
In the judicial investigation, the defendant is subject to dismissal of the petition of the lawyer of the name E. Sarzhanov G. In the petition to the court, which asked to recognize the expert opinion No. 61 –illegal and invalid as evidence and unacceptable facts as evidence in a criminal case.
Because, in the materials submitted for the study to the conclusion of the court religious expert No. 61 of April 21, 2025, it was stated that there are ideas that preach religious enmity and discord of one religious group (supporters of Salafism) to another group (Jews and Christians, Ahlu Bidda, Shiites, rafidites, Sufis), but the expert who gave the conclusion did not give a personal, but general one in relation to the defendants, which was answered on the basis of the questions asked in the resolution of the investigator of the
On November 14, 2025, a repeated religious examination was appointed by the M District Court, and the propaganda and sermons sent by the defendant E. A. through the WhatsApp social network to the ATAKENT Brothers Group are there any ideas of religious hostility from one religious group against another? If so, in which exactly and in what words?on December 12, 2025
Court of religious expert No. E/25/4/7839 in conclusion and in the response of the Expert Specialist A. Shyngysov, who answered at the main trial, it was stated that among the propaganda and sermons sent by the defendant E. A., There are ideas of religious enmity.
In accordance with Part 1 of Article 24 of the CPC, the court, prosecutor, investigator, INQUIRER are obliged to take all measures provided for by law for a comprehensive, complete and objective study of the circumstances necessary and sufficient for the correct resolution of the case.
It is believed that the evidence attached to the case materials was not obtained by the criminal prosecution body during the pre-trial investigation by depriving or oppressing the rights guaranteed by law of the defendants or their defenders, or by violating other rules of the criminal process.
In addition, the conclusion of the judicial religious expert No. 61 dated April 21, 2025, recognized as evidence in the case, and the terms of the investigation were recognized within the framework of the law in accordance with the requirements of Articles 112, 186, 187, 192, 193 and 274 of the criminal code during the pre-trial investigation. Currently, the above-mentioned conclusion is legally valid.
The court, on the basis of the evidence studied in the main trial, specific circumstances, considers that the defendants have found full evidence of the commission of the above-mentioned criminal offense.
In this context of the case, the court finds that the actions of the defendant B. M. are subject to differentiation under Part 2 of Article 174 of the criminal code, since B. M. has repeatedly downloaded sermons prohibited by law to his mobile phone in order to cause religious discord.
The court, in the process of imposing a penalty, is guided by the requirements of Article 52 of the Criminal Code, which stipulate that the person who committed the criminal offense must be prescribed the necessary and sufficient punishment for its correction and Prevention of new criminal offenses.
The court, as circumstances mitigating criminal liability and punishment of the defendant B. MKE, takes into account his previous absence from the court, the first commission of a serious crime and the presence of young children, the absence of circumstances aggravating criminal liability and punishment.
In accordance with paragraph 3) of the normative resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated June 25, 2015 No. 4" on some issues of the imposition of criminal penalties " (hereinafter referred to as the normative resolution), courts should study them in a comprehensive, complete and objective manner, taking into account the fact that information regarding the personality of the defendant has a significant value for establishing the type and amount of punishment.
The court, taking into account the nature and degree of public danger of the crime committed by the defendant B. MKE when imposing a punishment, the totality of all circumstances at the time of committing the crime and after the crime, the personal data of the perpetrator, and taking into account the impact of the imposed punishment on the correction of the convicted person and
This is because punishment is applied in order to restore social justice, as well as to correct the convicted person and prevent the commission of new criminal offenses by both the convicted person and other persons. Punishment does not aim to limit bodily suffering or humiliate human dignity.
Only if the less severe type of punishment provided for the committed criminal offense is not able to ensure the achievement of the purpose of the punishment, a more severe type of punishment is imposed for it than those provided for.
In this case, the court comes to the conclusion that the defendant, taking into account the personal data of B. M., The severity of the criminal offenses committed, committed a preventive crime, committed a re-crime without any result, ensures the achievement of the goal of punishment by imposing a punishment related to imprisonment on him.
The sanction of Part 2 of Article 174 of the criminal code, in which the actions of the latter are differentiated, provides for a sentence of imprisonment for a period of five to ten years, with or without deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a period of up to three years.
The defendant does not hold such a position as B. mesh, therefore, deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities does not require the appointment of additional punishment. This is due to the fact that the additional punishment specified in the sanction of this article is considered a punishment that is not necessarily subject to assignment.
In accordance with paragraph 2 of Part 5 of Article 46 of the criminal code, the defendant must serve his sentence in moderately safe institutions of the Penal correction system.
In accordance with the requirement of Paragraph 2 of Part 3 of Article 62 of the criminal code, one day of the defendant's stay in "custody" from February 28, 2025 until the entry into force of this sentence should be counted as one and a half days of serving a sentence in moderately safe institutions of the Penal correction system.
The defendant found full evidence of the guilt of the name E. and believes that his criminal activity is correctly differentiated by Part 1 of Article 174 of the criminal code, since he spoke through the social network "WhatsApp" about the incitement of religious discord, as well as about the difference and superiority of citizens in their attitude to religion.
The defendant takes into account the confession of E. As circumstances mitigating criminal liability and punishment, sincere repentance, previous absence from the court, the first commission of a serious crime and the presence of young children, the absence of circumstances aggravating criminal liability and punishment.
When imposing a punishment on the defendant, the court recognized that the punishment that committed a criminal offense is a punishment in the form of restriction of Liberty, necessary and sufficient for its correction and Prevention of new criminal offenses, as well as able to ensure the achievement of the purpose of the punishment.
Such a summary was made by the court taking into account the nature and degree of public danger of the criminal offense of the defendant, the method of commission, the identity of the defendant, the set of circumstances mitigating criminal liability and punishment, and the absence of circumstances aggravating them, his behavior before and after the commission of the criminal offense, property status, the impact of the imposed punishment on the correction of the convicted person and the living conditions of his family and dependents.
In addition, the court, recognizing that it is necessary to impose a punishment on the defendant in the form of restriction of freedom, was guided in this by the principles of Part 2 of Article 52 of the criminal code.
In accordance with Part 2 of Article 52 of the Criminal Code, a more severe type of punishment is imposed from among those provided for, only if the less severe type of punishment provided for the committed criminal offense is not able to ensure the achievement of the purpose of the punishment.
In a particular case, Part 1 of Article 174 of the Criminal Code, under which the defendant is found guilty, provides for a less severe form of punishment for a criminal offense in the form of restriction of freedom.
This less severe form of punishment is able to ensure the achievement of the goal of punishment in cases where there was a set of circumstances mitigating the above criminal liability and punishment in relation to the defendant, and there were no circumstances aggravating them.
Therefore, deprivation of Liberty from among those provided for for a criminal offense committed in Part 1 of Article 174 of the Criminal Code
there are no legal grounds for imposing a more severe type of punishment.
At the same time, the court recognized that a less severe form of punishment in the form of a fine provided for a criminal offense committed in Part 1 of Article 174 of the criminal code, taking into account the property status of the defendant incapable of making payments in the appropriate amount and time, is not able to ensure the achievement of the purpose of the punishment.
Therefore, for the crime committed by the defendant, it is subject to punishment by the specified type of punishment in the form of restriction of freedom.
The fate of physical evidence in the case must be decided in accordance with the procedure established by Article 118 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the CPC).
No civil claim was filed in the case.
In accordance with Part 2 of Article 178 of the CPC, procedural costs ( for the activities of the forensic examination body) for the examination carried out in the expert body in favor of the state in a common manner are subject to recovery from each of the defendants.
In accordance with paragraph 4) of Article 98-2 of the Criminal Code, a compulsory payment to the Victims ' Compensation Fund in the amount provided for by law must be collected from each of the defendants independently.
Part of the resolution: 387, 388, 390, 393, 398, 402-the court ruled, guided by articles:
Be found guilty by Part 2 of Article 174 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, to impose a sentence of imprisonment for a period of 6 (six) years.
Be appointed to serve a sentence in a medium-safe institution of the Penal correction system.
In accordance with paragraph 2) of Part 3 of Article 62 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, from February 28, 2025 until the entry into force of the sentence, the time of detention under guard should be calculated for the term of punishment at the rate of one day for one and a half days of serving a sentence in the form of imprisonment.
The term of serving the sentence should be calculated from February 28, 2025, leaving the preventive measure of the "detention under guard" unchanged.
To recognize the EC as guilty by Part 1 of Article 174 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Akazakhstan, to impose a sentence of restriction of Freedom Under this article for a period of 4 (four) years.
"I don't know," he said.
On the basis of Part 2 of Article 44 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, establish probation control for the entire term of restriction of liberty and impose the following obligations: not to change the place of permanent residence, work, study at the place of residence without notifying the Probation Service of the Penal correction system, not to visit places selling entertainment, entertainment circles, alcoholic beverages, stay at home in his free time from 22-00 pm to 06-00 am, fulfill the duties of fulfilling the requirements of the Probation Service and coming to the Probation Service on the appointed days to carry out educational work with you, report on your behavior, behavior, carry an identity document with you, provide material support to the family.
In the absence of a permanent place of work and lack of training, EC Aces sentenced to restriction of freedom shall be subjected to forced labor for the entire term of serving the sentence, not exceeding one hundred hours annually and four hours a day.
Control over the punishment of restriction of freedom of the horse is entrusted to the Probation Service at the place of residence.
Explain the obligation to come to the Probation Service at the place of residence for registration within ten days after the entry into force of the sentence.
It should be clarified that in case of malicious evasion from serving a sentence of restriction of Liberty, the unpaid term of restriction of liberty shall be replaced by a sentence in the form of imprisonment for the same period, and at the same time the time of serving restriction of liberty shall be counted for the term of imprisonment, taking into account one day of imprisonment for one day of restriction of Liberty.
In accordance with paragraph 2) of part 3-1 of Article 62 of the criminal code, in accordance with the calculation of the punishment of the EC, from February 28, 2025 to December 30, 2025, to be included in the term of punishment at the rate of two days of serving a sentence in the form of restriction of freedom for one day of detention.
To collect the procedural costs of 753,834.02 (seven hundred and fifty-three thousand eight hundred and thirty-four) tenge 2 (two) tiyn spent on the examination conducted in the state revenue expert body in a common manner.
To collect compulsory payments from each of the names of the victims in the amount of twenty monthly calculation indices in the amount of 78,640 (seventy-eight thousand six hundred and forty) tenge to the Compensation Fund for victims in an independent manner.
Attention!
Law and Law Law Law draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a particular situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist you in legal advice, drawing up any legal document suitable for your situation.
For more information, please contact a Lawyer / Attorney by phone: +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (700) 978 5755, +7 (700) 978 5085.
Attorney at Law Almaty Lawyer Legal Services Legal Advice Civil Criminal Administrative Cases Disputes Protection Arbitration Law Firm Kazakhstan Law Office Court Cases
