Tajikistan looks to be an interesting case of Islam being kept in check without resorting to either extremism or terrorism. But this is neither free nor assured, and it probably requires constant wilful effort.
In the long term, I can see it bleeding more territory to China due to the significant difference in military power and aggression. This is so long as there isn't a NATO-like structure to keep Chinese aggression in check, constituted of its neighbors.
An amazing place. I visited twice about 15 years ago and have many fond memories of it, but mostly when I think about it I'm filled with sadness, because the people there deserve so much better. They're constantly knee-deep in corruption, both street level and just the very blatant kleptocratic presidential family. There's a lot of ethnic Russians, both expat workers and ones that didn't manage to leave after the collapse of the Soviet Union, that are very openly racist towards ethnic Tajiks but were usually allowed to run free. The people were hospitable and open and very happy to have guests in their country, but it also seemed like a very bleak place, with few good prospects for the future.
ones that didn't manage to leave after the collapse of the Soviet Union
openly racist towards ethnic Tajiks
Makes me wonder, maybe something happened between ethnic Tajiks and ethnic Russians between Soviet Union collapse and the present.
Most Russians hold racist views. It doesn't change if they are expats. As a result of the colonial conquests, Russia is a multiethnic state. But the minorities have never been fully accepted. The govt balances between suppressing the far right and managing it for its own purposes.
This wiki article has plenty of references, with many pointing to the racist actions by the senior officials https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Russia
Most Russians hold racist views
I understand that people are unhappy with Russia right now, but what a truly gross thing to say (and absolutely not true).
Very true when it comes to antisemitic views: only 1 in 10 Russians would be ok having a Jewish friend.
"In a Levada Center poll, for instance, 45 percent of Russians said they had a positive attitude toward Jews in 2021, up from 22 percent in 2010. Russians said Jews were the minority group they were most comfortable having close to them — but only 11 percent said they’re ready to have a Jewish friend, up from 3 percent in 2010."
https://www.politico.eu/article/vladimir-putin-ukraine-war-f...
Oh please, Levada? lol. I understand there's a big psyops push to dehumanize Russians right now, but they are people like the rest of us. Crazy, right?
No, russians are incredibly racists and openly hostile to central asia migrant laborers. Experienced it myself
Wait, are you agreeing that Russians aren't humans?
Hitler and Pol Pot were also humans, yet they did very bad things to other fellow humans.
Nobody is denying that ru are humans, we are simply acknowledging that someone did very bad things against principles of humanity, did it deliberately, at scale, and over a very long time period.
Consider yourself lucky for being from a country that never bombed anyone. Mine killed about 4 million (mostly women and children) in the ME over the last 30 years, and are still at it by helping their friends pound Palestine into smithereens :(
its not only bombing, it is casual everyday racism towards others that is a problem.
same like zionist jews think of themselves as superior to palestinians, same russians think of themselves as superior to Ukrainians and other ex-soviet nations. BTW a lot of Israeli jews immigrated from Soviet Union and some could argue they could pick up this superiority complex from russians
we are simply acknowledging
We?
Please, for your racist views speak for yourself, without 'royal we'.
Also people like you always conveniently omit anything what would show your people not as those saints as you try to portrait it.
I am aware that this is a bold claim and that it may be hard to believe. I also wish this weren't true. That's why I put a reference to support it. Check out the section on Public sentiments and politics. In particular, that 60% of population support the statement "Russia is for Russians" and what that phrase implies. If you are curious to learn more, check out studies and polls by any organization that you support - Amnesty International, Russian NGO's, universities, etc.
I am pretty sure in most european countries people would vote for the same answer
I'm from the US South and am well traveled in Europe and Russia, including minority Russian republics like Adygea. In my experience, Russians are way less racist than Americans and Western Europeans - I almost never heard a racist word from them (I understand the Russian language).
Please watch these:
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_xq7WcM_J0
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdtCCi249xE
Also, feel free to hit that translate button on videos like these, especially the top voted ones. The comment from Russians are generally very positive (even heartwarming) towards foreigners who are adequate, learn the language and follow the local laws.
It's really not gross if you can accept that the author of such a statement would likely also believe racist is not a term that is used not as a binary (as in - you are either racist or not racist) but that racism is something we are almost all guilty of to some degree or another and not something that means you're going to hell or are a horrible person. In the same way that we are all at times capable of being selfish, or at times capable of being ignorant, or weak to temptation.
Saying they are racist in that light is more like saying that relative to the average, they are a bit more racist than the best of us.
This blanked statement is false. I’m speechless somebody can make claims like this tbh.
Definitely not false. Actually quite well covered by journalists and scholars.
As an example: https://academic.oup.com/edinburgh-scholarship-online/book/2...
Yeah yeah, it's also well covered by journalists how all Americans are racist.
The article studies properties of a nationalist group, which is in extreme minority, especially after 2010s, and doesn’t make claims that ‘most Russians are nationalists’.
You have to lurk really hard to find a nationalist there unless you count people love Dostoyevsky into this group. There are also a lot of glass ceilings in place for ethnical Russians, and distribution in elite universities, politics, and business don’t represent the country average, which suggests there’s an intentional ’reverse racism’ in place towards majority. Moreover, the word ‘Russian’ is banned in media and is replaced by ‘citizen of Russia’.
OP visited about 15 years ago so if you are hinting at the more recent event, it doesn't sound relevant. And if it is not that, I'm not sure what you are hinting at.
I'm not sure what you are hinting at.
Probably the various ethnic cleansings that happened in the *stans at the fall of the USSR, where most more western ethnicities (Russians, Ukrainians, Belarussians, Armenians, ...) were at best swiftly & firmly reconducted to the nearest airport, and at worst killed on the spot.
It's best understood against the backdrop of a very long series of colonial endeavours. The circassian genocide is well documented.
Circassian genocide was especially nasty, but ancient history (and somewhat inline with America's genocidal colonial conquests West). And not that it justifies the genocide, the Circassians were big slavers of Slavs (especially young girls). Also some of the biggest bastards on the Russian side were actually ethnic German.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigory_Zass
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_slave_trade#Circassi...
The late eighteen hundreds is "ancient history"? That's antiquity to you?
I get the impression that this might come as a surprise to you: 'In the context of the Circassian slave trade, the term Circassians did not necessarily refer to ethnic Circassians, but was used as an umbrella term for a number of different ethnicities from the Caucasus region, such as Georgians, Adyge and Abkhazians, in the same fashion as the term "Abbyssinians" was used as a term also for African slaves who were not from Abyssinia.'
That Moscow is a european colonial project was kind of my point but obviously that flew at a level seemingly mesospheric to you.
I’m well aware of the Mountain of Tongues and Circassia, having traveled that region extensively (including Adygea) and read a number of history books about it.
My country (America) had their own colonial project around that same time period (and also conflated various native groups) - like, ever heard of Manifest Destiny?
The US is still a colonial project, Puerto Rico being the obvious example. It's irrelevant however.
You describe 1863 as ancient history, so I'm not keen on putting any trust into the words you're using or claims to being educated on the subject.
What's your nationality? Because it is absolutely relevant. If you don't employ some empathy and self-reflection of your own history when judging the historical actions of others, you literally get no say in the matter.
My ancestors were mainly sami and travelling peoples. The swedish crown more or less eradicated them.
Not sure why that would make me empathetic towards muscovite genocidaires.
Well that makes you related to my wife, who’s part Komi (her father’s first language). But even they're not butthurt about what the Russians did to them - it was a long time ago. And actually, the Soviets made an effort to preserve the language - she had to take classes in school and much of the local signage is in Komi. People there on the river will even greet you in Komi, still.
And btw, the fact that Circassia itself was the result of the westward expansion of a Persian speaking people who also subjected other cultures (not to mention were big slavers) just shows that you have literally no idea what you're talking about and grasping deep into history for reasons to be bigoted against Russians. Not to mention that the people running the Russian Empire at the time were actually Germans (who also considered themselves superior to Slavs), including many of the top commanding generals behind the genocide.
Downplaying one of modernity's most complete genocides with 'they were actually persians that sold some slaves' and 'actually some of the people in charge were western european' is frankly disgusting.
Moscow's reach for the Black Sea had nothing to do with anti-slavery idealism or whatever you're getting at, they wanted ports and trade and didn't consider muslims as human as christians. It also seems to me that you don't consider serfdom a form of slavery, only international slave trade, which isn't a position I share.
Do NOT put words into my mouth about what I consider slavery or not (or anything, unless I explicitly write it). Yeah, Slav serfdom was shitty as was Russian Imperialism. And American Imperialism, British Imperialism and so-on.
And I'm not downplaying anything (and sure, the Russian Empire made justifications for what it did), I'm pointing out that my God - that was two centuries ago. By your measure, every modern American and Spaniard is a genocidal maniac...
I didn't. Your reading comprehension in english might not be as good as you think.
Sure you are. You're bringing up excuses.
Antiquity ended at the dawn of medieval times. That's like half a millenium earlier than where you want to put it. 1863 is quite some distance into modernity, well into the age of the railroad.
I haven't made anything in this about individuals, rather centering it around Moscow, which has at times been sacked by mongols, crimean tatars and culturally dominated by Paris. But well yeah, the US is quite genocidal. So what? Do you consider it the golden standard of statecraft or something?
circassian genocide
You are aware that Circassia is 3 countries and more than 4000km away from Tajikistan, right? And that the ethnicities involved in the Circassian genocides are wholly separated from Tajiks?
Yes, why? Would Tajikistan for some reason be the only adequate example of muscovite colonial history?
Colonialism does not justify genocide
Most likely the Tajikistani Civil War, 1992-1997.
Your description does not sound like an amazing place that you said it is in the first sentence?
The vast majority of the world is amazing if you come with western money as a tourist, Cuba, Turkey, Kirghizistan, &c. you'll have a great time, most locals are great people but living there as an average citizen isn't that amazing in term of quality of life, access to necessities, infrastructure, ...
Nothing beats being rich in a poor country
Being filthy rich in a rich country, perhaps? :)
No because in a rich country you need to adhere to laws and regulations while in a poor country you can just pay bribes and do what you want
That still holds true in rich countries...
It really doesn't. Rich countries have base rules that all must follow. Justin Timberlake was just arrested for drunk driving. He might get off because he can afford the best lawyers, but he was arrested. That is a thing that happened. It would not have happened in somewhere like Tajikistan where a roadside bribe would nullify the entire situation. For the equivalent of a few hundred bucks they would have given him a ride home and nobody would be the wiser.
I have a friend from Nigeria and he said you can avoid arrest with a $2 bribe. That shocked me.
Just make sure to be a cop and then you'll be fine.
really just a function of how much money, and how you define "rich".
poor countries just shift that number lower. but if I had $100MM I'd rather be sorta-rich in Los Angeles than mega-rich in Bolivia
In rich countries the things you want to do are already legal, or are in the rich country next door
but worse case for violent criminal things, there isn't a functional difference between a campaign donation to the district attorney in a wealthy nation or a couple bucks to a police officer in your face in a poor country
That really depends on what you want. A poor place may simply not have a “utility” that you might want to fully entertain due to inherently low standards. They may literally not know any better and nobody went there to fix that.
Some of the most beautiful mountain scenery I've ever seen and very hospitable people. A very nice place to visit. Not a very good place to live though unless you're so rich that you don't have to rely on the local infrastructure and services for survival and quality of life.
I find life to also be bad if you are the only rich person isolated in a bubble when 99% of the people are in extreme poverty. You just can't feel good, unless you don't care.
You'r definitely not be the only rich person there. There's thousands of rich corrupt people in their own bubble.
Being in Venezuela in the first years of Chavez was bizarre.
National university professor's family (so, upper middle class) living behind 3m concrete walls topped with broken glass and shuttling between there and similarly armored swim clubs.
It made me reflect on the difference between token security and actual security.
Also, sharp gradients inherently incentivize attempts to equalise. It is an unstable situation.
Also makes you a target, living life constantly watching your back and being careful about any stranger you meet.
There’s a reason most rich people stick to developed countries.
Being a walking dollar sign in a poor country is seriously dangerous!
Money matters, but so does muscle.
Some of the most beautiful mountain scenery I've ever seen
based on the pics in the article, it seems pretty similar to Himalayan regions of Pakistan, India, Nepal. What was so special?
I think most people find the Himalayas pretty special
The people are friendly and welcoming, and the scenery is amazing. As a tourist, I don't much mind paying a few bribes to policemen (who barely get paid a wage), and I can stand to keep my mouth shut about their president when I'm there (even though he's obviously a bastard). But it's painful to think what it must be like to live there and have nowhere else to go.
many fond memories of it, but mostly when I think about it I'm filled with sadness, because the people there deserve so much better. They're constantly knee-deep in corruption, both street level and just the very blatant kleptocratic presidential family
I spent 2 years driving the length of the Pan-American Highway, and 3 years driving right around the African continent.
What you said can equally be applied to many places I spent a good deal of time in. Incredibly friendly, warm, kind and happy people to a degree I did not know was possible on planet earth. Sadly they're held down by corruption, ineptitude and the West.
Happily, virtually every single person laughs, sings, dances and celebrates basically everyday, because they choose to be vibrantly happy despite all the BS.
Incredibly friendly, warm, kind and happy people to a degree I did not know was possible on planet earth. Sadly they're held down by corruption, ineptitude and the West.
The problems are significantly of their own doing. I live in one such country (Nigeria), and many people say the same thing about my people- warm, friendly, and whatever.
But being warm and friendly doesn’t build a successful nation. Tribalism, high tolerance for corruption from the locals, and lack of the rule of law are what ruin these countries, and citizens are either too apathetic or outrightly support the same incompetent leaders ruining them.
Besides, some people are friendly to white foreigners but hostile to locals from another tribe.
But being warm and friendly doesn’t build a successful nation
No, but kicking out the greedy WASPs and their lackeys and post-colonial infuence schemes does though - though seldom realized
No, but kicking out the greedy WASPs and their lackeys and post-colonial infuence schemes does though - though seldom realized
This is the same mentality that contributes to these countries remaining poor. Just kick out the “WASPs”…so that the local kleptocrats take over.
The problem is corruption and lack of rule of law, not WASPs or whatever acronym can be used to blame foreigners instead of taking responsibility.
This is the same mentality that contributes to these countries remaining poor. Just kick out the “WASPs”…so that the local kleptocrats take over.
The "local kleptocrats" are usually just lackeys of those WASPs, put in place, supported financially and diplomatically, with arms and so on (and by pressuring their opponents) to ensure the stealing continues. On their own, they're small time crooks, the real bulk of the countries riches still goes back to the post-colonial masters...
The problem is corruption and lack of rule of law, not WASPs
Corruption and lack of rule of law is a feature, not a bug. A feature kept in place by those bugs, the WASPs, with the help of loyal local scum.
"But, but, but those WASPS kept the rule of law an order when they governed directly as colonial masters"
Yeah, when you rule a colony and live there as ruler, it tends to benefit you to keep the rule of law. You get to stroll safe, and besides all your own colonial stealing is done "by the book" and is a-ok since it's based on your laws.
It's when you leave the place (or get kicked out) that you opt for the "divide and conquer" and "get friendly local scum to power" approaches, and helping keep the country poor, corrupt, and at war, pays dividends...
And you have your establishment scholars point out how it's the local's bad culture and unfitness for rule of law that prevents them for flourishing.
It's the same kind of people who would have written that the locals are inferior races and need taming and someone to keep them in order, a century or so ago...
By your logic, Zimbabwe should be the flourishing paradise of Africa; I'm not sure there's a country that has seen so thorough an enmity between its post-colonial ruling elite and its former colonial master (well, maybe Algeria). Yet ZANU-PF's signature achievement is the forced redistribution of land away from the white settlers, and in the process promulgated the utter ruination of its own economy.
Why WASPs in particular? Not even Anglo or Protestant, just wondering.
Zimbabwe kicked out all the WASPs. Where did they end up? A failed state.
The issue is not WASPs, it’s bad governance. But I guess life is easy when one can just blame WASPs rather than examine themselves to find fault.
We Africans have autonomy but refuse to use it for good. It’s condescending to assume we have no role in our problems and, to follow the logic, no role in the solutions.
What do you think of the wave of companies trying to cash in on inexpensive labor from countries in Africa?
My experience working as a vendor to a company that hired Zimworks out of Zimbabwe was rather underwhelming. Pastoral care was all they offered for healthcare to the local Zimbabwean employees, and the time shift the local employees endured seemed to wear heavily on them.
While we can't blame colonialism for everything, "tribalism" throughout much of Africa is as much a product of colonial strategy (divide and conquer) as it is precolonial tension. British colonial administrators mastered this strategy.
high tolerance for corruption from the locals
I wonder how much of this is equivalent to small towns in the US passing laws to become speed traps. They get their revenue from out-of-towners passing through as the natural design speed of the highway instead of the posted limit. The difference is that police bribes go directly to the officer's pocket while speeding tickets get sent to the municipal budget, then allocated to the officer's salary.
and the West
what?
Have you ever wondered why Switzerland is the world's second largest exporter of processed coffee, despite never growing a single bean? [1]. Germany is 3rd, Netherlands is 4th. Hmmmm.
Have you ever wondered why all those poor countries around the world sell unprocessed coffee to Switzerland for pennies rather than telling Switzerland to take a hike, processing it themselves and making way more money?
Have you ever wondered why many very poor countries around the world sell their raw minerals for a tiny fraction of the globally accepted price?
After three years on the ground in Africa, my eyes were very wide open. The multi-billion dollar loans from the IMF and World Bank have these countries over a barrel, and if they try to change the status quo, they will be sent back to the dark ages instantly. Spending time in Sudan was very educational, though it means I can never get a visa-wavier for the US. Why do you think that is? (Hint: gas in Sudan was 6 cents a liter..., diesel was half that)
Also very educational to try at get a visa for Ecuatorial Guninea (it has a TON of oil, and a TON of multi-national companies ripping it out). A foreigner can go to the island where the capital is no problem, but try getting permission to go to the mainland - you can't. Even with a valid visa you can't get in. (I camped in view of it here [2] )
Why? Because they don't want you to see what is happening there.
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1096413/main-export-coun...
Have you ever wondered why all those poor countries around the world sell unprocessed coffee to Switzerland for pennies rather than telling Switzerland to take a hike, processing it themselves and making way more money?
Setting up a factory costs a lot of money, and almost no one is willing to make long-term investments in a corrupt and unstable country.
The multi-billion dollar loans from the IMF and World Bank have these countries over a barrel, and if they try to change the status quo, they will be sent back to the dark ages instantly.
Botswana, the best-governed country in Africa, has managed its economy well enough to never need an IMF bailout. Meanwhile, Ghana has gone begging for IMF bailouts 17 times [1]. If the Ghanaian leaders (voted in by citizens) weren't perpetually inept, the country wouldn't constantly go to the IMF with begging plates.
Spending time in Sudan was very educational, though it means I can never get a visa-wavier for the US. Why do you think that is? (Hint: gas in Sudan was 6 cents a liter..., diesel was half that)
Sudan had a murderous dictator who reigned for three decades. He was toppled, but it didn't take long for the country to fall into a current bloody civil war.
A foreigner can go to the island where the capital is no problem, but try getting permission to go to the mainland - you can't. Even with a valid visa you can't get in. (I camped in view of it here [2] )
Because Equitoreal Guinea is run by a comical dictator who lives lavishly while most of his citizens live in penury. Of course, he doesn't want foreigners to see the mess he oversees.
As an African (Nigerian to be specific), I'm actually tired of foreigners always finding excuses for our problems. It's condescending to assume we have no agency, and everything bad that happens to us is the fault of some foreign boogeymen.
1- https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/business/Year-in-Revi....
Processing coffee yourself takes skill that gangsters who take over a government don't have. The most successful countries after decolonization are meritocracies
Have you ever wondered why farmers sell unprocessed grains to mills for millions of pennies rather than telling the mills to take a hike, processing it themselves and making way more money, all in the USofA and EU?
because it makes economic sense to do that.
but you can act locally, why do you buy clothing instead of knitting your own, and then with your spare time milling your own flour?
How did you get across the Darian Gap?
I shipped the Jeep in a shipping container from Colon in Panama to Cartegena in Colombia.
I documented the whole enterprise here http://theroadchoseme.com/shipping-across-the-darien-gap-pt-...
I visited last year. I agree with everything you said. It was beautiful. I didn't notice many Russians there at all though. Many more in the surrounding stans.
Not so new fact that many here may already know: The (in?)famous -stan suffix, coming originally from Persian, is an etymological cousin of State, Street, Statistics, Strategy and Stadt.
In Iran, provinces are called Ostan and some Ostans' names end with -stan (e.g. Ostan of Kurdistan).
By the way, since it's not clear from their names, it may be worth noting that Tajiki and Persian are two dialects of the same language.
*Farsi. Persia doesn't exist anymore. I find it strange that somewhat uniquely people refer to Iran by its ancient name. We're not speaking anglo-saxonish
Iranian Linguist here.
Persian is correct. If you want to go by what Iranians call it themselves when speaking English, you can even call it /'perʃijæn/.
If you want to call it as an educated Persian speaker, It's Parsi. "Farsi" is recent result of a lenition of starting /p/ in "Parsi", and is originally an informal way to say Parsi (starting in 13th century [Solar Hijri calendar]). For a source, if you go to https://ganjoor.net/ (A good source for all classical Persian poems) and search "فارسی" (Fârsi), the oldest Persian poem with this word you'll find is from 13th century [Solar Hijri calendar]. Literature teachers have recently started to address this in their teachings so the next generation will be calling the language Parsi again.
Both Persia and Iran are correct names (As said by son of the guy who renamed the country internationally). So Persia does still exist.
Persia doesn't exist anymore, and I referenced to the country as Iran, if you check a bit more carefully.
The language, however, is spoken by roughly 100 million people, so I believe it is safe to assume that it still exists. Farsi is an endonym, just like the official language of Austria which is known in English as "German" and not Deutsch, its endonym.
Every single Iranian person I have met always referred to the language as "persian".
This is like complaining that someone mentions the Spanish language instead of Español.
Farsi is a Persian dialect, a bit like insisting I (British) speak American or if Spain disappeared as a state that Mexican is the language of Mexico. Or that someone can't be speaking Latin or Sanskrit because they're ancient, it's Italian and Hindi now, or something.
(in?)famous -stan suffix, coming originally from Persian
Does it come from Persian or some common Indo European language, Sanskrit has something similar as well.
I always thought it's Persian, but it may be older, and it does certainly have cognates in Sanskrit too.
Wiktionary is amazing for such information.
It's an extremely old word
Many countries with non-stan names in English have -stan names in their own languages, like Hindustan.
Also, lots of Mid East or central Asia town names end with -abad (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D8%A2%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%AF#Pers...). Interestingly, so do some large American city names, I can't remember which.
Also, lots of Mid East or central Asia town names end with -abad
This is also the case in South Asia, especially in areas that were once ruled by Islamic monarchies.
Ok nvm, Carlsbad is an unrelated coincidence
The -istan suffix means "land of". Similar to ScotLand, IreLand, etc.
So Tajikistan means: the land of Tajiks, Afghanistan means the land of Afghans, Kurdistan means the land of Kurds, etc
I did not know that. Apparently they are both from PIE *sta-, "to stand". -stan is "place (where one stands)". State in the sense of condition, status, standing is "how one stands", and state in the sense of nation-state is an association via "state of the country", "state of the republic".
The government and locals don’t like when you bring up Borat
Depends on which locals. Younger generations never really cared about this. All my friends have always found the movies hilarious, especially the first one.
When the sequel was released, the government finally started acting like adults: https://youtu.be/eRGXq4t9wY4
I'm pretty sure this is also caused by generational change in the government.
At one point the government of Kazakhstan threatened legal action over Borat and Sacha Baron Cohen hilariously responded in character.
“I fully support my government’s position to sue this Jew.”
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/bor...
yeah at another point he distanced himself from making racist movies about country he has 0 idea about. then you bring up an example of him trying to hide behind his Jewish identity to be above criticism as a "joke".
it's trivial to punch down and then act like a victim by bringing up your own identity.
People who find it easy to make fun of others while being extremely thin-skinned themselves: https://www.timesofisrael.com/sacha-baron-cohen-tells-tiktok... for a legitimate dissent on his holy cow country. I imagine making fun of Israel in the same vein and making a movie about it in the same style would get anyone blacklisted in Hollywood. There will be 10 OP-EDs about how that's antisemitic and disrespectful. But because it's Kazakhstan nobody gives a shit and we're supposed to suck it up and laugh with others a la Oldboy.
It might be hilarious to you, but for ethnic Kazakhs it isn't (self-respecting ones at least).
He's not punching down or hiding behind an ethnic identity, he's mocking the idea of someone being upset over a parody/mockery/comedy.
He absolutely was punching down. He used his high status to mock a low-status (in the West) ethnicity, and shamelessly used selective editing to make everyone other than himself look like a bigot and an asshole. When rightly criticized for this, he acted like he was the victim.
It was an awful display which has not aged well and will look even worse over time.
I'd say that's a minority opinion, not especially supported by facts.
Regardless, his movies/tv shows always involved massive amounts of editing and manipulation.
Like the time they portrayed some random (Christian) Palestinian as a leader of a Islamist terrorist brigade which supposedly had a huge negative impact on his life.
Just this incident alone shows that Sacha Baron Cohen is a horrible and a despicable person.
Rich dude makes fun of a nation for being poor and when they take issue he plays antisemitism card.
Sure, that's one way you could describe things, although not especially accurately.
Yeah, but I see his point about getting away with this type of humor only because most viewers hardly know Kazachstan actually exists. I might be upset if I were a Kazakh, or I might not be - but I probably would find I hilarious.
because most viewers hardly know Kazachstan actually exists
I really don't mean to be insulting to US people here, but I really think this would be a huge difference in the populations between the US and other countries where the film was popular.
I live in Kazakhstan as expat, and locals are brought up patriotic pretty much like in America -- national anthem at school every day (I shivered when I learned about it, both about KZ and America), told they're the richest post-soviet country. So the movie that plays the anthem and highlights so much that he's from Kazakhstan (although he looks nothing like a Kazakh), looks like a serious insult.
(edit: to be exact, I don't mean he mocks this partiotism, there's nothing to do with it in the movie.)
I've been told that the true meaning was to film Americans with candid camera and laugh at how stupid they are, but to me, Borat is the only thing people utter when I say where I am, so it's pretty annoying.
OTOH, given this popularity, nat. govt could have paid some petro-uranium-dollars to Cohen for some tourism commercials.
Maybe this has changed in recent years, or it's different in the south or the west of the country where more "ultra-patriots" live, but it wasn't my experience at all in the middle of 2000s. We had to listen to the national anthem several times per year on national holidays, and perform other token gestures like that, but nobody took it seriously and these actions were relentlessly ridiculed.
Not because of lack of patriotism, but because of the synthetic and bureaucratic feeling of the whole deal.
So the parody misses the mark.
Borat is really about the US society anyway, they could have picked absolutely anything else and it wouldn't make a difference.
But Borat is the only thing people utter when I say where I live now
Own it and as soon as people see you don't care, they drop the subject. The joke was old ten years ago.
I didn't mean he parodied the patriotism. I mean to serious patriots, this is a slap in the face, even when in fact it says nothing of Kz at all.
I wanted to go once but heard that either the taliban or al queda were in the area, which is unideal as an American citizen. Is that not the case anymore?
There has been, as far as I know, one single case of tourists being attacked (and killed) by militant Islamists, which happened a few years ago. So statistically it's probably safer than a lot of places. There is significant resistance to the regime under the surface, but everything is still held together by an aging, kleptocratic authoritarian. So in some sense it's a volatile place, and the situation could obviously change significantly in a matter of hours or days in a way that's unlikely to happen in, say, Europe. (Or at least Europe of five years ago...)
I think it is still a very safe place to visit, and many tourists, including Americans, visit every year. Extreme things can happen anywhere. The likelihood of getting mugged I'd say is effectively zero, at least compared to London or Barcelona.
Good perspective, thank you for sharing :) I think I originally saw my concern in this "The World's Most Dangerous Places" book which is probably incentivized to exaggerate a little bit (https://www.amazon.com/Robert-Peltons-Worlds-Dangerous-Place...)
That book dates back to 2003, only a few years after the Tajik civil war ended.
There has been, as far as I know, one single case of tourists being attacked (and killed) by militant Islamists
Reading this made me have to ponder the interesting fact that this is several thousand less than the number of people killed by militant Islamists in the city I live in (New York) since I moved here.
I think it's a complicated comparison to make though, you could well be more of a target as a tourist in Tajikistan than as one of the masses in NYC, so the incidence is low but your chances of being involved in a given incident, etc.
You are thinking about this incident:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Tajikistan_tourist_atta...
Taliban (across the Panj river) has been a threat until recently. But for now they seem to be friends with Russia and Tajikistan has always been a Russian client state.
Have the Taliban ever conducted any operations in Tajikistan? I know people go back and forth over the river (I went to Badakshan once and saw them swim across!), so there's contact, but I don't think the Taliban have a habit of going to Tajikistan to take hostages or anything like that?
Have the Taliban ever conducted any operations in Tajikistan? I know people go back and forth over the river (I went to Badakshan once and saw them swim across!), so there's contact, but I don't think the Taliban have a habit of going to Tajikistan to take hostages or anything like that?
I don't think they have. It also wouldn't really make sense for them to do that. The Taliban mostly have issues with Iran and Pakistan so you will see conflicts with these nations most often in the news. I've never heard of them in conflict with any of the other stans. Badakhshan is also quite distant from the core of Taliban power which is mostly in the South. Northern Afghanistan is traditionally Northern Alliance territory.
The Taliban might be keeping more of an eye on the border than the previous Afghan government did, though, for that reason.
I haven't heard of any, FWIW. And they are the official government in Afghanistan now, so I would think it's not their thing anymore? (I can be wrong, of course.)
I think they were on high alert up until recently and are now in the process of trying to figure out how to get along with them. On the border areas, there were a handful of markets in the mountain villages where they allowed Afghans to cross the border to sell products. These markets were shut down once the Taliban took over but have recently been re-opened (within the last month or two).
As of last year but probably since the Taliban came to power, Tajikistan has has military checkpoints along the border. Also, I don't know about for all seasons but during the summer, the river seemed too fast to be crossable along most parts of the border.
The whole thing is great and worth reading, but I wanted to highlight this anecdote:
I asked about the criminal justice system and I was told there wasn’t much of a formal one. My companion explained that most matters were handled internally by families. For instance, if a 20-something got in a fight with another 20-something and the cops got involved, the police would most likely contact the families and let the parents and brothers sort that shit out with a warning not to cause trouble again. The families would enforce order through shaming, threats of social ostracization, and possibly physical violence.
Honestly that’s kind of nice compared to our “one mistake and your life is ruined forever” system but I guess it all comes down to how violent their country is and if those tactics actually work.
No, it is not “kind of nice”. That’s how you get blood feuds and honour killings. It might be better than a thoroughly corrupt police force, but it is not the rule of law.
That’s not a given. Some cultures have worked out not to involve the law all that much without devolving into blood feuds and outright violence. The first ones that come to mind are Southern India and SE Asia that don’t have a lot of police presence and their societies have low levels of violence. I just don’t know if Tajikistan is one of them.
The first ones that come to mind are Southern India and SE Asia that don’t have a lot of police presence and their societies have low levels of violence.
As long as you behave, are not of the wrong minority, do not end up as scapegoats, do not get close to the wrong social group, and do not cross anyone who’s a bit charismatic.
Also, I am not sure which SE Asia you speak of. Myanmar is a genocidal military dictatorship, Thailand is a totalitarian police state, Singapore is a quasi-dictatorship, the Philippines are rife with violence, and I could go on. Sure, some countries of the lot are better but “SE Asia” overall is not really an example to emulate.
And every time I went there, southern India did not look that different from central India, or particularly pleasant if you are in the wrong family or social group.
Anyway. Yes, I’ll take a half competent police and a decent legal system any day.
It depends on what your family is like. For many people it means having no chance at life no matter what they do.
This is how clan based societies work.
They're probably the most common way of organizing societies throughout history. The western individual citizen based society is an anomaly.
Be sure to check out his Notes on the Gambia, which for some reason is the world's premier destination for female sex tourism:
Quite a good article on Gambia, but just get you to want to know more about the chinese involvement there on top of Russia. Btw, the sex part is not a click bait and not important part of the article. The usual failed African politics and economy is usual. Just want to know any “success” story. Even if it is odd by western “standard”.
Botswana?
I spent a fortnight with a small group of friends motorcycling along the Pamir highway back in 2022, then another week or so over in Kazakhstan (off the bikes this time).
Fascinating pair of countries, and highly recommended to go travel and get off the beaten track.
Dream trip. Your own bikes ? How "free" were you and how difficult was it ? I've traveled by motorbike on 4 continent now and am dying to visit central asia to do more of that.
Not too difficult, really. Kyrgystan and Tajikistan especially are very popular with bicycle travelers, there's an established tourist infrastructure in the form of guest houses and homestays.
Border crossings into Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan are a nightmare (on some crossings they will demand your unlocked phone to rifle through and have you unpack ALL you luggage onto a blanket). Once you're in the countries it's usually just the odd corrupt official, but I was able to out-wait and charm my way out of those situations.
Biggest headache imho: Almost every Westerner I met had some kind of digestive problem. I suffered from diarrhea coming and going for about two months.
There's motorcycle rentals and guided tours out of Osh, Kyrgyzstan, that will also tour the Pamir Highway and Wakhan Valley in Tajikistan. Highly recommend you check out photos from the area around the Issyk Kil Lake on Google Maps. It's just stunning up there.
all rolled into one beautiful, weird, dysfunctional country, and I couldn’t get enough of it.
I do not see dysfunctional countries as beautiful. I prefer well functioning countries where things get done and people understand each other.
I guess the author likes to see people suffer?
You can't see beauty in a country that isn't perfect? I know plenty of people who have some flaw they would probably be better off without, but I don't say "I don't see imperfect people as beautiful, and if you do it means you like to see them suffer."
Why do you jump to calling the author sadistic for finding the positive in a complicated situation?
I prefer cakes, but I also like steaks and vegetable salads. On some days, I go for a pho soup, or pasta, or fried rice with chicken.
It would be a shame to only have known cakes my entire life.
So snow at 13,000 feet in the summer, deep inland. How has there not been attempts to develop this for alpine sports? The quality of the snowfall plus the terrain seems made for it.
As mentioned towards the end of TFA, there is a ski resort: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safed_Dara
I did some work in Tajikistan a while back. Really good fun with some great people.
It was also the most vertically integrated place I've ever encountered. I've worked in a lot of places outside of EU/US and it's the only one where I've felt you could stick most people on the country on an organigram.
Can you give some examples of the vertical integration? Perhaps some of the good and bad aspects of it?
I love this style of writing and how it introduces a place I almost never thought about before. I didn't know anything about Tajikstan except its name so this was all new information. Thank you!
I liked his style too: "hoarding wealth like a Crusader King" is such a novel analogy.
Sadly, the Dushanbe flagpole lost its status as the world’s tallest in 2014, only three years after its construction, to the Jeddah Flagpole in Saudi Arabia, which I have already seen without knowing its illustrious status in the world flagpole standings:
I have to admit that I find it kind of funny that Tajikistan spent $3.5 million to win an extremely petty international prestige project contest, and then it lost a few years later to a country with 30X the GDP per capita and 100X the GDP. Saudi Arabia’s lead lasted for seven years until Egypt took the top spot and Russia slid into second place
Quite amusing to see how a man writes about -stan and Saudi Arabia but his mind is firmly not on these countries.
On this particular point and some others, I wondered whether my companion had an overly rosy and maybe sanitized view of Tajik culture, which isn’t uncommon for immigrants to have toward their homeland.
Or maybe he didn't want to speak freely with some foreign rando. Especially some foreign rando from America. Cue in the next three paragraphs.
due to an apparent combination of local fashion sensibilities and I guess fabulous Persian hair
That's a funny observation but this is how you instantly recognize Tajik from any other guy from Central Asia.
How can two countries have so many military fights that result in direct casualties, including straight-up artillery barrages over the border, and not actually declare war on one another?
I have no idea.
I have no idea how some country can travel to literally the other side of the planet and yet not actually declare war on the country it is invading. *shrug_emoji*
And of the better armed one-third, I swear, most didn’t have clips in their AKs. Meaning, they either carried no ammo or only a single round in the chamber.
Or they are required not to have a loaded magazine[0] in the firearm because they aren't in the constant direct threat and don't have a need to respond instantly.
I know, it's hard to comprehend to someone from "I bring a loaded AR in Taco Bell (along with two Glocks and assortments of EDC tactical knifes) else I'm feel like naked" nation, but no magazine in a firearm doesn't mean there is no magazines at all.
Claim 2: The “Taj” in “Taj Mahal” refers to the Tajik people.
After the turmoils of 1990s many ex-USSR countries tried to invent their ancient connections, so if you hear something along that - keep a salt shaker nearby.
Buzkashi
Oh, yes, a lot of this types of.. activities in the Central Asia. The included video is hilarious for the reaction of the announcer and the comments[1]
Overall this article is.. obviously biased by the US-tinted glasses. I found myself reading it for the author perspective, less for the actual content.
[0] Yes, it's a magazine:
Clip (firearms)
Not to be confused with Magazine (firearms).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clip_(firearms)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magazine_(firearms)
[1] It's in the article but if you are lost: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JUn8MsEyPs
and Russia slid into second place
I also struggled there, perhaps that's the wording for Russia doing some flagpoling without claiming 1st place at any point of time.
There's three awfully huge flag poles in St. Petersburg erected last year, perhaps these are the culprits of that sentence. For the curious, these exhibit Emperors' flag, Soviet hammer-sickled and Russian tricolor.
I'm regularly going to Tajikistan for hiking trips to help map out the Pamir Trail, a 1200km long hiking trail across the mountains of Tajikistan.
It's a beautiful country if you love hiking or mountaineering, though certainly has a lot of practical challenges. The article did a very good job of explaining the local situation in Tajikistan and giving you a bit of a feeling of what it's like to be there.
Kind of saddens me that while I was born there - I never had a chance to see any of this.
Article claims Tajikistan is shaped like nonsense when it's clearly a snorkeling mask.
I always considered it looked like a rabbit!
The Beatles haircut is also common in Dagestan in Russia, being source of jokes (e.g. https://imgur.com/a/eiGyw7E)
That's because they were back in the USSR!
i had the opportunity to travel to central asia last summer for a couple weeks (both uzbekistan and tajikistan, briefly). was really a fascinating trip to a part of the world that i barely knew anything about!
for those who are curious about traveling in central asia in general, there is a great travel blog of sorts called caravanistan -> https://caravanistan.com/forum/
the main website is useful for travel logistics but i find myself returning to the forum pretty often to see travel updates from people on the ground in those places. really interesting to me to read about various border crossings between countries, what to expect when traveling around/between countries, etc
I found their map of border crossings in Central Asia the best source for current and accurate information and very helpful as a shared Google Maps map.
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1Ml8xrhk9Jwr00_Gdcc...
I visited Tajikistan last summer and spent about three weeks in the country. One week in Khujand (I crossed the border from Uzbekistan) and Dushanbe, and two weeks in the Pamirs.
Just like the author I (from India) travelled with a couple of Europeans, a German girl and a French guy. I very much enjoyed my time there, especially in the Pamirs. I stayed with a local family who hosted me in Khorog. I went hiking, watched Afghan villages from across the border, and also worked remotely.
Great article, always happy to see my home country featured abroad.
Just to nitpick, however:
Got independence from the USSR in 1991 and had some power struggles until a Soviet guy took over in 1994 and then won a brutal civil war against a coalition of Islamic extremists and has been running the country ever since
Calling it Islamic extremists is a bit reductive. The coalition (United Tajik Opposition) was with the Islamic Renaissance Party, a couple of pro-democracy parties which were supported by the majority of the intelligentsia, and also included a party for Pamiri Autonomy. The most common thing among them is they were all united against the Communists.
Source: I am Tajik and was born around the Soviet Union collapsed. Also studied the history of the civil war
I listened to https://www.theredlinepodcast.com/post/tajikistan-and-region... yesterday. It's an extremely interesting discussion on the geopolitical factors both internal and external that shape Tajikistan's security sitation, and who's interests Tajikistan's security dysfunction serves.
And there it is again that cultural inability to build institutions beyond "family". How is that culture compatibel with complex states and compamies in east and west? With longterm development in general? Then again it has thriving families, compared to the west and east, whos societies dissolve once the rewards of modernity appear. The ideal would be a cycling hybrid i guess.
Inb4 those weirdos who go all in on nurture, but then refuse to discuss nurture, leaving the terrain to conspiracies and racists.
Also the hospitality is pretty legendary.
Saying "Islam being kept in check" in this way sounds an implication that religion (or perhaps just this one) ought to be suppressed. This sort of attitude and policy coming from it is like gasoline for religious extremism, and the fact that Tajikistan exports extremists should be enough evidence for that
Islam does have a specific problem in this regard since its scripture explicitly calls for violent struggle to spread it over the world. Ignoring this fact does not make the problem go away and only serves to undercut those who attempt to start an 'islamic enlightenment'.
Actually it doesn't call for that
What does 'it' refer to here? Which islamic school and what branch of that school? Some do call for violence, others don't.
The scripture, as such, does not. Interpretations of it may.
Is there anything else besides interpretation of scripture? If so, what? I gave a few examples in this thread of passages which can be interpreted - and in some cases are actually hard not to interpret - as calls to violence in the name of islam. What is your basis for claiming these are not actually such?
Again, denying the problem exists does not make it go away and actually makes it harder for those who wish to reform islam.
Without doubt, you believe that your interpretation is correct and should be used as a reference, unlike interpretations of all those stupid people.
What does 'my interpretation' mean in this context? Where do I specifically interpret islamic scripture?
If you don't talk about a problem it can not be solved. If the problem is not solved it grows. If the problem grows it will cause more problems. When do you think the time comes to talk about this problem?
https://time.com/4930742/islam-terrorism-islamophobia-violen...
Many Western politicians and intellectuals say that Islamist terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. What is your view?
- Western politicians should stop pretending that extremism and terrorism have nothing to do with Islam. There is a clear relationship between fundamentalism, terrorism, and the basic assumptions of Islamic orthodoxy. So long as we lack consensus regarding this matter, we cannot gain victory over fundamentalist violence within Islam.
Radical Islamic movements are nothing new. They’ve appeared again and again throughout our own history in Indonesia. The West must stop ascribing any and all discussion of these issues to “Islamophobia.” Or do people want to accuse me — an Islamic scholar — of being an Islamophobe too?
Please, read this article or one of the many others on this subject. You are not helping anyone by denying what is plain to see for those who are brave enough to open their eyes.
You do interpret it as a real guide for large groups of people.
I actually think that your criticism is too surface level, and we need to go deeper. I propose that most of those people have very little of any kind of faith — no more than your average football team fans have. Moreover, they are not even substantially different from supposedly secular western football fans. You, on the other hand, try to deduce what people think just by looking at the color of their passport covers.
Again, where do I interpret scripture? I am referring to the fact that others interpret islamic scripture in ways that fit their purposes. I have also cited several well-known islamic reformers who claim the same. Your football-comparison is irrelevant and off the mark since it does not matter how much faith people have, what matters is how they act. Faith is personal, actions based on faith can affect others. Violent actions based on faith - no matter how shallow - have a detrimental affect on society as a whole.
You think there is a direct link between some words on paper and how people act. This assumes that you understand what these words say. That also assumes that people are simple robots with simple input and output.
By the way, both scriptures and laws are just words on paper.
I propose that you actually believe in the power of some sacred book too much, and that “Islamic this, Islamic that” are just fans of Islam in the same manner people are fans of a football team (which sometimes gives them “authority” to riot or beat other people). They may call themselves true believers, but that's an old story.
Are you religious? If so do you take your religion seriously or do you wear it like an outfit, to be donned at the requisite moment and put away when not needed or inconvenient? To people who take their religion seriously scripture is more than 'just words on paper', especially when that scripture is seen by them as the literal word from their God where 'the sound of the reciter is created but the words of the Quran are not created':
https://islamweb.net/en/fatwa/87390/quran-is-word-of-allah
Qur'an is Word of Allah, revealed to the Prophet Muhammad (Sallallahu Alaihi wa Sallam); it is an attribute among the uncountable Attributes of Allah. Allah has Spoken these words by sound and letters. Qur'an does not say but it is Allah Who ‘Says’.
Therefore, it is not among the good decencies with Allah to Say: “Qur'an says, or Qur'an said: “Since it might be misunderstood that Qur'an has an independent or a separate existence”.
If one uses such an expression with the intention that the Qur'an is a creature then he is disbelieving in an Attribute of Allah (May Allah protect us from that). If he does not mean it, it is better to avoid such an expression since it may raise misunderstandings.
Allah knows best.
To those who take their religion seriously those comparisons to 'football fans' are just as silly as when someone were to compare you liking (e.g.) Taylor Swift to the way you love your daughter (should you have one).
Also don't fall for the trap of thinking that only those who can talk eruditely on some subject can be 'true believers'. Just because some young person has been convinced by a religious leader that his salvation lies in fighting and dying in the name of Allah does not mean he doesn't take those lessons seriously. Do you really think that those who don suicide vests to blow themselves up (or to be blown up by remote control) are 'just fans of islam in the same manner people are fans of a football team'?
The point here is that scripture doesn't make claims. People do. Scripture is not a person.
You seem to be arguing that the most correct interpretation of scripture is a literal one that ignores its context. If that's the case, then your hermeneutics has a lot in common with fundamentalist extremists.
Those who wish to reform Islam are not in need patronization by islamophobic memes, I assure you.
No, I'm arguing that scripture can be interpreted in many ways and that some of those ways lead to people believing it calls upon them to commit violence in the name of their religion. I'm also claiming that the absence of a central authority or a 'leading interpretation' of islamic scripture leads to such interpretations being no less 'correct' than interpretations which take a different path.
I am not assured by your claims nor by your use of unsubstantiated claims of some phobia. Here's Maajid Nawaz (someone who attempts to reform islam) on the subject you try to downplay or ignore:
https://www.smh.com.au/national/we-need-to-talk-about-islam-...
Some excerpts for those who don't want to follow random links:
People in the West are reluctant to discuss Islamism because they are frightened of being portrayed as racist, according to Maajid Nawaz, a British politician and former extremist who spent five years in an Egyptian jail.
...
"Language can destroy Islamist ideas and propaganda," he said. "But we've got to be able to name exactly what it is that we're talking about. That's where I'm critical of President Obama, because he's unable to name the problem – and if you if cannot name something, then you cannot critique it.
...
"To say this problem has nothing to do with Islam leaves nothing to be discussed within the communities. ... The truth is in the middle: it's got something to do with Islam – not everything, not nothing, but something."
...
The key, he said, lay in the way in which Islamist ideologues hijack parts of the faith's scriptures and reinterpret them to support their political stance. It is critical for Islamic communities to discuss this process and, by so doing, "reclaim their religion from those who use it to justify terrorism. I would encourage everyone to engage in this conversation, not to shut it down," he said.
...
"If you don't have this conversation, only the Islamist extremists prevail. Because by shutting down debate, by shutting down thought, people become closed-minded, and only fascism and theocracy benefit from closed-mindedness."
You didn't seem to be concerned about school and branches when you made your blanket assertion above.
What do you mean by Islamic school and branches?
No it doesn't. I'm Muslim. Like most monotheistic religions, it actually says that most people will become irreligious before the end of time
Your school and branch of islam don't, that does not mean all schools and branches don't. Most churches don't claim "God hates fags" and "Thank God for dead soldiers" but the Westboro baptist church does.
Islam isn't really like that. There are only 4 schools (not 1000 different churches) and they mostly disagree about minor things.
There's pretty broad consensus about the fact that the end times will be preceded by a huge drop in religiosity and rise in sinfulness. Here's just one example: https://islamqa.info/en/answers/78329/signs-of-the-day-of-ju...
And here's the source it's from: https://sunnah.com/bukhari:80
It's pretty cut and dry
Feel free to look up signs of judgment day, it's pretty heavily agreed upon
In what way is this related to the fact that islamic scripture is open to interpretation due to the absence of a 'central authority' or 'leading interpretation' which denounces or abrogates the violent passages in scripture? Islamic eschatology is often used as a source by those who are intent on leading their adherents to violence:
https://sunnah.com/riyadussalihin:1820 : The Messenger of Allah said, "The Last Hour will not come until the Muslims fight against the Jews, until a Jew will hide himself behind a stone or a tree, and the stone or the tree will say: 'O Muslim, there is a Jew behind me. Come and kill him,' but Al-Gharqad tree will not say so, for it is the tree of the Jews."
https://sunnah.com/muslim:2922 : The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.
https://sunnah.com/bukhari:2925 : Allah's Messenger said, "You (i.e. Muslims) will fight with the Jews until some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, 'O `Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.'"
https://sunnah.com/bukhari:2926 : Allah's Messenger said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."
Da'esh used these Hadith (among others) as justification for their actions because they were intent on bringing about the end of history by instigating the final battle at Dabeq (close to Aleppo) where islam will prevail over the unbelievers.
It's not though. There isn't "interpretation" of the hadiths you posted. They are just true. Btw, what's happening in Israel right now can easily be seen as a manifestation of those scriptures. And it didn't start because people wanted to fulfill prophecies. It started because you have a stateless group of 2 million people with no say in the government that controls their every move.
This also has pretty much 0 to do with our original comment thread
Which part of the scripture?
Every part of the Quran that involves violence has consistently been understood to apply to a specific context, by almost all classical Islamic theologians and jurists.
That’s why extremist groups rarely cite Quran for justifying perma-war, instead citing opinions of Islamic scholars instead.
That fully depends on which interpretations you follow. Islam not having a central authority means there is no 'central source' for how to interpret the scripture - Quran but also Hadith and Sunnah - and with that those who are set on taking what is written as the direct and unchanging word from God can claim to have as much justification (or, as they claim, more justification) as those who want to interpret scripture in a more 'modern' fashion.
Here's a sample of Quranic passages which call for muslims to 'fight unbelievers' which are followed to the letter by those who adhere to the literal interpretation of the texts:
https://quran.com/2?startingVerse=190: Fight in the cause of Allah ˹only˺ against those who wage war against you, but do not exceed the limits. Allah does not like transgressors.
https://quran.com/2?startingVerse=191: Kill them wherever you come upon them and drive them out of the places from which they have driven you out. For persecution is far worse than killing. And do not fight them at the Sacred Mosque unless they attack you there. If they do so, then fight them—that is the reward of the disbelievers.
Those who follow the literal interpretation of the texts see 'those who wage war against you' as all 'unbelievers' - those who live in the 'dar al-harb' (land(s) of strife or war) in contrast to those who live in 'dar al-islam' (land(s) under islamic law), especially those who live in places which have been conquered 'for islam' before but taken back later - e.g. 'Al-Andalus', better known as Spain. The main 'problem' in the interpretation of these lines is what is meant by 'those who wage war against you' as this can be interpreted as 'those who refuse to accept islam' in the context of the texts.
https://quran.com/4?startingVerse=74: Let those who would sacrifice this life for the Hereafter fight in the cause of Allah. And whoever fights in Allah’s cause—whether they achieve martyrdom or victory—We will honour them with a great reward.
https://quran.com/4?startingVerse=88: Why are you ˹believers˺ divided into two groups regarding the hypocrites while Allah allowed them to regress ˹to disbelief˺ because of their misdeeds? Do you wish to guide those left by Allah to stray? And whoever Allah leaves to stray, you will never find for them a way.
https://quran.com/4?startingVerse=89: They wish you would disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so you may all be alike. So do not take them as allies unless they emigrate in the cause of Allah. But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and do not take any of them as allies or helpers,
https://quran.com/4?startingVerse=90: except those who are allies of a people you are bound with in a treaty or those wholeheartedly opposed to fighting either you or their own people. If Allah had willed, He would have empowered them to fight you. So if they refrain from fighting you and offer you peace, then Allah does not permit you to harm them.
https://quran.com/4?startingVerse=91: You will find others who wish to be safe from you and their own people. Yet they cannot resist the temptation ˹of disbelief or hostility˺. If they do not keep away, offer you peace, or refrain from attacking you, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them. We have given you full permission over such people.
These lines can be interpreted as calling for offensive actions against 'unbelievers' - and here it is important to know what the Quran says about its predecessor religions:
https://quran.com/3?startingVerse=65: O People of the Book! Why do you argue about Abraham, while the Torah and the Gospel were not revealed until long after him? Do you not understand?
https://quran.com/3?startingVerse=66: Here you are! You disputed about what you have ˹little˺ knowledge of, but why do you now argue about what you have no knowledge of? Allah knows and you do not know.
https://quran.com/3?startingVerse=67: Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian; he submitted in all uprightness and was not a polytheist.
According to islamic doctrine the 'people of the book' were given the 'true word of God' but strayed from the path. Christians, i.e. those who believe in the 'holy trinity' of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost - are 'polytheists' since they worship others besides Allah. Taken together these lines are interpreted as cause to fight 'unbelievers'. This is explained in more detail in chapter 'O' (Justice) of 'The Reliance of the Traveller' [1] in the section on jihad:
Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada , signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad. As for the greater jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self (nafs), which is why the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said as he was returning from jihad,
“We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad.”
The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus (def: b7) is such Koranic verses as:
(1) “Fighting is prescribed for you” (Koran 2:216);
(2) “Slay them wherever you find them” (Koran 4:89);
(3) “Fight the idolators utterly” (Koran 9:36);
and such hadiths as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:
“I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah";
and the hadith reported by Muslim,
“To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it.”
There are many more such passages which can be and are interpreted in many ways so as to fit the purposes of those who lead others. It is the absence of a 'true and leading interpretation' which disavows war and conquest in the name of islam which gives rise to islam's specific problems when it comes to violence.
Read the Quran, 'Reliance of the Traveller' (the classical manual on shariah law) and the Sunnah and you'll understand just how open these texts are to interpretation. It is also illustrative to have a look at the history of islam and islamic countries.
[1] https://archive.org/details/relianceofthetravellertheclassic...
It is not just a religion, but a legal and societal system. A very medieval one.
Few people care if you believe that Muhammad rode to heaven on a magic horse (Buraq). But quite a lot of people care if you want to introduce hand amputations for theft, as demanded by Sharia Law, or different inheritance rules for sons and daughters where being female = being less valuable.
The medieval-practical parts of Islam must definitely be kept in check, unless the country in question is willing to regress into some very dark ages. That is something that Ataturk understood very well when reforming Turkey.
Islamic law is understood by Muslims to be applied only in an Islamic state. In a secular state, the consensus understanding by Muslims is that the secular law is to be followed. A secular state need not suppress Islam
"A secular state need not suppress Islam"
What about a secular state that doesn't want to become an Islamic state, but has a significant minority that has the opposite wish?
AFAIK this is the most important common political problem across the Islamic world. Many organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood want to Islamize their respective secular countries, some by peaceful means, others by violence. There has already been at least a dozen civil wars around that issue.
A liberal secular state must respect the will of its citizenry, whatever it is. It must also suppress violent sedition with violence. Expressing that responsibility as suppressing religion per se is counterproductive
No. A tolerant, secular, liberal state should not respect the will of its people if the will of (the majority of) its people is to become an intolerant, religious, oppressive state. It is OK -- possibly even necessary -- to have a set of core founding principals which must never be abandoned.
If you're saying that core founding principles were so important then you must feel that slavery shouldn't have been abolished, no?
Slavery was a “state rights” issue from the beginning. In what way was it part of the core founding principles of the US?
Also having “core founding principles” doesn’t mean that they are valid or that you got them right from the beginning.
So democratically abolishing democracy?
How do you define that? Is it always what the majority decides? What if the liberal secular government knows that going along with the will of the people will result in a minority of the population losing most of their rights and potentially suffering extreme oppression?
One could could assume that after learning what happened in Germany in the 30s (and some other comparable situations) most people would agree that even liberal states need to draw a line at some point.
This is majoritarianism. Not liberalism, and certainly not democracy.
Alas, religious people always want an exception to secular rule of law and in some countries in the West managed to carve out exceptions
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/applying-sharia-l...
Secular law allows it's citizens discretions for settling family disputes and inheritance. Religious people often use that discretion to use religious rules from their religion. Nonreligious people benefit from the same discretion. This is not an exception from secular law, all secular laws continue to apply.
There should be a principle that secular law of the country overrides religious laws if the outcome is less favourable for the affected.
Not really? Islamists in secular Muslim states are trying to overturn the secular legal all the time (and have succeeded on numerous occasions). Often they end up compromising and end up with a mixed system which is also far from ideal.
Hand amputations for theft are not automatic, even in Saudi Arabia. Even pickpockets preying on pilgrims in the Prophet's Mosque do not automatically suffer the penalty.
However, many believe that this is the case. The erroneous belief does tend to keep crime down.
Probably why Salafism is outright banned in Tajikistan.
So... To keep thieves from having hands cut or people from having sexist inheritance, you need to North Korea the poorest people in the world to keep them poorer?
This is ridiculous, quite frankly. You don't have to approve of every law a foreign people have to not want to basically terrorize them with a despot
“Suppressed” would be more extremism. “Kept in check”? Yeah, that’s probably a good treatment for any religion.
Keeping religions in check as such is incompatible with liberalism. Secular societies need to be maintained, but antagonizing religious people with phrases like that is not how.
On the flip side, religions are incompatible with liberalism so there's constant tension.
The bedrock of liberalism is religious freedom
And the bedrock of religion is forcing your beliefs upon others. Hence the tension. It's like the paradox of tolerance.
And yet religious freedom begat liberalism, not the other way around
This doesn't mean religion ought to receive any special treatment going forward. It is a way of looking at the world, but requires belief which is in opposition to other beliefs and they all are in opposition to scientific approach to understanding ourselves and the world we live in. It is also a way of imposing and enforcing morals that cannot be questioned unless one is prepared to face grave consequences. The "priest" of are predominantly men, who are under no obligation to follow the morals they preach and indulge in the "sins" they condemn without fear of prosecution. In the end, when the veil comes off it's about power, money, and sex. So no, no special treatment of religion ought to be allowed in a secular society. And secular societies ought to have laws and mechanisms preventing them from takeover by religious groups.
When a religion/ideology wants to limit personal freedom, it's a hard stop. Otherwise it's the end of liberalism.
Liberalism will end when we choose to end it, in bits in pieces, each brick ironically removed in it's own name.
Religious freedom is fine.
What bothers me is religious groups or people attempting to legislate their morality onto the whole of society by restricting personal freedoms.
If they would just follow their own morals and ethics and leave the rest of society alone, I’m perfectly fine with that.
For example, if you don’t believe in abortion, then don’t get an abortion. Leave people who want to get abortions alone, it’s their choice.
I couldn't agree more
Which organised Islam is inimical to. E.g. the penalty for apostasy is death.
Individualism, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, private property and equality before the law are the bedrocks of liberalism [1]. Religious freedom is closer to a corollary, though hard secular liberal republics (e.g. much of recent French history) have also existed.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
Make sure to use right words so they don't have a meltdown, like toddlers.
It is important for government actions to be communicated clearly
You are confusing the cause and the effect.
This is a common take. I respect it but find it entirely unconvincing
I find your take extremely naive.
I sometimes even have faith in democracy, believe it or not.
Have you heard of Christian extremists in the USSR which is known for suppressing religion? Exactly.
Likewise Islam in Tatarstan is completely benign.
The US cold war strategy of supporting Islamic extremism in the USSR is well documented. I think the reading of history that you are suggesting is naive
I think by "kept in check" they mean good separation of church and state. Some islamic countries don't have good separation of church and state.
The thing described is far from separation of church. It is straight out oppression.
What other options are there though when the other side has zero interest in secularism and will do whatever they can to institute a theocratic government when given the opportunity?
Some (most?) forms of Islam are just not compatible with western style democracy and secularism. It’s unfortunate but I don’t really see any other realistic options of solving this besides “oppression”.
Some countries like Jordan kind of partially pulled it off but they had very specific conditions which can’t really be replicated elsewhere.
Some Islamic countries are family businesses that have international recognition as states for historical and geopolitical reasons. I don't take the actions of those countries seriously
How is this (what's described in the article) good in any way?
Islam is extremely important to Tajik identity. But Tajikistan is making the same mistake many other Muslim dictatorships and authocracies did. By not having a real open political system, the only place for dissent to take root is in Islamist circles, and then that's the opposition you get.
Tajikistan had civil war in 1990s where Islamist radicals were the opposition and wanted to turn TJ into sharia run state.
open political system actually makes islam opposition stronger (and easy to influence with $$$ from Gulf monarchies).
Keeping islam in check, also means keeping in check Gulf oil $$$$ that install their own version of islam.
the pipeline of volunteers from *stans to join ISIS/Al-Qaeda was funded and enabled by Gulf monarchies.
If there is another big war in the Middle East - guess from where all the islamist volunteer fighters will be coming from - from these poor 3rd world islamist countries, the *stan countries
No it doesn't. Provide one example where this has happened?
i lived there, gulf monarchies are financing construction of mosques all over the *stans, and are sending people to "study islam" in ... Pakistan and Bangladesh, where they are radicalized and brainwashed.
various conflicts in Causasus in russia - where caucasians were bankrolled and brainwashed via gulf money (dagestan and chechnya)
Are you replying to the wrong comment? I asked for one example where an open political system led to radical Islamists cementing power
Afghanistan was relatively open during US and USSR occupations, still radical islamists prevailed.
Iran during Shah times was relatively open politically, although it was monarchy.
Egypt before the brotherhood took over.
Turkey was relatively sectarian, but with Erdogan it became more and more islamist.
Iraq after occupation was relatively open, yet ISIS ideology took off
The USSR was brutal autocracy. Us military occupation was also brutal and not free.
Iran was a brutal autocracy.
Egypt was a brutal military dictatorship.
Turkey is a great example, tbh. The level of radicals and terrorism there is far less than anything else we've described because it has open democracy. If anything, the big terrorists in Turkey are separatists which every nation, even European ones, has to fight.
Iraq after brutal military occupation? All of what you're talking about about are scenarios where brutal authoritarianism led to extremists gaining popularity because they are an excellent alternative to brutal one-man repression of an entire people.
Egypt before the latest coup?
Egypt had been a brutal autocracy for years which led to the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood and just when democracy finally peaked its head out, bam, back to brutal military dictatorship.
You may not believe in democracy, but I do. Democracies lead to progress in nations and balance in political systems around the world. Closed political systems lead to the rise of revolutionaries and in the Muslim world those are Islamic and often extreme
Russia. [0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_al-Khattab
All of the central Asian “stan” countries have a Muslim majority and Tajikistan is actually the most extreme of them. But Kazakhstan, kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Indonesia, Turkey and Iran are all examples of islam without extremism (although Iran has fundamentalism)
When your police are free to abuse girls all the way up to abusing them to death for not wearing hats like Iran is, I'm pretty sure that's extremism.
And in the early 20th century pahlavi’s regime beat women who chose to keep wearing the hijab. Religious extremism in the form of salafi Wahhabism isn’t common in the country, nor is militant jihad. It’s theocratic authoritarianism. I think the difference is worth noting.
You first example is irrelevant.
Not sure why you want to label what to me is a distinction without a difference. You care about the motivations of a few at the top, I care about the local police and their supporters, which are acting like religious extremists not authoritarians.
The purpose of my example was to demonstrate that oppression of women in Iran is a form of political control because it happens under secular and religious regimes, sorry I don’t think I expressed that clearly enough. I don’t consider Iran religiously extremist for multiple reasons. The populace practices such a moderate form of Islam. The country doesn’t export radicalized people. The government has some degree of tolerance for other religions (as long as you’re not a convert from Islam). The government acts in the name of religion, but in my opinion is guided by power and control rather than ideology.
In comparison, Islamic extremists do things like kill infidels and seek to establish an Islamic caliphate.
It’s not like the SA government (as a whole) was ever particularly that keen about the extremism part. Fundamentally they are not that different from Iran in most ways. They started from very different positions of course (secularism never having been a thing in the Arabian peninsula). SA is at least kind of moving into the right direction in some areas when it comes to women’s rights (even if at an extremely slow pace).
Probably closer to theocratic totalitarianism..
Kazakhstan has a problem with Islamic extremists and the government is very much worried about it and spends a lot of money fighting it. They put cameras in every mosque, for example, and work their people into every religious group of any significance.
There's not much info on it in English, but here you go:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Aktobe_bombing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Aktobe_shootings
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Контртеррористическая_операция...
It’s certainly on the governments radar, and they do have an interest in preventing it. Kazakhstan banned hijab in schools and engages in anti terrorism like you mentioned. But overall, the country has a large secular population (due to the Soviet Union) and the country practices a moderate form of Islam called Sufism. I would attribute this to their nomadic culture, which meant the Quran was more of an oral tradition for Kazakhs in the past. The difference between Kazakhstan and Tajikstan is that you can actually find daesh cells in the pamir valley of Tajikistan, while that’s not really a thing in Kazakhstan. Extremism in KZ has manifested as a few isolated attacks and a small amount of individuals who chose to travel to fight in the Syrian war. I spent 9 months in KZ last year and - visited mosques, talked to many locals in various cities and feel comfortable saying that Islamic extremism is rare there.
I think there's more danger of bleeding territory to the Taliban, at least it has been the case until recently. Especially if Russia (who has had a big military base there forever) becomes irrelevant.
The article mentions that China has a military base in the east of Tajikistan and touches on Chinese attitudes towards islam and their behavior internally (in Xinjiang for example) and externally in Tajikistan. Russia appears to be unable to prosecute their own defense let alone the defense of "allies" as Armenia found out.
Russia was probably able to defend Armenia, but they didn't want to. They sold weapons to the other side of the 2021-2023 war, Azerbaijan.
Even Armenia didn't want to defend Armenia, making sure that it is explicitly legally and politically "definitely-not-Armenia" that needs defense.
I was referring to the incursions into Armenia proper, not the breakaway region in 2020.
Russia has no allies. Every single 'compatible' nation ran the hell away from them as soon as it become marginally possible in late 80s, and in typical russian victim fashion west and US specifically is to blame.
Just look at what they are doing to their supposed brothers in Ukraine, for one old man's greed and twisted view on reality and his legacy, 0 other reasons. This is how they treat everybody, including other russians.
What they have are temporarily aligned forces who see some benefit in such action, nothing more. Most of them would take over russian territory and its mineral riches without blinking an eye if they could.
Well this is just sad propaganda. Zelensky (and others) had publicly admitted to sabotaging deescalation agreements.
You don't want to fall for "nothing happened in Donbas before 22" bs.
It is really such a weird situation. Western and Ukrainian politicians had publicly stated they were actually going for a fight for a long time, but we still see people doing wired moral posturing.
I think they were on high alert up until recently and are now in the process of trying to figure out how to get along with them. On the border areas, there were a handful of markets in the mountain villages where they allowed Afghans to cross the border to sell products. These markets were shut down once the Taliban took over but have recently been re-opened.
Because it's done through extreme human rights violations such as torture, kidnapping, kangaroo courts, etc [0].
This only radicalizes the Jihadist movements, who's hardcore believers went into exile Afghanistan, Pakistan, Chechnya, Syria, etc and became extremely prominent in the Islamic State movement (eg. The former head of Tajikistan's Spetznaz defected to ISIS back in 2015 and became their War Minister).
ISKP is extremely Tajik in leadership, and this has helped them commit mass casualty attacks like the Kerman Bombings and the Moscow Theatre Siege
Once Emomali Rahmon dies, the Civil War will restart.
Countries like India have had Air Force bases and boots on the ground in Tajikistan for decades [1]
---------
If in San Francisco or New York, I recommend checking out Halal Dastarkhan or Farida's, Tandir Rokhat (Bukharan Jewish), Aziza 7, and Salute (Bukharan Jewish) respectively.
The owners are all ethnic Tajiks from Uzbekistan. Bukhara is ethnic Tajik but in Uzbekistan because Stalin.
[0] - https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2023/country-chapters/tajik...
[1] - https://www.tribuneindia.com/2006/20060422/main6.htm
really tough choice for a government: violate human rights of opposition or descend into ISIS/afghon
I disagree - the best solution to minimizing radicalism would have been raising living standards and allowing civil society and institutions to form, yet it's the same Soviet apparatchiks who continue to tenuously hang on to power to this day.
By preventing civil society from forming, perpetuating the same autarkic and autocratic economic and political system that has been in place since the 1980s, and failing to raise living standards these leaders exacerbated Jihadist movements, as they were the only semi-organized opposition left.
And banning minors from attending any religious service except funerals, de facto banning the Hijab, and using unrestrained violence in the face of even the smallest protests is not a lasting solution to preventing radicalism.
None of the wounds from the civil war were actually rectified, and it will bubble over into a second civil war once Rahmon dies.
It's the same story in Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkemenistan, and Kazakhstan (eg. The riots in 2021).
This is the exact same playbook that happened in Afghanistan 50 years ago - living standards were trash, inequality was high, and any opposition was violently removed.
It didn't matter if it was Zahir Shah, Taraki, Massoud, or Omar - they were all authoritarian criminals who prevented civil society and institutions from forming.
To be fair if they tried that Islamists would have just taken over. Those things don’t tend to just form on their own when you let people do whatever they want without supervision (you need very specific conditions).
The most effective path for countries in similar positions is probably balanced authoritarianism + focus on education and economic growth and then starting to introduce democracy and other civil rights gradually after a generation or two. Pretty hard to pull off, though (especially in the Muslim world).
Living standards (based on HDI, life expectancy, literacy rate, and other development indicators) in Tajikistan are still approximately at the same level as they were when Tajikistan was the poorest member of the Soviet Union 30 years ago.
Stagnant living standards over 30 years and repression is all Rahmon has to show. This is why radicalism grows. If Rahmon raised living standards similar to peers like Uzbekistan (who also neighbors Afghanistan and also has a major issue with Afghan Uzbeks supporting the Taliban, and who are equally as repressive such as the Andijan Massacre) then Tajikistan wouldn't be in the mess that it is in today.
What a lot of Westerners don't realize is this kind of sentiment is exactly why Islamist parties and political groups are so popular in the Muslim world.
If your only choice is extremely socially conservative, democratic groups like the Muslim Brotherhood (or worse) or a literal Kim Jong Un alike, then it's pretty obvious who you'd choose.
This is resorting to extremism and terrorism, it's just conducted by the army and police. Did you not hear how many people were assassinated and killed by this dictator to maintain iron grip control over the country? How is that not terrorism?
Democratic groups like the Muslim Brotherhood?
Care to explain that one more?
They want to democratically abolish democracy. What’s undemocratic about that?
They are the only party to have ever fielded a democratically elected leader in all of their home country of Egypt.
They are exremist, they banned Eid celebrations, they banned the Hijab....
The blog post specifically mentions that about 90% of countryside women wear the hijab. I am confused by your comment.
"In check" in this case means a 7-year civil war that ended up with 1% of the country _dead_ and around 15% of the population displaced.