Tajik Islam is its own thing. They are (relatively) open and women are frequently seen in public. They can walk around on their own and they dont cover their heads with hijabs or similar. They are also very vary of foreign influences such as Arabic Islam, Turkish Islam and above all Taliban influences. The hijab is a staple in all of these forms of Islam, so banning it is essentialy telling those groups to stop trying to take over Tajik Islam. This is a good thing. It is protecting women from a shift to much more oppressing religious practices.
this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2024
103 points (99.0% liked)
World News
39032 readers
2184 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I'm honestly not a fan of the government deciding which version of a religion is correct, and I'm even less into the gov enforcing targeted dress codes. It seems super authoritarian to me and I can't really see how it could be a good thing.
I'd consider myself anti-theist but still, I don't see how you can live in a free society and let the government have that power
That said, I'm open to learning how this could be a positive/negative and whether or not it would create a group of second class citizens.
My main disagreement with this decision is the same reason I disagree with countries that strictly enforce wearing hijabs.
Whether or not a person chooses to wear a hijab, or a burka, or khakis, or a swimsuit, or nothing at all is a personal decision. It’s the part where they choose that’s important.
It’s certainly arguable whether social or cultural or religious norms can remove the ability to choose without any legal action whatsoever, but I don’t think that justifies this kind of action and I don’t think this law will result in any sort of liberation. Historically speaking this direction tends to result more in reactionary radicalization.
Dont get me wrong, Tajikistan is a capital D dictatorship. With pictures of the president on every public building and daily propaganda prodcasts from megaphones installed at public squares. Its also not the first time the government banned certain traditions (such as a way to celebrate weddings).
They are banning the symptom instead of the cause. Instead of banning preachers of foreign schools of Islam they are banning something that is central to those preachings.
I agree, banning religious expression is generally a bad thing, I am just happy they are fighting to keep radical Islam out of the country. For reference, Tajiks are the second largest ethnic group in Afghanistan (~25% of the population) so there is bound to be cultural exchange between the countries. a And Tajikistan is very afraid of the Taliban getting any support in Tajikistan. And the first step of that support is through religious radicalization.
As a non-participating* Baha'i, I still agree.
I can understand the potential ban against the hijab in governmental, scholarly, and other public places, but only because of how the Shia, and to a lesser extent the Sufi, attempt to enforce those laws, and the absolute fact that religion and politics have no place in the same arena.
Since it is Sunni that are creating and enforcing progressive laws, who am I to disagree? I can only mourn the needless violence and suffering that may occur amongst my cousins.
- I was kind of "raised" Baha'i, except not exactly. I do not exercise any of my rights such as voting because I do not interact with other Baha'is. I am still technically a Baha'i, but I have been given the choice of the hardest route, of isolation and teaching by example.
Looking at demographics, predominately is almost an understatement for the Islamic population, looks like maybe up to 96%? I'm treading carefully on my wording here because I know anything along these lines is always sensitive, but it sounds like they'd be inclined to be supportive of Islamic standards, I just kind of wonder where this ban comes from?
As far as I know, the hijab is more of an Arab tradition rather than a Muslim one though many non-Arab muslims have adopted it as well. In Tajikistan it might never have been common. Please take all of this with a grain of salt though, I'm far from an expert on any of these topics.
The sad thing is all this does for women who are actually being forced is convince the men in their lives to just never let them leave the home.
I don't think I understand your comment. Are you saying you think those men only let them go out because they expected them to get a good paying job and now they can't? Or like because of the masseuse thing?
I'm saying they won't be allowed to leave their homes because if given the choice between letting them leave uncovered or holding them prisoner, muslims who coerce the hijab will opt for holding them prisoner.
This is basically a hostile architecture law. Something that doesn't actually address any of the problems it's supposedly meant to solve, but instead just forces the people affected by it out of public view where others won't see it and start pestering their leaders about it.
Ah, gotcha. Makes sense now. Thanks for the reply. I totally agree