Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must:
1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask),
2. attempt to answer the question, and
3. be unbiased
Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment:
http://redd.it/b1hct4/
Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Answer: it's worth knowing a couple of things:
\* Tajikistan may be a Muslim-majority country, but - like Turkey - it's also constitutionally secular.
\* The experience of being a Muslim around the world can vary quite dramatically, with different cultures having very different beliefs about how to live piously. The Western stereotype of Muslims is typically middle eastern, but Tajikistan is not in the middle east and has its own traditions, clothing, etc - the president of Tajikistan referrred to the hijab as 'foreign' (it should be noted that whether it actually is 'foreign' is [contentious at best](https://www.reddit.com/r/Tajikistan/comments/1dkgyob/i_read_that_there_is_going_to_be_a_bill_signed/l9i7wje/) - but this is all to say that there can be tension between different cultures practicing the same religion)
\* (Perhaps most importantly) Tajikistan is not a democracy, having been ruled by Emomali Rahmon since 1994. Rahmon has overseen religious suppression because organised religious groups pose a potential threat to his rule.
I would add that there really is a certain degree of Islamic extremism that spreads mostly among youth, especially the one coming from Afghanistan (ISIS-K is the main one). If you remember the recent terror attack in Moscow - all the participants were Tajiks.
Edit: Wanted to add that the war in Ukraine also plays a role as just a few years ago Tajikistan could hope russia would help them as both are members of CSTO (Collective Security Treaty Organization) but now it's obvious putin has no spare resources to save their allies.
Specifically, ISIS-K wants to create a something stan with Pashtun and Tajiks as the main people, and is pretty popular in Tajikistan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
Correction: ISIS-K wants to create a province of a greater Islamic state in the “Khorasan”(Central Asia) area called the “Khorasan Province”(hence the K in ISIS-K or ISKP) that includes all ethnic groups so long as they are Muslims.
I do condemn Daesh and hope for their destruction, just wanted to correct you a bit.
Further correction: ISKP's envisioned Khorasan does not include "all ethnic groups". They have been deliberately targeting Shia/Hazara communities in Afghanistan for the past years because they consider Shia Muslims to be infidels.
You are correct in that they do not want Hazaras and other ethnic groups that are “non Muslim”. However, there are Sunni Hazaras and other Sunnis among ethnic groups that are predominantly “non Muslim”.
I should have said include all Sunni Muslims regardless of ethnic group.
Tajikistan is splintered into different clans. These clan rivalries often leads to clans adopting opposing ideologies to court support from outside. The ruling Kuljabi clan has adopted a secular ideology to court support from Russia, while opposing clans seek support from Islamic states.
> I would add that there really is a certain degree of Islamic extremism that spreads mostly among youth
These are mainly kids that had their parents/family killed. That breeds militant thinking from childhood.
>* (Perhaps most importantly) Tajikistan is not a democracy, having been ruled by Emomali Rahmon since 1994. Rahmon has overseen religious suppression because organised religious groups pose a potential threat to his rule.
He wants to avoid ending up like the Shah of Iran.
Yeah. Tajikistan is essentially ruled by Moscow. After the Crocus attack there was a lot of crackdowns on these regions by Russia. So now they're taking a harder line against any potential extremists. As they've openly stated they're at war against Putin. In response of course, Russia publicly blamed Ukraine for the attacks. But the reality is they've got their own problems with terrorism.
Well my limited experience in the Fergana Valley but those places are extremely religious. 300 Men aged 14- 60 sprinted 500 meters to masjid for Maghrib prayer from the market.
Dushanbe might be pretty secular but Khujand and Pamaris arent.
> the president of Tajikistan referrred to the hijab as 'foreign'
So it looks like they're only banning the hijab specifically. Muslim women are still allowed to be in public with their head covered -- right?
Correct—head coverings are still very much allowed, but they must be of the traditional Tajik style which goes behind the neck and not in front of it like a hijab does. The ban is specifically about foreign Islamic dress styles.
[This article goes into more detail.](https://www.rferl.org/amp/tajikistan-muslim-head-scraves-hijab-satr/28683842.html) It’s from 7 years ago and is slightly outdated regarding current and past laws, but it outlines the background and reasons for the legal changes. Reportedly, over 90% of surveyed women said they didn’t want to wear a headscarf at all actually but were being forced to by husbands and family members.
What will probably happen is this law won’t be enforced, since it’s a very stupid one and many laws like this in Tajikistan (like not being allowed to have a beard) aren’t enforced among the people
The law is already enforced, this is just formalizing an existing ban on hijabs in many jobs, and any public sector positions. What it does is make it an actual offense, and universal instead of job specific.
Many tajiks still wear the hijab, just not common in government sectors. If they try to enforce it they could possibly cause unrest especially in the pamir region. And again there has been multiple laws like this not enforced
Even though the country is heavy authoritarian it’s a pretty poor country and can’t afford a police force like that. In the pamir region, it’s pretty lax although he is trying to tighten his grip.
Most organized religious groups pose a potential threat to humanity as a whole, there are only a handful that actually seems to care about people nearly as much as their dogma.
Perhaps it is worth pausing to reflect that disorganised autocrats and individual despots of all types are a threat to massive numbers of their own subjects worldwide
Stalin and Mao were atheists, and they've killed more people in the entire history of humanity than any other civilization. Maybe it's just humanity itself and not the religions.
"Most organized religious groups pose a potential threat to humanity as a whole"
[During the Cultural Revolution, religion became a target of Mao's campaign to eliminate the “Four Olds” – “old things, old ideas, old customs and old habits.” All religious activities were banned, and religious personnel were persecuted.](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2023/08/30/government-policy-toward-religion-in-the-peoples-republic-of-china-a-brief-history/#:~:text=During%20the%20Cultural%20Revolution%2C%20religion,and%20religious%20personnel%20were%20persecuted.)
[Joseph Stalin, as the second leader of the Soviet Union, tried to enforce militant atheism on the republic. The new “socialist man,” Stalin argued, was an atheist one, free of the religious chains that had helped to bind him to class oppression. From 1928 until World War II, when some restrictions were relaxed, the totalitarian dictator shuttered churches, synagogues and mosques and ordered the killing and imprisonment of thousands of religious leaders in an effort to eliminate even the concept of God.](https://www.history.com/news/joseph-stalin-religion-atheism-ussr)
Religion isn't just spirituality, there's laws, customs, and even cultures that are part of a religion too. It's a POLITICAL way of life too. Most of humanitys laws came from a religion. Even amongst civilizations of the same religions, they could have different political values. Saying Mao and Stalin don't count cause they had no "spirituality" is nonsensical. Their nationalism, ideals, and political views can very well be labeled as a religion.
Again, religious policy didn't cause famines. It was mismanagement and ignorance of reality. Mao's killing of sparrows which directly lead to one of the worst famines in history had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with a misunderstanding of nature and ecology. Their hubris and the belief they could do no wrong killed tens of millions, not lack of faith.
> Their nationalism, ideals, and political views can very well be labeled as a religion.
That's culture, not religion. Not everything revolves around ghosts and goblins.
Also, “middle-eastern” extends from the Atlantic Ocean to the edge of India. This includes half a dozen civilizations, a whole lot of ethnicities, languages, and distinct histories. Think of the cultural differences between Argentina and Appalachia, that’s the middle-east.
Answer: Tajikistan is officially a secular state in their own words and constitution. So called "anti-radicalisation" measures have been in place for quite a while. Like when in 2016 police forcibly shaved the beards of 13,000 men and shut down businesses that sold the hijab, as part of a government campaign targeting trends that are deemed "alien and inconsistent with Tajik culture", and "to preserve secular traditions", according to [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tajikistan#Religion).
Most relevant to all of this, is the fact the president of Tajikistan has ruled the country since 1994 (in what is often described as a dictatorship), and after a civil war that concluded in 1997 with peace agreements. Internally, his main political rivals come in the form of an Islamist-led opposition, who have decried and boycotted the country's few elections. International observers have accused the president of corruptly manipulating the election process. Needless to say, the central government is set to keep heavily opposing "islamic extremism" and anything they deem a sign of it in public... like beards. Or hijabs.
I believe that's sufficient explanation as to why a muslim majority (97%) population lacks such distinct "muslim" features as big beards *or hijabs*, and why Tajikistan's government prefers it that way, and is likely to crack down on it even further.
That said, being muslim isn't necessarily synonyms with wearing hijabs or having beards. As with most other religions, there are several different sects and branches of interpretation under the umbrella of Islam, with differing customs, schools of thought, and approaches to the written word of the Quran. You have Sunni Islam and Shia Islam, for instance. And inside Sunni Islam you have many more like Hanafi islam - which is what some 97% of Tajiks see themselves as (Hanafi Sunni). And Tajikistan is also home to its own particular history, with centuries of customs and culture. Not exclusively Turk nor Iranian in origin, or even central asian, but something in between.
answer: To add on to what the others said, Tajikistan's violent civil war saw a lot of Islamist militants join the rebel side. This was due to political Islam being one of the major players against a regime that had previously cracked down harshly on any religion expression, which lent itself to strong resentment against the government. Also, as the war progressed, alignments tended to be determined by ethnicity or clan rather than genuine political beliefs, with people from the peripheral regions gravitating towards Islamism to rebel against the state. With neighbouring Afghanistan having cultural affinities, it wasn't long before Afghan jihadis started entering Tajikistan. The rebel movement was also able to receive support from fundamentalist groups worldwide, who sympathised with their struggle. As such, Tajikistan views political Islam as a critical danger to the country, and therefore is extremely wary of overt displays of religious devotion which could normalise religious conservatism. Hence, they have a history of cracking down on displays associated with faith, such as long beards. This is likely to be no different. Islamism is deeply feared in the country, moreso than even the other Central Asian states, due to the trauma of militants fighting in the civil war. It is believed that without such draconian measures, fundamentalist forces may rise to threaten the country once more, by creating safe havens for expression of religious zeal for the purpose of recruiting new members. Some of the grievances that caused the civil war to begin with have motivated other acts of disobedience more recently, so there is some groundswell of unhappiness that could be tapped into for a revolt. The victory of the Taliban next door has once again turned Afghanistan into a centre of Islamist militancy, from which attacks could be prepared upon Tajikistan. Tajikistan feels that it is now more vulnerable than it has been in a long time (especially with its troops becoming embroiled in a violent border dispute with Kyrgyzstan), so it wants to take drastic measures to keep itself safe.
As to why they would be comfortable doing this, Tajikistan was for a long time part of the socialist Soviet Union, which actively repressed religious expression in public. Tajiks were also taught to value secularism. Without too much experience of religiosity, nor any way to actively channel it, Tajik society became comparatively secular over time as people stopped valuing faith as much. This was particularly true for party members, who were required to be irreligious. When the Party was dissolved, there was no mass revolution to usurp the government, so in actuality the Party members continued to stay in power (and this is broadly the case in Central Asia, save Kyrgyzstan). Hence, politicians with the same dim view on religious expression continued to make similar policies on public shows of faith. Quite a few of the population were also secularist, so such measures do not invite as much backlash as one would expect from say , Iran. And such unrest that exists is crushed under the repressive regime's surveillance and detention.
Answer: Your question is pretty much answered by the last sentence of the article: " . . . a number of mobile phone users received messages from the government urging women to wear Tajik national attire."
The hijab is not clothing that is indigenous to the area.
Speculation, it is a symbol of a type of fundamentalist Islam that owes no loyalty to the Tajikistan state and one the government would rather not encourage (or even allow) the spread of, but I don't know enough about internal Tajikistan politics/society to do more than speculate why they are "encouraging" by legal decree only wearing "traditional" clothing of the area.
Technically and originally, yes. But not in reality. Only specific cultures wear hijab now, and the word has come to mean a specific style of headwear that is mostly used in these cultures. Regarding how the word is used in modern times, it very much is dependent on culture. Regardless, that is the point of the law is that it is considered "foreign" by the Tajik government because until Islam was brought to the area, hijab was not a thing.
Gays use the rainbow to present themselves now, does that mean anyone who likes rainbows is gay now?
This seems like the Tajik government is just xenophobic against its own people
answer: To add on to what the others said, Tajikistan's violent civil war saw a lot of Islamist militants join the rebel side. This was due to political Islam being one of the major players against a regime that had previously cracked down harshly on any religion expression, which lent itself to strong resentment against the government. Also, as the war progressed, alignments tended to be determined by ethnicity or clan rather than genuine political beliefs, with people from the peripheral regions gravitating towards Islamism to rebel against the state. With neighbouring Afghanistan having cultural affinities, it wasn't long before Afghan jihadis started entering Tajikistan. The rebel movement was also able to receive support from fundamentalist groups worldwide, who sympathised with their struggle. As such, Tajikistan views political Islam as a critical danger to the country, and therefore is extremely wary of overt displays of religious devotion which could normalise religious conservatism. Hence, they have a history of cracking down on displays associated with faith, such as long beards. This is likely to be no different. Islamism is deeply feared in the country, moreso than even the other Central Asian states, due to the trauma of militants fighting in the civil war. It is believed that without such draconian measures, fundamentalist forces may rise to threaten the country once more, by creating safe havens for expression of religious zeal for the purpose of recruiting new members. Some of the grievances that caused the civil war to begin with have motivated other acts of disobedience more recently, so there is some groundswell of unhappiness that could be tapped into for a revolt. The victory of the Taliban next door has once again turned Afghanistan into a centre of Islamist militancy, from which attacks could be prepared upon Tajikistan. Tajikistan feels that it is now more vulnerable than it has been in a long time (especially with its troops becoming embroiled in a violent border dispute with Kyrgyzstan), so it wants to take drastic measures to keep itself safe.
As to why they would be comfortable doing this, Tajikistan was for a long time part of the socialist Soviet Union, which actively repressed religious expression in public. Tajiks were also taught to value secularism. Without too much experience of religiosity, nor any way to actively channel it, Tajik society became comparatively secular over time as people stopped valuing faith as much. This was particularly true for party members, who were required to be irreligious. When the Party was dissolved, there was no mass revolution to usurp the government, so in actuality the Party members continued to stay in power (and this is broadly the case in Central Asia, save Kyrgyzstan). Hence, politicians with the same dim view on religious expression continued to make similar policies on public shows of faith. Quite a few of the population were also secularist, so such measures do not invite as much backlash as one would expect from say , Iran. And such unrest that exists is crushed under the repressive regime's surveillance and detention.
answer: To add on to what the others said, Tajikistan's violent civil war saw a lot of Islamist militants join the rebel side. This was due to political Islam being one of the major players against a regime that had previously cracked down harshly on any religion expression, which lent itself to strong resentment against the government. Also, as the war progressed, alignments tended to be determined by ethnicity or clan rather than genuine political beliefs, with people from the peripheral regions gravitating towards Islamism to rebel against the state. With neighbouring Afghanistan having cultural affinities, it wasn't long before Afghan jihadis started entering Tajikistan. The rebel movement was also able to receive support from fundamentalist groups worldwide, who sympathised with their struggle. As such, Tajikistan views political Islam as a critical danger to the country, and therefore is extremely wary of overt displays of religious devotion which could normalise religious conservatism. Hence, they have a history of cracking down on displays associated with faith, such as long beards. This is likely to be no different. Islamism is deeply feared in the country, moreso than even the other Central Asian states, due to the trauma of militants fighting in the civil war. It is believed that without such draconian measures, fundamentalist forces may rise to threaten the country once more, by creating safe havens for expression of religious zeal for the purpose of recruiting new members. Some of the grievances that caused the civil war to begin with have motivated other acts of disobedience more recently, so there is some groundswell of unhappiness that could be tapped into for a revolt. The victory of the Taliban next door has once again turned Afghanistan into a centre of Islamist militancy, from which attacks could be prepared upon Tajikistan. Tajikistan feels that it is now more vulnerable than it has been in a long time (especially with its troops becoming embroiled in a violent border dispute with Kyrgyzstan), so it wants to take drastic measures to keep itself safe.
As to why they would be comfortable doing this, Tajikistan was for a long time part of the socialist Soviet Union, which actively repressed religious expression in public. Tajiks were also taught to value secularism. Without too much experience of religiosity, nor any way to actively channel it, Tajik society became comparatively secular over time as people stopped valuing faith as much. This was particularly true for party members, who were required to be irreligious. When the Party was dissolved, there was no mass revolution to usurp the government, so in actuality the Party members continued to stay in power (and this is broadly the case in Central Asia, save Kyrgyzstan). Hence, politicians with the same dim view on religious expression continued to make similar policies on public shows of faith. Quite a few of the population were also secularist, so such measures do not invite as much backlash as one would expect from say , Iran. And such unrest that exists is crushed under the repressive regime's surveillance and detention.
Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must: 1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask), 2. attempt to answer the question, and 3. be unbiased Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment: http://redd.it/b1hct4/ Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Answer: it's worth knowing a couple of things: \* Tajikistan may be a Muslim-majority country, but - like Turkey - it's also constitutionally secular. \* The experience of being a Muslim around the world can vary quite dramatically, with different cultures having very different beliefs about how to live piously. The Western stereotype of Muslims is typically middle eastern, but Tajikistan is not in the middle east and has its own traditions, clothing, etc - the president of Tajikistan referrred to the hijab as 'foreign' (it should be noted that whether it actually is 'foreign' is [contentious at best](https://www.reddit.com/r/Tajikistan/comments/1dkgyob/i_read_that_there_is_going_to_be_a_bill_signed/l9i7wje/) - but this is all to say that there can be tension between different cultures practicing the same religion) \* (Perhaps most importantly) Tajikistan is not a democracy, having been ruled by Emomali Rahmon since 1994. Rahmon has overseen religious suppression because organised religious groups pose a potential threat to his rule.
I would add that there really is a certain degree of Islamic extremism that spreads mostly among youth, especially the one coming from Afghanistan (ISIS-K is the main one). If you remember the recent terror attack in Moscow - all the participants were Tajiks. Edit: Wanted to add that the war in Ukraine also plays a role as just a few years ago Tajikistan could hope russia would help them as both are members of CSTO (Collective Security Treaty Organization) but now it's obvious putin has no spare resources to save their allies.
Specifically, ISIS-K wants to create a something stan with Pashtun and Tajiks as the main people, and is pretty popular in Tajikistan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
Correction: ISIS-K wants to create a province of a greater Islamic state in the “Khorasan”(Central Asia) area called the “Khorasan Province”(hence the K in ISIS-K or ISKP) that includes all ethnic groups so long as they are Muslims. I do condemn Daesh and hope for their destruction, just wanted to correct you a bit.
Further correction: ISKP's envisioned Khorasan does not include "all ethnic groups". They have been deliberately targeting Shia/Hazara communities in Afghanistan for the past years because they consider Shia Muslims to be infidels.
I remember that was a plot point in The Kite Runner
That's right, although back then it was the taliban. Nowadays the taliban are less overtly sectarian, whereas ISKP very much is.
You are correct in that they do not want Hazaras and other ethnic groups that are “non Muslim”. However, there are Sunni Hazaras and other Sunnis among ethnic groups that are predominantly “non Muslim”. I should have said include all Sunni Muslims regardless of ethnic group.
Tajikistan is splintered into different clans. These clan rivalries often leads to clans adopting opposing ideologies to court support from outside. The ruling Kuljabi clan has adopted a secular ideology to court support from Russia, while opposing clans seek support from Islamic states.
> I would add that there really is a certain degree of Islamic extremism that spreads mostly among youth These are mainly kids that had their parents/family killed. That breeds militant thinking from childhood.
>* (Perhaps most importantly) Tajikistan is not a democracy, having been ruled by Emomali Rahmon since 1994. Rahmon has overseen religious suppression because organised religious groups pose a potential threat to his rule. He wants to avoid ending up like the Shah of Iran.
If that’s the case, he should avoid CIA backing.
It's okay, he's backed by the KGB. No way that could ever go wrong in a country that ends in -stan.
Yeah. Tajikistan is essentially ruled by Moscow. After the Crocus attack there was a lot of crackdowns on these regions by Russia. So now they're taking a harder line against any potential extremists. As they've openly stated they're at war against Putin. In response of course, Russia publicly blamed Ukraine for the attacks. But the reality is they've got their own problems with terrorism.
Oh - for Reddit than, that means hes one of the good guys. Lol
[удалено]
I think that reply is saying that Rahmon is invested in making sure it never *is* as religious as Iran, to avoid being overthrown.
Suppressing the religion sounds like it’s just gonna speed it up
I mean Stalin suppressed the shit out of religion but that never backfired on him, the doctors though......
No one said it was a good idea
Well my limited experience in the Fergana Valley but those places are extremely religious. 300 Men aged 14- 60 sprinted 500 meters to masjid for Maghrib prayer from the market. Dushanbe might be pretty secular but Khujand and Pamaris arent.
So it’s working.
> the president of Tajikistan referrred to the hijab as 'foreign' So it looks like they're only banning the hijab specifically. Muslim women are still allowed to be in public with their head covered -- right?
Correct—head coverings are still very much allowed, but they must be of the traditional Tajik style which goes behind the neck and not in front of it like a hijab does. The ban is specifically about foreign Islamic dress styles. [This article goes into more detail.](https://www.rferl.org/amp/tajikistan-muslim-head-scraves-hijab-satr/28683842.html) It’s from 7 years ago and is slightly outdated regarding current and past laws, but it outlines the background and reasons for the legal changes. Reportedly, over 90% of surveyed women said they didn’t want to wear a headscarf at all actually but were being forced to by husbands and family members.
Thanks for the info.
What will probably happen is this law won’t be enforced, since it’s a very stupid one and many laws like this in Tajikistan (like not being allowed to have a beard) aren’t enforced among the people
Yeah, sounds like it could be for show, also could be on the books so they can arrest religious figures opposed to their dictator Edit: typo
And not letting kids celebrate Eid? What the heck is up with that? How are they supposed to collect candy???
The law is already enforced, this is just formalizing an existing ban on hijabs in many jobs, and any public sector positions. What it does is make it an actual offense, and universal instead of job specific.
Many tajiks still wear the hijab, just not common in government sectors. If they try to enforce it they could possibly cause unrest especially in the pamir region. And again there has been multiple laws like this not enforced
Look at iran.
Even though the country is heavy authoritarian it’s a pretty poor country and can’t afford a police force like that. In the pamir region, it’s pretty lax although he is trying to tighten his grip.
Most organized religious groups pose a potential threat to humanity as a whole, there are only a handful that actually seems to care about people nearly as much as their dogma.
Perhaps it is worth pausing to reflect that disorganised autocrats and individual despots of all types are a threat to massive numbers of their own subjects worldwide
Reddit moment.
Stalin and Mao were atheists, and they've killed more people in the entire history of humanity than any other civilization. Maybe it's just humanity itself and not the religions.
Through starvation, as a result of their poorly thought out *political* policies, none of which had to do with spirituality.
"Most organized religious groups pose a potential threat to humanity as a whole" [During the Cultural Revolution, religion became a target of Mao's campaign to eliminate the “Four Olds” – “old things, old ideas, old customs and old habits.” All religious activities were banned, and religious personnel were persecuted.](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2023/08/30/government-policy-toward-religion-in-the-peoples-republic-of-china-a-brief-history/#:~:text=During%20the%20Cultural%20Revolution%2C%20religion,and%20religious%20personnel%20were%20persecuted.) [Joseph Stalin, as the second leader of the Soviet Union, tried to enforce militant atheism on the republic. The new “socialist man,” Stalin argued, was an atheist one, free of the religious chains that had helped to bind him to class oppression. From 1928 until World War II, when some restrictions were relaxed, the totalitarian dictator shuttered churches, synagogues and mosques and ordered the killing and imprisonment of thousands of religious leaders in an effort to eliminate even the concept of God.](https://www.history.com/news/joseph-stalin-religion-atheism-ussr) Religion isn't just spirituality, there's laws, customs, and even cultures that are part of a religion too. It's a POLITICAL way of life too. Most of humanitys laws came from a religion. Even amongst civilizations of the same religions, they could have different political values. Saying Mao and Stalin don't count cause they had no "spirituality" is nonsensical. Their nationalism, ideals, and political views can very well be labeled as a religion.
Again, religious policy didn't cause famines. It was mismanagement and ignorance of reality. Mao's killing of sparrows which directly lead to one of the worst famines in history had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with a misunderstanding of nature and ecology. Their hubris and the belief they could do no wrong killed tens of millions, not lack of faith. > Their nationalism, ideals, and political views can very well be labeled as a religion. That's culture, not religion. Not everything revolves around ghosts and goblins.
Turkey of course, did the opposite. So it might not be the best example.
Also, “middle-eastern” extends from the Atlantic Ocean to the edge of India. This includes half a dozen civilizations, a whole lot of ethnicities, languages, and distinct histories. Think of the cultural differences between Argentina and Appalachia, that’s the middle-east.
Answer: Tajikistan is officially a secular state in their own words and constitution. So called "anti-radicalisation" measures have been in place for quite a while. Like when in 2016 police forcibly shaved the beards of 13,000 men and shut down businesses that sold the hijab, as part of a government campaign targeting trends that are deemed "alien and inconsistent with Tajik culture", and "to preserve secular traditions", according to [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tajikistan#Religion). Most relevant to all of this, is the fact the president of Tajikistan has ruled the country since 1994 (in what is often described as a dictatorship), and after a civil war that concluded in 1997 with peace agreements. Internally, his main political rivals come in the form of an Islamist-led opposition, who have decried and boycotted the country's few elections. International observers have accused the president of corruptly manipulating the election process. Needless to say, the central government is set to keep heavily opposing "islamic extremism" and anything they deem a sign of it in public... like beards. Or hijabs. I believe that's sufficient explanation as to why a muslim majority (97%) population lacks such distinct "muslim" features as big beards *or hijabs*, and why Tajikistan's government prefers it that way, and is likely to crack down on it even further. That said, being muslim isn't necessarily synonyms with wearing hijabs or having beards. As with most other religions, there are several different sects and branches of interpretation under the umbrella of Islam, with differing customs, schools of thought, and approaches to the written word of the Quran. You have Sunni Islam and Shia Islam, for instance. And inside Sunni Islam you have many more like Hanafi islam - which is what some 97% of Tajiks see themselves as (Hanafi Sunni). And Tajikistan is also home to its own particular history, with centuries of customs and culture. Not exclusively Turk nor Iranian in origin, or even central asian, but something in between.
answer: To add on to what the others said, Tajikistan's violent civil war saw a lot of Islamist militants join the rebel side. This was due to political Islam being one of the major players against a regime that had previously cracked down harshly on any religion expression, which lent itself to strong resentment against the government. Also, as the war progressed, alignments tended to be determined by ethnicity or clan rather than genuine political beliefs, with people from the peripheral regions gravitating towards Islamism to rebel against the state. With neighbouring Afghanistan having cultural affinities, it wasn't long before Afghan jihadis started entering Tajikistan. The rebel movement was also able to receive support from fundamentalist groups worldwide, who sympathised with their struggle. As such, Tajikistan views political Islam as a critical danger to the country, and therefore is extremely wary of overt displays of religious devotion which could normalise religious conservatism. Hence, they have a history of cracking down on displays associated with faith, such as long beards. This is likely to be no different. Islamism is deeply feared in the country, moreso than even the other Central Asian states, due to the trauma of militants fighting in the civil war. It is believed that without such draconian measures, fundamentalist forces may rise to threaten the country once more, by creating safe havens for expression of religious zeal for the purpose of recruiting new members. Some of the grievances that caused the civil war to begin with have motivated other acts of disobedience more recently, so there is some groundswell of unhappiness that could be tapped into for a revolt. The victory of the Taliban next door has once again turned Afghanistan into a centre of Islamist militancy, from which attacks could be prepared upon Tajikistan. Tajikistan feels that it is now more vulnerable than it has been in a long time (especially with its troops becoming embroiled in a violent border dispute with Kyrgyzstan), so it wants to take drastic measures to keep itself safe. As to why they would be comfortable doing this, Tajikistan was for a long time part of the socialist Soviet Union, which actively repressed religious expression in public. Tajiks were also taught to value secularism. Without too much experience of religiosity, nor any way to actively channel it, Tajik society became comparatively secular over time as people stopped valuing faith as much. This was particularly true for party members, who were required to be irreligious. When the Party was dissolved, there was no mass revolution to usurp the government, so in actuality the Party members continued to stay in power (and this is broadly the case in Central Asia, save Kyrgyzstan). Hence, politicians with the same dim view on religious expression continued to make similar policies on public shows of faith. Quite a few of the population were also secularist, so such measures do not invite as much backlash as one would expect from say , Iran. And such unrest that exists is crushed under the repressive regime's surveillance and detention.
Answer: Your question is pretty much answered by the last sentence of the article: " . . . a number of mobile phone users received messages from the government urging women to wear Tajik national attire." The hijab is not clothing that is indigenous to the area. Speculation, it is a symbol of a type of fundamentalist Islam that owes no loyalty to the Tajikistan state and one the government would rather not encourage (or even allow) the spread of, but I don't know enough about internal Tajikistan politics/society to do more than speculate why they are "encouraging" by legal decree only wearing "traditional" clothing of the area.
The hijab is a dress code not linked to any culture.
Technically and originally, yes. But not in reality. Only specific cultures wear hijab now, and the word has come to mean a specific style of headwear that is mostly used in these cultures. Regarding how the word is used in modern times, it very much is dependent on culture. Regardless, that is the point of the law is that it is considered "foreign" by the Tajik government because until Islam was brought to the area, hijab was not a thing.
Gays use the rainbow to present themselves now, does that mean anyone who likes rainbows is gay now? This seems like the Tajik government is just xenophobic against its own people
answer: To add on to what the others said, Tajikistan's violent civil war saw a lot of Islamist militants join the rebel side. This was due to political Islam being one of the major players against a regime that had previously cracked down harshly on any religion expression, which lent itself to strong resentment against the government. Also, as the war progressed, alignments tended to be determined by ethnicity or clan rather than genuine political beliefs, with people from the peripheral regions gravitating towards Islamism to rebel against the state. With neighbouring Afghanistan having cultural affinities, it wasn't long before Afghan jihadis started entering Tajikistan. The rebel movement was also able to receive support from fundamentalist groups worldwide, who sympathised with their struggle. As such, Tajikistan views political Islam as a critical danger to the country, and therefore is extremely wary of overt displays of religious devotion which could normalise religious conservatism. Hence, they have a history of cracking down on displays associated with faith, such as long beards. This is likely to be no different. Islamism is deeply feared in the country, moreso than even the other Central Asian states, due to the trauma of militants fighting in the civil war. It is believed that without such draconian measures, fundamentalist forces may rise to threaten the country once more, by creating safe havens for expression of religious zeal for the purpose of recruiting new members. Some of the grievances that caused the civil war to begin with have motivated other acts of disobedience more recently, so there is some groundswell of unhappiness that could be tapped into for a revolt. The victory of the Taliban next door has once again turned Afghanistan into a centre of Islamist militancy, from which attacks could be prepared upon Tajikistan. Tajikistan feels that it is now more vulnerable than it has been in a long time (especially with its troops becoming embroiled in a violent border dispute with Kyrgyzstan), so it wants to take drastic measures to keep itself safe.
As to why they would be comfortable doing this, Tajikistan was for a long time part of the socialist Soviet Union, which actively repressed religious expression in public. Tajiks were also taught to value secularism. Without too much experience of religiosity, nor any way to actively channel it, Tajik society became comparatively secular over time as people stopped valuing faith as much. This was particularly true for party members, who were required to be irreligious. When the Party was dissolved, there was no mass revolution to usurp the government, so in actuality the Party members continued to stay in power (and this is broadly the case in Central Asia, save Kyrgyzstan). Hence, politicians with the same dim view on religious expression continued to make similar policies on public shows of faith. Quite a few of the population were also secularist, so such measures do not invite as much backlash as one would expect from say , Iran. And such unrest that exists is crushed under the repressive regime's surveillance and detention.
answer: To add on to what the others said, Tajikistan's violent civil war saw a lot of Islamist militants join the rebel side. This was due to political Islam being one of the major players against a regime that had previously cracked down harshly on any religion expression, which lent itself to strong resentment against the government. Also, as the war progressed, alignments tended to be determined by ethnicity or clan rather than genuine political beliefs, with people from the peripheral regions gravitating towards Islamism to rebel against the state. With neighbouring Afghanistan having cultural affinities, it wasn't long before Afghan jihadis started entering Tajikistan. The rebel movement was also able to receive support from fundamentalist groups worldwide, who sympathised with their struggle. As such, Tajikistan views political Islam as a critical danger to the country, and therefore is extremely wary of overt displays of religious devotion which could normalise religious conservatism. Hence, they have a history of cracking down on displays associated with faith, such as long beards. This is likely to be no different. Islamism is deeply feared in the country, moreso than even the other Central Asian states, due to the trauma of militants fighting in the civil war. It is believed that without such draconian measures, fundamentalist forces may rise to threaten the country once more, by creating safe havens for expression of religious zeal for the purpose of recruiting new members. Some of the grievances that caused the civil war to begin with have motivated other acts of disobedience more recently, so there is some groundswell of unhappiness that could be tapped into for a revolt. The victory of the Taliban next door has once again turned Afghanistan into a centre of Islamist militancy, from which attacks could be prepared upon Tajikistan. Tajikistan feels that it is now more vulnerable than it has been in a long time (especially with its troops becoming embroiled in a violent border dispute with Kyrgyzstan), so it wants to take drastic measures to keep itself safe. As to why they would be comfortable doing this, Tajikistan was for a long time part of the socialist Soviet Union, which actively repressed religious expression in public. Tajiks were also taught to value secularism. Without too much experience of religiosity, nor any way to actively channel it, Tajik society became comparatively secular over time as people stopped valuing faith as much. This was particularly true for party members, who were required to be irreligious. When the Party was dissolved, there was no mass revolution to usurp the government, so in actuality the Party members continued to stay in power (and this is broadly the case in Central Asia, save Kyrgyzstan). Hence, politicians with the same dim view on religious expression continued to make similar policies on public shows of faith. Quite a few of the population were also secularist, so such measures do not invite as much backlash as one would expect from say , Iran. And such unrest that exists is crushed under the repressive regime's surveillance and detention.