“When I die I want to go to heaven, whatever the hell that is” (Ayn Rand)
One of the comments to an article on this site evoked in me the sense of uncertainty over the accuracy of saying that Islam is really the religion of Tajiks. The newly appearing notions as “Muslim in word”, “not ‘true’ Muslim”, “Muslim by culture”, etc are widely applied to characterize the Tajik society where majority assigns to Islam, but neither fully realize the idea of this religion nor follow its teachings in a way it should be.
It seems, as the case is that being Muslim has become inseparable “ingredient” of Tajik identity nowadays. We witnessed how the end of oppressive Soviet policies started rapid “going back to roots” process in Tajikistan. Glorification of historical figures as Ismail Somoni, renaming of towns in honor of national heroes, rousing of native language and songs, etc were all processes aimed to rise national identity. Islamization was undoubtedly an important part of it. The surge of religious conservatism was the hallmark of independence. Example of UTO was a manifest that religious ascension was of special concern in Tajikistan.
The period of national identity building mainly through religion started. However, lack of governmental control and absence of legislature, which would regulate the number and process of registration of religious groups, resulted in the rapid appearance of many “madrasas” with the self proclaimed “domullos” and the hard-core conservatives in head, who supposedly spread knowledge about Islam. Such institutions attracted many people, especially youth, who were brainstormed with the tales of hell and heaven. However, soon it was apparent that such places were the least but the places of finding God.
People, who were involved in such institutions, as Hisb-ut-Tahrir or international Al-Qaida for example, were nothing but manipulated for the purposes of the organization’s, criminal most of the times, agenda. Unfortunately, such organizations that use Islam as a cover for another purposes have effect not only on the members joining them. What is tragic is that the general fear and distrust to all religious places occurred. It is the fear imposed by such organizations that keeps people from adapting Islamic rules to the everyday life. The general stereotype of “tahrir” or “fanatic” is applied to those who truly practice Islam and express their critics about the “Muslim by culture”.
So, I believe that it is the general tendency that it is enough to be Muslim by doing charity, applying religious rules in weddings, fasting, etc. The unwillingness of going further than that is justified as already being “fanatic”. It is a general view that withdrawing from the evil doing, as killing or stealing, is better than being highly religious and committing crimes supposedly in the name of God.
on February 27th, 2007 at 5:48 am
Actually, when you fully observe Islamic norms and rules, you will be no less than Taliban. In fact contrarry to general propaganda of some Muslim pseudo-scholars, the true and pure Islam is what taliban observe, what all other Muslims have in their daily lives, is not even the shadow of islam.
on February 27th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
I agree that majority of people tend to see the ones who fully practice Islam as being “fanatics.”Recently, I have noticed that girls who started to wear kechief are also seen as being “religous fanatics.” so interesting how some of the people interpret “religous fanatism”
on February 27th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
“Actually, when you fully observe Islamic norms and rules, you will be no less than Taliban. In fact contrarry to general propaganda of some Muslim pseudo-scholars, the true and pure Islam is what taliban observe,”
:)))) Kakoi bred. Well, my friend, in the same line if you are a secularist or an atheist, one could also say that “when you fully observe pure secularism/atehism you are no less than Stalin or Pol Pot”.
The Taliban movement, for its part, is an outcome of the social dislocation caused by the Aghan war (one that was, btw, initiated by the Soviets and the Communists) and a complex Pashtun tribal situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Maybe this is also ‘prreupaganda’-but then again, drop that primitive Soviet reflex to qualify anything outside of your own mindset as ‘prreupaganda’.
This being said, Lola and Gulru brought up a very smart and interesting question. What is ‘moderate’ or extremist’ Islam after all?
“so interesting how some of the people interpret “religous fanatism””
For a start, let us agree that there’s a lot of hypocrisy and outright idiocy around it all. Certain people do not seem to care much, for instance, when people are alcoholics and/or force other people to drink, take drugs, prostitute, steal and pimp. For that’s OK. That is ‘moderate’ and ‘liberal’, isn’t it? When people find dignity in religion and opt for a more austere lifestyle – oi mamochka! Then the same start to scream ‘Taliban!’, ‘Wahhabis!’, ‘Hizb ut Tahrir!’ and what all.
Likewise, when a Muslim lives according to the rules of the book, he or she is immediately branded a ‘fanatic’. Yet others who do not are despised and mocked because ‘they are not even able to live according to their own rules’. So what is it going to be?
Also, there are a lot of infantile clichés circulating. For example, that being a practising Muslim is incompatible with modernity. Or that ‘a Muslim’ is somebody in wearing a parandjè or a long hennah beard, a turban and a shalwar kameez who lives in a clayhouse without electricity. Let me tell you that most religious Muslims who I know wear jeans, t-shirts or Western suits, have laptops and mobile phones and maybe wear a one-week beard.
Many people in the former USSR who eagerly throw the term around do not even know what it really stands for. In practice, ‘Wahhabism’ and ‘extremism’ are terms that are used against all those Muslims who are not under the control of the official (i.e. corrupt and sycophantic) muftiyats and senile, conservative aksakals. And, as such, are not involved in glorifying the regimes. That’s what it comes to.
Were the Andijani Akramiyya ‘extremists’ and ‘terrorists’? Were they ’Wahhabis’? Not at all. When you analyse their statements, you notice that they stress on the social rather than formal-religious aspect of Islam, i.e. Islam as a framework for social services and solidarity among members of socially mobile groups rather than praying, fasting etc… That is actually quite progressive - even more than what the secular, cleptocratic regimes and syphilitic foreign consultants have on offer. Were they ‘extremists’ then because they opted for a violent overthrow of the Tashkent regime? Then tell me what other options there are against a thoroughly depraved, violent and *state terrorist* regime like that of the Karimovs and their satraps. Diplotalk and seminars about ‘democracy’ and ‘good governance’ will not suffice.
on March 10th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
“Certain people do not seem to care much, for instance, when people are alcoholics and/or force other people to drink, take drugs, prostitute, steal and pimp. For that’s OK. That is ‘moderate’ and ‘liberal’, isn’t it? When people find dignity in religion and opt for a more austere lifestyle – oi mamochka! ”
Whatever people do with their lives is their business!!! If they choose to be anything that religion (Islam) finds repulsive, it is still THEIR choice as long as their actions are not against the law. And here I mean the REAL law (based on HUMAN RIGHTS), not a bunch of dogmas specially designed for half-wild tribes of Arabia back in 7th century, in which hand-cutting and stoning was the answer to every crime.
Finding dignity is one thing, but trying to separate the whole nation from its cultural roots (which is the agenda of religious groups nowadays in CA) is another.
Like it or not, in CA you can drink, you can listen to music, dance and do a lot of other things that are not accepted by hardliners and still be a muslim
This is the culture and you should not waste your time trying to change people or as you call it trying to”dignify” people. Most people know their limits when it comes to drinking. Alcohol is not a problem really, people who want us to stagnate are!!! The world would be a much better place if people spent half their dedication to studying science instead of imposing Islamic morals and righteousness…
Sorry if I was a little harsh in my choice of words, but your points and ideas seem too far from the realm of reality. You may have been to CA many times, you may have talked to people and seen things, but I am sure somewhere in between you missed a finer and deeper meaning of being Tajik, Uzbek, Kazakh or Kyrgyz…
on March 11th, 2007 at 6:57 am
Hi All,
May be it’s time to have some changes in conventional understanding in Islam. May be it is necessary to come up with the a certain branch of hardcore Islam to apply to situation in CA? In Christianity there are also different branches who practice the religion differently. Though, of course, contradictions and harsh critique exists there too. Everyone has a FAITH, no doubts, it is a matter of how ppl find a way to express it by means of religion. May be if those means, mechanisms of insitutionalized religion, no longer appropriate for people because with the change of time different processes occur that change people’s live some alterations and mobility is inevatible? If not, seems like the clashes in understanding whether one society is within the norms of Islam or not will continue. What do you think?
Peace.
on March 11th, 2007 at 9:28 am
“May be it’s time to have some changes in conventional understanding in Islam. May be it is necessary to come up with the a certain branch of hardcore Islam to apply to situation in CA?”
There is such a thing nowadays in Islam. It is called Ismailis. Ismailis believe in education, freedom of speech and are very liberal (I have even seen those who are pro-gay rights), but still consider themselves muslim and practice it every day.
I am not sure though that many Tajiks (who are predominantly sunni) will accept this branch. Plus I think many muslim scholars find Ismailis phony…
on March 12th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
“Sorry if I was a little harsh in my choice of words, but your points and ideas seem too far from the realm of reality.”
That is you democratic right, bratishka, but then we’re equals in outlandishness. LOL :))))
OK then: ‘Whatever people do with their lives is their business!!! (…)it is still THEIR choice as long as their actions are not against the law.’ Look, this is one of these smart liberal Western (or should I say American) dogmas, frriideum of this and that, indivual choice, blablabla… I know you mean it well, but let’s look at what that means in pratice. What certain Western groups (and I do not mean you personally, I am speaking about the larger picture) are actively promoting as ‘frriiideum’, has little to do with ‘emancipate people’. Their purpose is to promote ‘liberalism’ (and sleaze) to destroy society’s fabric so that they can subjugate and colonise it more easily. As I said before, the liberal do-gooders, they’re pawns in that move. Do you realise that? Is it that what you want?
As for ‘the law’: sounds nice, but as long as those who pretend to represent it are criminals themselves (eg. the karmovites and co.) it should not be taken seriously.
“The world would be a much better place if people spent half their dedication to studying science instead of imposing Islamic morals and righteousness…”
What if both go hand in hand (eg. http://en.fgulen.com/, http://ru.fgulen.com/, http://www.tariqramadan.com/ )?
BTW, once upon a time, Central Asia used to be a centre of science under *Islamic* civilisations.
“but I am sure somewhere in between you missed a finer and deeper meaning of being Tajik, Uzbek, Kazakh or Kyrgyz…”
OK, fine for me. But then *you* tell me what ‘the finer and deeper meaning of being Tajik, Uzbek, Uighur, …’ is. I mean, let’s be serious: what is dished up today as ‘Tajik’, ‘Uzbek’, … identity and culture are largely artificial, Soviet-rooted concepts based on travesties of ‘national traditions’ and ‘history’. “to separate the whole nation from its cultural roots” has already been done by the Soviets and the current neo-Soviet regimes, *not* by Islam.
“you should not waste your time trying to change people or as you call it trying to”dignify” people.”
I will not change and dignify anyone, my friend. You people will do that yourself once you have understood that it is that, or complete marginalisation while trying to be st. that you’re not.
on March 12th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
PS:” “to separate the whole nation from its cultural roots” has already been done by the Soviets and the current neo-Soviet regimes, *not* by Islam. ”
Ad I forgot to add the IFIs and certain IOs.
on March 13th, 2007 at 11:15 am
“Their purpose is to promote ‘liberalism’ (and sleaze) to destroy society’s fabric so that they can subjugate and colonise it more easily. As I said before, the liberal do-gooders, they’re pawns in that move. Do you realise that? Is it that what you want?”
I would believe in that if I did not see how these same ideas work in the west. The tendency I am seeing now in TJ in particular is reverse and it is perpetuated by Islamic groups who want to return us to our “roots” but in fact try to arabize the whole region.
Their ways and their ideas are as strange to us as soviets’ rules. But the difference is that soviets built the country back then while these guys fed the nation with fairy tales. Instead of focusing on what’s important (i.e. economy, health, education and social programs) they instead choose to tell people how to be “true muslims” by telling them how to dress and taking away what little joy they have left in life.
I am not proud of what Russians have done, but at least they kept us moving forward. What religious groups (especially Islamic ones) are trying to do is recruiting their followers by feeding them all these fairly tales and pointing to those who “is at fault”.
These religious groups have their own agenda and it is not good for any countries in the region. For one thing they don’t want to focus on real problems, but offer “relief” through “faith”. When you are hungry and uneducated that approach is hardly of any use.
on March 13th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
“I would believe in that if I did not see how these same ideas work in the west.”
The thing is that they can hold in the West originate from the West, whereas they are alien bodies in the ex-Soviet periphery. It won’t work there.
There’s st. strange in the reasoning: you complain all the time about groups who want to impose ‘alien (Islamic) values’ on the Tajiks and the Central Asians; and then you advocate Western ideas, values and norms whereas these are *far* more alien to Central Asia than Islam is.
BTW, I did not get an answer on the question what ‘the finer and deeper meaning of being Tajik, Uzbek, Uighur, …’ is for you (and please come up with st. more orginal than saying that I am “not able to understand anyway” because I am “not local”).
“perpetuated by Islamic groups who want to return us to our “roots” but in fact try to arabize the whole region.”
As I have said somewhere else on this blog and repeat herewith, it’s a common misunderstanding to think that Islam is ‘an Arab religion’ or a synonym for ‘Arabism’. Its *origins* and the Ummah’s haramain (the 2 holy places i.e. Mekka and Medina) are situated in the Arab core indeed. And its lingua franca and the language of the Qu’ran is Arabic.
Yet today, it is believed that only 25 to 30% of the world’s Muslims have an Arabic background. In terms of numbers, the heavyweights in the Ummah are now Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia. Similarly, its most interesting dynamics take place in Turkey and among Muslim diasporas in the West (the advent of so-called Euro-Islam). And it fastest relative expansion takes place in Africa, the former Soviet Union and the West.
So IMO equalising ‘Islam’ and ‘Arabisation’ is as inadequate as
as claiming that Christianity is a ‘Judean-Samaran’, ‘Roman’ or even ‘European’ religion, while Christianity’s cores are now in the US and its most dynamic growth areas are in Africa.
If there was any such thing as an ‘Arabisation’ movement then it was not carried by Islamic groups but by the very secular, sometimes Soviet-supported pan-Arabist/nationalist movements of the sixties (eg. Baathist) who all ended in disasters.
“I am not proud of what Russians have done, but at least they kept us moving forward.”
Russians, imperial as well as Soviet, were colonisers and what they did, did not essentially differed much from what eg. the French did in Africa. It’s always a mixed bag. One one hand, technical and social progress (roads, health care, …). On the other, raw material economies and, worst of all, the introduction of alcoholism, a culture of dependence and the creation of compradore elites who loot and brothelise the country.
“For one thing they don’t want to focus on real problems, but offer “relief” through “faith”. ”
Maybe I get off line here but those who are mixing faith and relief/aid in CA are the Christian sects (CAFE, CADA, … ), not the Muslims.
on March 13th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
who is funding the new madrassas that are popping up in area? are you suggesting that CAFE, CADA are supporting the Taliban?
on March 13th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
What kind of bollocks is that? To start with, where do you see “new madrassas popping up in the area”? Unless you are confusing ex-Soviet CA with Pakistan which is not the subject of this discussion?
If you are talking about new mosques in Taj, Kyr etc. — yes some were built with Kuwaiti, Turkish, … funding. Yet the majority of mahalla and village mosques were built by the believers or local notability themselves.
on March 14th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
“There’s st. strange in the reasoning: you complain all the time about groups who want to impose ‘alien (Islamic) values’ on the Tajiks and the Central Asians; and then you advocate Western ideas, values and norms whereas these are *far* more alien to Central Asia than Islam is. ”
You have to realize that with 70 years of Soviet ruling people have seen a change. Women were emancipated, children could go to school and study something other than Kur’an and utilize that knowledge to make their country go forward.
When I look back at the time when I was a kid I see freedom and liberty mainly from all-encompassing and somewhat stagnating norms of Islam that govern every single aspect of human being from what you eat, what you listen to, to what you say and study.
Now when I compared the two ideology (western vs. islam) I want to live according to western rules where you still have a freedom to practice whatever religion you want!!! Can you tell me WHY is that supposed to be unacceptable?
“The thing is that they can hold in the West originate from the West, whereas they are alien bodies in the ex-Soviet periphery. It won’t work there. ”
How do you know what works and what doesn’t work in CA? I would really believed you if you were actually born and lived there. I am not saying that everything from west should be replicated as it is (btw islam as it is propagated in CA does indeed have this cookie-cutter approach ala “denounce-your-nationality-bc-you’re-muslims” BS). There will be twists and tweaks to make things work, BUT the central idea (liberty and freedom of choice) should remain the same!!!
“On the other, raw material economies and, worst of all, the introduction of alcoholism… ”
A country has a choice to build it’s economy the way it sees fit. You should not mix the choice made by a particular government with democracy and western ideas. Can you tell me what your Islam is to offer instead??? Oh, yeah nothing really. In the case of Tajikistan the chances are it will be another afghanistan because there isn’t much it could offer to the world (not even raw materials).
I wonder where did you see alcoholics in CA? Even if it were true the percentage of alcoholics would be too small. Do you honestly think that alcoholism is the greatest problem in CA?
Let’s do the math here and see the effect of arabization on the effectiveness of economy and compare it with the problem of alcoholics (if any)…
In an arabized country people have to pray 5 times a day. Let’s suppose average pray lasts for 30 min (including washing ritual before the prayer). 30×5=150 min or 2.5 hours/day of productive time is taken away for prayers from an average person. Now multiply that by the number of people living in the country and you will get a picture how Islam stagnates economy.
Of course if you have tons of oil (and engineers from west do the job for you) you can afford that, but what should countries like Tajikistan do? Do you actually suggest that they should look for answers to their real problems in religion???
I think liberal CA will be much better off than arabized CA. The reason I call it arabization is that these norms and rules that are imposed on us are alien. I have seen them nowhere but in arab countries.
The fact that 20-30% of followers of Islam are arabs does not say anything. The other 70-80% just accepted imported ways from arabs that’s all. Even if you take how they freaking advertise hijab it is hilarious!!! This is something utterly alien in Tajikistan. We have our national clothes that we have worn for centuries, but these guys are making us look all like them….
“I did not get an answer on the question what ‘the finer and deeper meaning of being Tajik, Uzbek, Uighur, …’ is for you ”
All in all it is being Tajik, Uzbek, Uighur… with all its history, language, customs and traditions. Not a homogenious and cultureless mass which religious activists are trying to create.
on March 15th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
If compare Islamic terrorists with pro-Western, secular muslims, then Taliban will be quite moderate. (moderate means the one going in between), Talibans were not as reactionary as terrorists and were not as progressive as secular Muslims.
on March 15th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Well, my friend, you are a smart person, but yolki palki: STUBBORN!!
LOL
“You have to realize that with 70 years of Soviet ruling people have seen a change. Women were emancipated etc.”
And you think that I don’t realise that? I think that I have sufficiently stressed the positive achievements of Soviet colonialism, as credit where credit is due. Again: why do you hold to this idée fixe that Islam is against the emancipation of women and against sending children to school? Why can’t the positive achievements of the USSR fit into an Islamic renewal? Why do you continue to think that gaga aksakals, imbecile village domullos (even though I met several young, progessive ones eg. in Rasht) and the Taliban represent ‘Islam’?
The post-Soviet degradation of the position of women in CA is not caused by ‘Islam’, it is caused by: a) traditionalism (which is no synomym for Islam even if Islam is used to justify certain traditions); b) the general degerenation in the former Soviet space over much of the ‘90s; c) Soviet prole machism that revolves around alcohol and treating women like shit.
“Islam turning Tajikistan into another Afghanistan”… Gospodi! OK I understand your fear for that, cf. the ‘jang-i-buraderkush’. But who caused it? Islam? Well, the UTO/IRP were no saints and do not go scott-free at all, but the bulk of the guilt is on: Nabiev and his Leninabad clique; the Russian military; and the Karimilosevic regime in Uzbekistan.
“Do you honestly think that alcoholism is the greatest problem in CA?”
No, it is not the greatest but certainly a large one though less so in Taj than in Kaz and Kyr. The drinking, and what it causes (domestic violence, mass fornication). What is even more hallucinating, is the way some impose it on others (forcing people to drink). It’s actually a form of slavery and humiliation, not emancipation. That is not a mystic fallacy of mine, that is also what several CAsians themselves (Kyrgyz, Tajik, Dungan) and even a Russian friend told me: “The Soviets propagated drinking so they could control us better. The present govts., they do the same”.
“2.5 hours/day of productive time is taken away for prayers from an average person.”
You can also see it a a more healthy form of rest than a ‘perekur’ is.
LOL! BTW, ‘your Islam…’ is not ‘my Islam’. Nobody can own Islam.
What Islam can bring? Basically, we had this discussion before: http://neweurasia.net/?p=532
“How do you know what works and what doesn’t work in CA? I would really believed you if you were actually born and lived there.”
HA!!! I knew you would come up with this one. Well, I know that because I have eyes and years and field experience, having actually *lived* there indeed. And because I talk to a wide range of people. And maybe because I bring a bit of a fresh view?
Regarding Western values working of not in CA, also keep in mind that many Western concepts are thoroughly discredited for large parts of the region’s population. For many ‘demokratsiya’ (the common, popular denominator for Western influence) has become synonym for ‘bardak’: poverty, social decay, crime and corruption, Third World capitalism and the destruction of the positive social achievements of the USSR.
“I want to live according to western rules where you still have a freedom to practice whatever religion you want!!! Can you tell me WHY is that supposed to be unacceptable?”
OK, *(people like) you* want to live that way. But then again, do you represent ‘Tajik society’? Look bacha, I do not want to attack you personally, tshenoe gavaryu. But I think we have come to a wider, fundamental issue here. OK, you have excellent English and from your previous posts I gather that you live(d) in the US and that you work(ed) for IOs/IFIs in the US and in Tajikistan. You also have constant access to the internet and are active in the blogosphere. This suggets a) a background of (usuallyy more russianised/westernised) local intelligentsia or more upper-class families; b) having been quite a lot with/under the influence of Western expats. No problem with that but the thing is, that the mindset, lifestyle and ideas of people like you is not that of large parts of the CAsians. You can of course deny all of this. But I’m confident that I am, if not right on, then at least close to, target.
“A country has a choice to build it’s economy the way it sees fit.”
Nice slogan again, but this is not how it is. Central Asia’s economic structure is a legacy of Soviet colonialism, period. And the reason why it still is the way it is, is not because of genial choices by this or that ‘mudrii prezident’, but because after independence, the local Soviet nomenclatura and its cronies took over these sectors (the notorious ‘prikhvatizatiya’ eg. in the cotton sector) and continued to exploit and loot them for their personal instead of the Russians’ profit — minus the social advantages of the Soviet system. HA!!! That is probably the reason why they ‘see fit’.
“All in all it is being Tajik, Uzbek, Uighur… with all its history, language, customs and traditions. Not a homogenious and cultureless mass which religious activists are trying to create.”
Izvini bratan, nu eto nye otvet. What I hoped to hear were you views on the *core components* of these cultures.
OK, if we go back to their origins, what we see is that their contemporary forms go back to Soviet nationality policy, where ‘modern nationalities’ were created. And a lot of that was done by imagining histories and creating languages, ‘traditions’ and heroes, slick folkore troupes, etc. That has been continued by the present, Soviet-shaped elites. It’s basically often surrogate culture. Examples galore: ‘Tojik’ is actually sovietised Farsi; Timur and Ulugbek were not Uzbeks, for the simple reason that this notions did not existed in their time; ‘tosti’ at banquets are not CAsian at all but are a Soviet parody of a Georgian/Caucasian tradition; Ismail Samani did not saw himself as a Tajik, he was a Persian-speaking ruler of a great Islamic dynasty with many Turkic subjects and cadres (if the bloke knew that he would become an icon for the Rakhmonovs and Ubaidulloevs… ); etc…
There are scores of examples that show the artificial character of these cultures (which, btw, are not only existing in CA). Whether you like it or not, bacha, all these Soviet-shaped ‘national identities’ will largely erode not beacuse of an evil Arab conspiracy but because a) they are artificial and b) globalisation and social mobility. What will be left then, or what will come instead, will be along religious lines. You’ll see.
on March 16th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
“Again: why do you hold to this idée fixe that Islam is against the emancipation of women and against sending children to school? Why can’t the positive achievements of the USSR fit into an Islamic renewal? ”
You know why? Because I don’t see Islam being liberating the way you picture it here. The more I think of it the more I am convinced that it is some kind of utopia.
Back on the ground Islam is a powerful political tool that is given to a bunch of brainless monkeys, which want to perpetuate their unhealthy and degrading causes rather than see the society progress. More and more I hear among people that singing and dancing are against Islam. What’s next? A ban on watching TV? Reading only Koran in schools? For Tajikistan turning into a Taliban-like regime is more likely than you think.
What’s this deal with Islam mingling with politics all the time anyway? I could never understand this.
“But who caused it? Islam? Well, the UTO/IRP were no saints and do not go scott-free at all, but the bulk of the guilt is on: Nabiev and his Leninabad clique; the Russian military; and the Karimilosevic regime in Uzbekistan.”
Of course you think it was Nabiev and Co. who should be blamed, but do you ever think about WHY they started to resist this angry and mobilized mob which gathered in Maidoni Shahidon and shouted pro-Islamic State slogans?
To me if these guys did not try to overthrow the government (Nabiev was made to quit his job with a gun on his head) none of this would ever happen. The war took place because there was a part of population that did not want to live under their degrading rules. As I said before if these domullos represented everyone then there would have been no one to fight them, right?
So they are by all means the cause of the war, period (I agree I might be stubborn, but I have no political agenda and call a spade a spade
).
“The post-Soviet degradation of the position of women in CA is not caused by ‘Islam’, it is caused by: a) traditionalism (which is no synomym for Islam even if Islam is used to justify certain traditions); b) the general degerenation in the former Soviet space over much of the ‘90s; c) Soviet prole machism that revolves around alcohol and treating women like shit.”
With all due respect, this does not quite make sense, why? Because such reasoning does not shed light into the cause of the problem. I in particular don’t get your points B and C.
On B:
Can you elaborate about the cause of general degradation after the fall of SU? You seem to have identified the effect without giving any regard as to what caused it. Wasn’t it caused by the plunge of nations to look for their roots? For many nations this was a turbulent time filled with quests for national identity and a common direction. My take is that all transitional periods are like this and nothing and no one should be blamed.
On C:
If the problem was actually alcohol don’t you think we would have the same chaos during Soviet times? Sure almost everyone drank during those times, but “miraculously” no woman was treated like shit or whatever.
“The Soviets propagated drinking so they could control us better. The present govts., they do the same.”
This is as far from the truth as possible. For one thing Russians drink like hell themselves. How can you control a nation by introducing drinking (here drinking being an enslaving agent) if you drink yourself??? Lemme guess, you heard this in Uzbakiston, didn’t you? Because this saying very much resembles the logic of people from that part of CA
I still see no logical explanation as to why drinking is a danger. True the fact that some people make others drink is a part of soviet culture. And as always if a person insists he/she does not drink, people will accept it (been there, done that).
“OK, *(people like) you* want to live that way. But then again, do you represent ‘Tajik society’? Look bacha, I do not want to attack you personally, tshenoe gavaryu. But I think we have come to a wider, fundamental issue here. OK, you have excellent English and from your previous posts I gather that you live(d) in the US and that you work(ed) for IOs/IFIs in the US and in Tajikistan. You also have constant access to the internet and are active in the blogosphere. This suggets a) a background of (usuallyy more russianised/westernised) local intelligentsia or more upper-class families; b) having been quite a lot with/under the influence of Western expats. No problem with that but the thing is, that the mindset, lifestyle and ideas of people like you is not that of large parts of the CAsians. You can of course deny all of this. But I’m confident that I am, if not right on, then at least close to, target. ”
I wonder why you wrote all this. Nice “distraction maneuvre” but can you honestly and clearly respond to my question?
“WHY living according to liberal rules where government and religion are separate and you still have a freedom to practice whatever religion you want is that supposed to be unacceptable?”
Mind you let’s not focus here on what I (or other minority Tajiks as you have identified) want. The question is more fundamental and transcends anyone’s wishes and wants.
Never mind the inclination of masses as it stands now (you know with enough propaganda anything is possible; look at what mosques have done so far). The question is about the choice that my nation still could make
“OK, if we go back to their origins, what we see is that their contemporary forms go back to Soviet nationality policy, where ‘modern nationalities’ were created. And a lot of that was done by imagining histories and creating languages, ‘traditions’ and heroes, slick folkore troupes, etc. That has been continued by the present, Soviet-shaped elites. It’s basically often surrogate culture. Examples galore: ‘Tojik’ is actually sovietised Farsi; Timur and Ulugbek were not Uzbeks, for the simple reason that this notions did not existed in their time; ‘tosti’ at banquets are not CAsian at all but are a Soviet parody of a Georgian/Caucasian tradition; Ismail Samani did not saw himself as a Tajik, he was a Persian-speaking ruler of a great Islamic dynasty with many Turkic subjects and cadres (if the bloke knew that he would become an icon for the Rakhmonovs and Ubaidulloevs… ); etc…”
Hmm, you might be right with regards to certain parts of CA.. but you are not closer to being right in the case of Tajikistan. For one thing Tajiks are persians (if you look analyze the persian cultural heritage you will see that many of poets and scientists of persian civilization resided in the area of current Tajikistan and Uzbakiston and they were by all means Tajik). So calling Tajik a surrogate nation is a little bit disrespectful, don’t you agree?
To sum up your views, you suggest that all these national identities are artificial and an Islamic one (by the way Arabs too had to start it somewhere) will replace them.
You know why you are wrong? Because no matter how deep or shallow these identities are, they represent these nations. The propensity of a nation to shape its identity along its traditions (existing and acquired through soviet times) is higher. Higher than importing an all-encompassing, somewhat strange and alien rules created by equally strange nation somewhere in deserts of Middle East.
On the account of Islamic identity being more superior: What is an Islamic identity? It is also a fictional identity that is just reinforced by religion, the rules and interpretation of which are dictated by a select body of people in Arabic world.
What Tajiks, Kyrgyzs, Kazakhs and Turkmen (as they stand) have in common with those? Nothing really, except for being nominal followers of the same religion.
on March 16th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
“What Islam can bring? Basically, we had this discussion before: http://neweurasia.net/?p=532”
Very interesting discussion indeed. However, social islam seems unattainable than any other (existing) form. Is it sustainable in CA as you have prescribed in your post? I am not sure, not from what I am looking at.
In your post you look at the emotional part of being “westernized” or “Russianized” society and you look at the acceptability of CA countries by West in particular.
Do you think that it could really bother anyone in these countries so long as the model works? who cares if I he/she is accepted in west if indeed the western principles lead to an economic and humanitarian progress in a society?
By the way, if you speak Russian (never mind if you don’t either) you could add a lot to religious discussions about moderate islam in a tajik portal (www.vatanweb.net/forum)
on March 23rd, 2007 at 3:45 pm
“Of course you think it was Nabiev and Co. who should be blamed, but do you ever think about WHY they started to resist this angry and mobilized mob which gathered in Maidoni Shahidon and shouted pro-Islamic State slogans?”
Yes I do. Why? Because they wanted to stay in power and keep their privileges, that’s why. One of teh trigger events of the civil war was Nabiev’s order of 5 May 1992 to dsitribute 1.700/1.900 AK-47s to the Narondii Front, in whose ranks there were criminals (not all NF members were criminals of course, but there were key criminal elements among them including their leader Bobo Sangak) who started to kill and loot. Once that happened, the lid was off the pan.
“As I said before if these domullos represented everyone then there would have been no one to fight them, right?”
The Narondii Front had their kolkhoz domullos as well.
“On B: Can you elaborate about the cause of general degradation after the fall of SU? You seem to have identified the effect without giving any regard as to what caused it.”
One of the main causes of degeneration is the shock of the Soviet collapse. You had people whose own identities were destroyed by the Soviets, who had to hear that their won cultures were inferior and backward. They were imposed a Soviet identity and Soviet-shaped ‘national cultures’ only to see that in a couple of years’ time, the system that promoted itself as superior collapsed. Then there was a void, people were confused. They had very little mental and social immunity against the tsunami of ‘Western’/international rubbish culture that rolled over the Soviet space and against all these NGOs and consultants who – pretty much like the Soviets themselves — came to tell them how to live according to ‘international’ standards only to show that they eventually were not supermen and miracle solutions themlselves. The result was more confusion and degeneration.
“Hmm, you might be right with regards to certain parts of CA.. but you are not closer to being right in the case of Tajikistan. For one thing Tajiks are persians “So calling Tajik a surrogate nation is a little bit disrespectful, don’t you agree?”
Why should it be correct for the rest and not for the Tajiks?! Sorry mate, but I expected better. Anyway, Tajikistan (which came into being as the Tajik SSR) is a Soviet creation, don’t you agree? And what the Soviets and their compradores who took power after 1991 try to dish up as Tajik culture is surrogate culture (pretty much in the same vein as what the karimovites do with Timur etc.).
One example of such ‘surrogatisation’ is, how much effort is being done to de-link Persian culture (indeed one of the greatest cultures on the Eurasian landmass!) and Islam — and, at the same time, use Ismail Samani as a national icon for a staunchly secular regime. Now the irony is, that the Samanid dynasty did not only stand for the heydays of science and of Central Asian Persian culture, but was also one that actively promoted and consolidated Islam in the region!
Another example is the way how the Tojik language was artificially created from Farsi, wringled into a Cyrillic alphabet instead of the Arabic-Persian, and denuded of many terms of Islamic-Arabic origin in an effort to move the people away from the wider, natural Persian- Islamic sphere. Or the myth hat Islam was ‘imposed by Arab occupants’ while in fact, pre-Islamic Persian society was a staunch caste society where Islam often came as a liberation for those who were denied social mobility in the caste system.
“Lemme guess, you heard this in Uzbakiston, didn’t you? Because this saying very much resembles the logic of people from that part of CA”
No, it was in Kyrgyzstan, Sugd and Dushanbe.
“I wonder why you wrote all this. Nice “distraction maneuvre” but can you honestly and clearly respond to my question?”
Why should this be a “distraction maneuvre”? The reason is basically mentioned, and I quote: “but the thing is, that the mindset, lifestyle and ideas of people like you is not that of large parts of the CAsians.”
“In your post you look at the emotional part of being “westernized” or “Russianized” society and you look at the acceptability of CA countries by West in particular. (…) Do you think that it could really bother anyone in these countries so long as the model works? who cares if I he/she is accepted in west if indeed the western principles lead to an economic and humanitarian progress in a society?”
The thing is: they don’t and will never do.
In fact, the ‘western principles’ are already discredited for what was taken over from ‘the West was unfortunately often the worst of it.
on March 23rd, 2007 at 6:57 pm
“Anyway, Tajikistan (which came into being as the Tajik SSR) is a Soviet creation, don’t you agree? And what the Soviets and their compradores who took power after 1991 try to dish up as Tajik culture is surrogate culture (pretty much in the same vein as what the karimovites do with Timur etc.). ”
You miss the point here. I am not talking about the territory of Tajikistan. Rather I refer to people of Tajikistan and Tajiks of Uzbakiston.
You are right that language and writing were created artificially, but that does not make Tajiks a surrogate nation. Tajiks existed independently and prospered (Ismaili Somoni is a perfect example) before the Soviet invasion. What’s more important they speak the same language as other persian nations (Afghans and Iranians), and share the same cultural roots. They have same holidays (Navruz), the share the same history (their poets and scientists lived all over Central Asia including the teritorry of current Tajikistan and Uzbakiston). For all intents and purposes they are the same nation with slight differences in their faith (sunni vs. shia).
This is quite unlike other nations in CA, who speak some form of Turkic, have mongolian features and call themselves Kazakhs, Uzbaks or Kyrgyz.
You did not respond to my question as to WHY living according to liberal rules where government and religion are separate and you still have a freedom to practice whatever religion you want is that supposed to be unacceptable?
Fundamentally what’s wrong with this system? Because what you propose instead denies a person the right to live his life the way he/she wants…
“they don’t and will never do.” As I said why should we care? As long as it works, we should be fine. I see Singapore and Taiwan to prosper under these same principles. No one complains about being a perceived as non-westerner. Why should we? Russians might find it devastating to their identity (they think they are europeans
) but I don’t think we could care less.
You miss the question here too. It looks like we are comparing apples to oranges. Living according to principles of democracy and free market does not automatically make you denounce your cultural heritage that is unless you are a hardline follower of all-encompassing norms of Islam
Majority of Tajiks cannot be qualified as such.
on March 24th, 2007 at 11:32 am
“You did not respond to my question as to WHY living according to liberal rules where government and religion are separate and you still have a freedom to practice whatever religion you want is that supposed to be unacceptable?”
For one thing, I think I made it clear enough over the last year or so that I am not advocating an Islamic state at all, but a large *social* role for Islam — which is a different thing.
‘Freedom of religion’ is a nice thing at least if it is not being instrumentalised in the framework of a less noble agenda of neo-colonialism and exploitation. And that is what is happening, e.g. certain Western groups and diplomats whining about ‘freedom of religion’ in the Muslim world so that they can send in their evangelist-Christian sects who have to condition people into being good slaves.
“Fundamentally what’s wrong with this system? Because what you propose instead denies a person the right to live his life the way he/she wants…”
Well, again, it depends what ‘to live how he or she wants’ means in practice and what agenda is behind it. If ‘freedom’ means advocating homosexuality, drug abuse, prostitution, mass abortions … so as to destroy the society to better control it — for all clarity, I do not say that *you* do or say that, dosym, but by certain Western(-funded) interest groups do — then it becomes a refutal/parody of itself.
““they don’t and will never do.” As I said why should we care? As long as it works, we should be fine. I see Singapore and Taiwan to prosper under these same principles.”
But it is not wor-king! And this comparison of CA with the so-called ‘Asian tigers’, that was a popular one around 1992 or so but makes no sense since.
on March 26th, 2007 at 1:10 am
“Well, again, it depends what ‘to live how he or she wants’ means in practice and what agenda is behind it. If ‘freedom’ means advocating homosexuality, drug abuse, prostitution, mass abortions …”
Ah….. now we’re getting to the bottom of it. Morality is such a vast area. You and I can go on forever arguing what’s right and what’s not.
Although religion does indeed serve as a basis for establishing the main principles, I don’t think you could get rid of all social problems by making people religious. Unless your goal is to turn CA into despotic systems, which is unlikely to happen. In 1992 a bunch of fanatics tried that. What happened as a result? They found themselved driven into freakin’ Afghanistan.
My take is if they want such a state they should move across the border. People should not blame economic and political hardships (which every government experiences) on lack of morality as defined by religion and dictated by a bunch of incompetent clerics.
“I do not say that *you* do or say that, dosym, but by certain Western(-funded) interest groups do — then it becomes a refutal/parody of itself.”
Finger pointing does not solve problems. Not the ones we have in Tajikistan. Rational and pragmatic thinking does
“But it is not wor-king!”
This really sounds like those who try to get into shape and wining the next day that it is not worth it because their muscles hurt.
Progress requires some persistence. Imagine where the US would be if after Black Tuesday everyone threw the towel and became Communists 
The world sure as hell would not have been a better place.
“And this comparison of CA with the so-called ‘Asian tigers’, that was a popular one around 1992 or so but makes no sense since.”
Can’t say much to this except you haven’t done your homework on this one.
Please check the right answers
here:http://indexmundi.com/singapore/gdp_per_capita_(ppp).html
and
here: http://indexmundi.com/taiwan/gdp_per_capita_(ppp).html
on March 26th, 2007 at 10:11 am
“Morality is such a vast area. You and I can go on forever arguing what’s right and what’s not.”
It’s not a matter about abstract morality at all, my friend. At the end of the day, it’s about society’s survival. And about a fundamental choice to make: do the Central Asians want to stand in the global scene heads up? Or do they want to become ‘Haiti or Salvador in the steppe’?
“Can’t say much to this except you haven’t done your homework on this one. Please check the right answers here:http://indexmundi.com/singapore/gdp_per_capita_(ppp).html”
Frankly, it’s no clear what your point is here. Do you want to compare CA’s and the Asian tiger’s GDP’s per capita? Then what does that says? The GDP per capita is an average stat that gives a certain base to compare/classify countries at the macro-economic level. But it says *nothing* about an economy’s structure, the social situation, the often huge informal sector, etc.
I remember that in 1992-95, the ‘Asian tiger model’ was often mentioned as an adequate one for the CAsian countries. Especially Kazakhstan’s Nazarbayev was keen to mention the ‘South Korean model’. But in the end, that turned out to be merely rethoric by international salon consultants and local power elites who used that as a sales pitch to get as much foreign $$$ as possible.
For a start, the mindset, approach and work ethic of Chinese and Koreans differs day and night from that of CAsians, which is not meant to be derogatory, it is just a fact. Also, many of these ‘Asian tigers’ became ‘economic miracles’ partly thanks to massive US support since they served as a model againt Communist regimes in neighboring countries (eg. Taiwan vs. mainland China; South Korea vs. North Korea).
on March 26th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
“And about a fundamental choice to make: do the Central Asians want to stand in the global scene heads up? Or do they want to become ‘Haiti or Salvador in the steppe’?”
Of course they will stay heads up!!! How YOU see the “heads up” may not frankly be the way to go. Question: how often are you right in your predictions?
“Do you want to compare CA’s and the Asian tiger’s GDP’s per capita? Then what does that says? ”
For starters I would look at the rate of growth.
if the model did not work there would be NO growth, right :). Especially if your theory about the true nature of Asian tigers is ritht. From 2000 onwards there would be no one to impress after the fall of soviet union. 
“The GDP per capita is an average stat that gives a certain base to compare/classify countries at the macro-economic level. But it says *nothing* about an economy’s structure, the social situation, the often huge informal sector, etc.”
This is an old argument to which I’d say that the main thing is that under liberal rule the economy as a whole grows. Especially it is true for those economies, which do not have much natural resources (believe me this is enough proof that the model works). The problem of how the money and wealth is distributed inside a certain country is the merit of people in that country.
And here again if social institutions work the way they work in the west (there is always a system of checks and balances), then that wealth should be distributed more or less equally.
on March 26th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
“Question: how often are you right in your predictions?”
That will come out by itself in five to ten years from now bacha. Mind you, perhaps we’ll both look stupid by then.
lol
“This is an old argument to which I’d say that the main thing is that under liberal rule the economy as a whole grows. Especially it is true for those economies, which do not have much natural resources (believe me this is enough proof that the model works). The problem of how the money and wealth is distributed inside a certain country is the merit of people in that country.”
It’s an old argument but it’s true. The rest is nonsense, sorry (do you work(ed) for an IFI, by any chance?
). You know very well that in many cases in the global periphery, wealth redistribution is being made imossible by corrupt power elites that control the key sectors of the economy. Then let’s look at what fuels the official GDP growth.
To take the example of Tajikistan, it are basically two sectors: a) cotton and b) the aluminium factory in Regar. That’s it. Now who controls these sectors? And have you ever seen the social conditions in the cotton sector (raw exploitation, neo-serfdom, child labor, … )?
on March 26th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
BTW: “Imagine where the US would be if after Black Tuesday everyone threw the towel and became Communists”
:))))) How about this scenario: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerika_(TV_miniseries)
on March 26th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
“You know very well that in many cases in the global periphery, wealth redistribution is being made impossible by corrupt power elites that control the key sectors of the economy. ”
I am not saying it is perfect. The argument is that free market/democracy works! And is does: it brings prosperity to countries.
“To take the example of Tajikistan, it are basically two sectors: a) cotton and b) the aluminium factory in Regar. That’s it. Now who controls these sectors? And have you ever seen the social conditions in the cotton sector (raw exploitation, neo-serfdom, child labor, … )?”
Hmm, you are not discovering the moon here to me, but chances are that with the increase of Islamic influence these few (nevertheless reasonable) bunch of folks will be replaced by a bunch of unreasonable fanatic hardliners to whom music is work of devil let alone alcohol consumption.
In current reality in the world Social Islam may be a nice little utopia that can’t be made to materialize or work seamlessly. There are far more powerful centers of Islamic power that won’t allow it to take place.
In any case there is no point of replacing one bunch (which could improve) with the one that you can’t even dare to talk to?
The problem with such regimes (once they get established) is that you can’t change them because every attempt to overthrow the government would be interpreted as “heresy”. I’d love to see these guys to treat opposition half as courteously as the current administration does.
on March 27th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
“Hmm, you are not discovering the moon here to me,”
OK, make it Planet Hoth then.
Eh, of course not to you. No-one wants to discover anything, just point to the facts. Also, it might be relevant to other readers who are not as familiar with Tajikistan as you and me. BTW, the situation in cotton of course also exists in Uzbekistan.
“The argument is that free market/democracy works! And is does: it brings prosperity to countries.”
Are you sure that you are not mixing up the experiences of, say, Poland or the Baltic states with the reality in CA (a common mistake by IFIs and IOs in the early ’90s btw, for all those countries used to be ‘Communist’, didn’t they?).
“The problem with such regimes (once they get established) is that you can’t change them because every attempt to overthrow the government would be interpreted as “heresy”. ”
Well, that is exactly the same line of reasoning used by some secular regimes who immediately stamp every opposition or attemp to change (even non-violent) as ‘Wahhabism’, ‘terrorism’ and other ‘extrrremiizm’.
That being said, heresy or not, it is a fact that many anti-Islamic groups are mere stooges of the power’s neo-imperialist agendas. Eg. I am in no way a fan op the regime in Iran, yet have you seen the opposition (eg. CIA-funded Pahlavi cronies in exile)? Or have you seen with who the ‘liberal’ poster girl and prime murtaada Ayaan Hirsi Ali is now associated with: the neocon think thank American Entreprise Institute, for example?
I’m sure that you say what you say with integrity and belief. But through your enthusiasm, you don’t want to become a similar stooge in that sort of game, don’t you? If only because those who use you will *never* thank and respect you for it. Nye zabyvai.
on March 28th, 2007 at 12:32 am
“That being said, heresy or not, it is a fact that many anti-Islamic groups are mere stooges of the power’s neo-imperialist agendas. Eg. I am in no way a fan op the regime in Iran, yet have you seen the opposition (eg. CIA-funded Pahlavi cronies in exile)? Or have you seen with who the ‘liberal’ poster girl and prime murtaada Ayaan Hirsi Ali is now associated with: the neocon think thank American Entreprise Institute, for example? ”
Yeah you might be right in some cases, but the fact that a select regimes MAY thrive on the latest movement on “terrorism” does not make the threat of Islamic fanatism any less valid, don’t you agree?
“I’m sure that you say what you say with integrity and belief. But through your enthusiasm, you don’t want to become a similar stooge in that sort of game, don’t you? If only because those who use you will *never* thank and respect you for it. Nye zabyvai.”
Same goes to those who think they are “returning to their roots” but indeed are just pawns in the hands of oil-rich arabic nations.
My take is that we be ourselves with all our traditions, culture and established way of live. We don’t need an outside influence because we can make it work (certainly on the social side) ourselves. It is possible trust me
on March 28th, 2007 at 9:16 am
Tajik boy,
The threats of “Islamic fanaticism,” “Islamic radicalism,” “Islamic terrorism” or what have you are all exaggerated threats that the right-wingers in the West, the US in particular, use to score political points at home and justify invasions abroad. These poisonous terms are shortcuts to demonization of the others and the ensuing invasions and occupations. Bush won his second term exclusively on security issues by thriving on popular fear following 9/11. Our useless regimes copycat the Western rhetoric and by doing so divert attention from more pressing needs of nishiy i golodnyi population while at the same time showcasing their phony solidarity with the US-led “war on terror” in the effort to secure assistance.
“The fact that a select regimes MAY thrive on the latest movement on “terrorism” does not make the threat of Islamic fanatism any less valid, don’t you agree?”
Tajik Boy, the terms that you choose to use make you look like a mouthpiece of the neocons, which makes me wonder if there is something in it for you.
on March 28th, 2007 at 9:31 am
Perhaps we could found a common movement: THAT would give st.
lol
on March 28th, 2007 at 9:56 am
Well on a more serious note, I agree with the Dervish, adding that the neocons and the Russian neo-imperialists are *far* bigger threats to the stability and the social upgrading in Eurasia than any evil Islamist conspiracy in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan.
on March 28th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Let’s face it guys, you are so far a remote from the real situation on the groud that you can’t even comprehend the threat. To me it is real. It is real because I see how people are changing (not for better) to become more hateful of anything that represents development and progress.
When the soviet union collapsed, Tajikistan had a very high literacy rate, a well-functioning infrastructure and a great number of educated people. With all these ingredients one would think we should have prospered. Well, yes if only a bunch of freakin* monkeys did not want to overthrow the government and establish an islamic state. How can you guys turn a blind eye on these well-known historical facts? well, maybe you “have something in it”?
“Tajik Boy, the terms that you choose to use make you look like a mouthpiece of the neocons, which makes me wonder if there is something in it for you.”
I am surprised I did not get this kind of accusations before. Took you a while to catch up
As I said I have no political agenda (unlike maybe some of you who I am sure are paid to sit here and carry their whild BS to the masses?)
Trust me if I had something in it, I would do a much better job of trashing any opposing views.
on March 28th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
“Let’s face it guys, you are so far a remote from the real situation on the groud that you can’t even comprehend the threat.”
Ladnoe. Vsyo, vsyo, vsyo: you conviced me. I have seen the threat: http://hpbimg.earthwatcher.nl/ufo.jpg
“With all these ingredients one would think we should have prospered. Well, yes if only a bunch of freakin* monkeys did not want to overthrow the government and establish an islamic state. How can you guys turn a blind eye on these well-known historical facts?”
Chevo?! I didn’t know that Nabiev, his thugs and the Russian military wanted to establish an Islamic state?
“As I said I have no political agenda (unlike maybe some of you who I am sure are paid to sit here and carry their whild BS to the masses?)”
Aaaahhhh, fi-nal-ly! There we have the good old Soviet reflex again of stamping all those with inconvenient views as paid ‘provokatori’. Frankly, I expected something else than resorting to worn-out Soviet techniques from someone who pretends to stand for ‘liberalism’ and ‘democracy’. But maybe it says a lot about how those are used as a veneer for other agendas?
Anyway, to the tovarichi of the Wahhabi Superme Council, to Gulbüdin Hekmatyar and Al-Qaeda Consulting Services: if you do owe me back salary payments, get in touch.
on March 28th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
LOL, Ataman, the picture sums up perfectly what i was trying to put across to Tajik Boy.
Like a fellow Tajik to another fellow Tajik and in the way of hizmat, what do you say I recommned you to the Danish neocons Jyllands Posten, or their US counterpart Weekly Standard, they also carry their wild drivel about the “Islamic threat.” They will love you for doing some propagandist work for them in CA. There is nothing more they would love than having a Tajik poster boy of “freedom” and “democracy promotion” in CA. You got everything it takes, you got their mindset and you got English, and you are a local, the perfect package, go for it brother. Whatever they pay you at this blog is peanuts, go for a bigger buck.
“Anyway, to the tovarichi of the Wahhabi Superme Council, to Gulbüdin Hekmatyar and Al-Qaeda Consulting Services: if you do owe me back salary payments, get in touch.”
Ataman, it makes the two of us, they owe me a lot in pay arears.
But seriously, Tajik Boy, there is a hidden agenda behind anyone spewing BS about “Islamic fanaticism” or “Islamic threat,” I know it well enough through being exposed to the Rupert Murdoch’s propaganda machine on a daily basis. I know it well enough having been exposed to the Russian imperialist propaganda machine that spewed BS about the “threat of Islamic fundamentalism” at the start of the civil unrest in TJK.
I sincerely hope that you don’t have an agenda and that you repeat these poisonous terms but unconciously, mind you they circulate all over the global media with furious intensity. As they say, the lie repeated often enough, becomes truth. I sincerely hope that you are not what I think you are, otherwise, honestly, you come across as the Tajik neocon, who has gratuitously jumped on the Islamophobic bandwagon.
Having said all that, please do not be under impression that I am anti-progress or anti-democracy or inversely pro Al Qaeda or Taleban. I just have my own head on my shoulders and always try to read between the lines.
on March 28th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
“I just have my own head on my shoulders and always try to read between the lines.”
I am sure It won’t take me more than 3 min. to surf the internet and find those who think exactly like you. Hmm, would that give me a right to think you’re probably not using your own head and shoulders
The point is that there will always be a group of people who think that they are trying to “read between the lines” and that is perfectly fine. But again that alone does not make the other folks wrong or sheepish (as you picture them here).
Before making up your mind and sticking labels you need to understand where I am coming from.
I am no fan of Russia or for that matter anyone who wants to influence us (west or arabs). I just want the country to learn to pick and choose what’s best for it.
Seeing how the introduction of liberal thought had transformed poor nations into prospering ones (Turkey, most asian countries) and conversely seeing how the Islamic based law had done quite the opposite to other countries (Afghanistan, Iran), I can’t help but side with what I think is right. How’s that for having my own head?
And trust me having lived through the war I think I can tell the difference between a real Islamic threat and propaganda.
You are very mistaken by saying that I am saying the things I say just by listening to media. Because a) I hardly watch any political programs and b) I have my own life and experiences to draw my conclusions from
If it so happens that my ideas are in line with what others are saying it is not my fault
I am not afraid of Islam as a religion and I would love to see a society where the “social islam” as described by Ataman prevails. But let’s face it, this is a dead idea and will never happen because of the geopolitical agenda of those who stand behind Islam as a purely ideological tool.
I am afraid of those who use this religion as a political tool. Unfortunately in CA, with its level of poverty only the extremist form of Islam seem to have thrived so far. Anyone who is remotely familiar with the situation knows that mosques are hardly a place of worship (if only it was so). They are used as a ideological ground for those who will one day overthrow current governments and establish their islamic based rules. That my friends, is what keeps the threat of islamic extremism alive in the minds of thousands of people.
How is that for not having my own head and shoulders?
on March 29th, 2007 at 2:22 am
“I am sure It won’t take me more than 3 min. to surf the internet and find those who think exactly like you. Hmm, would that give me a right to think you’re probably not using your own head and shoulders ”
Well, you can say what you say, but I just cannot shake off this feeling that you do neocons’ bidding, repeating their drivel on this forum.
“The point is that there will always be a group of people who think that they are trying to “read between the lines” and that is perfectly fine. But again that alone does not make the other folks wrong or sheepish (as you picture them here).”
TB (if I may) – whom “them” do I picture here or which “folks”? Be specific, as far as I can see my critique is directed solely to you.
I am generally wary of the loaded terms like “Islamic fanaticism.” I find it contradicting that people should choose to put Islam in the same sentence with emotional expletives like fanaticism, terrorism, extremism and especially the latest hot buzzword of Islamophobic bandwagon – the champion of all neocon vocabulary – “Islamofascism.” To me Islam has nothing to do with any of the labels that “the liberal” Western media sticks to it and which you gratuitously repeat.
“Seeing how the introduction of liberal thought had transformed poor nations into prospering ones (Turkey, most asian countries) and conversely seeing how the Islamic based law had done quite the opposite to other countries (Afghanistan, Iran), I can’t help but side with what I think is right. How’s that for having my own head?”
TB, why would you have to side with anyone or anything? I don’t quite see how siding with anyone translates into having one’s own head!?!? Siding with anyone is a political exercise. What’s more, you are setting up a false dichotomy of “liberal/progressive West” and “oppressive/backward Islam,” which in itself is a propaganda technique that feeds into global Imperialist agenda.
“You are very mistaken by saying that I am saying the things I say just by listening to media. Because a) I hardly watch any political programs and b) I have my own life and experiences to draw my conclusions from ”
Well, by repeating somebody else’s tainted language, I think it is not too far-fetched to say that you are influenced.
“Well, yes if only a bunch of freakin* monkeys did not want to overthrow the government and establish an islamic state. How can you guys turn a blind eye on these well-known historical facts? well, maybe you “have something in it?”
Well, TB, there were two sides in the Tajik conflict. Now, by the same token, how can you turn a blind eye on the mistakes of the then regime and single out the opposition for blame only? Not that I support either of them, ba har duash laanat. TB, you are indulging in a political exercise by being selective here. Come on, if you really lived through the civil conflict, then you should know full well that the opposition was a mixed bag and initially there were no demands for the establishment of an Islamic state or attempts to overthrow the Government by the Islamic element in it until much later in the game when they became radicalized through armed confrontation. I find it unfair that you choose to sling mud at the opposition exclusively, as though Nabiev and his coterie were angels.
“I am not afraid of Islam as a religion and I would love to see a society where the “social islam” as described by Ataman prevails. But let’s face it, this is a dead idea and will never happen because of the geopolitical agenda of those who stand behind Islam as a purely ideological tool.”
But we should strive towards social Islam. Let us not discard Islam as the vehicle for social change. Yes, perhaps currently the mosques in Tajikistan are sites of worship only, but with time people should introduce socialized aspects to mosques in the effort to realize the social message of Islam.
on March 29th, 2007 at 3:17 am
“Well, you can say what you say, but I just cannot shake off this feeling that you do neocons’ bidding, repeating their drivel on this forum. ”
Well that’s your emotion to cope with. I don’t know, if your feeling becomes too hard to handle maybe you should see a therapist. (jk)
“I am generally wary of the loaded terms like “Islamic fanaticism.” I find it contradicting that people should choose to put Islam in the same sentence with emotional expletives like fanaticism, terrorism, extremism…”
I have no knowlege about islamofascism and I don’t use the words that have been coined by a bunch of lunatics without any regard whatsoever how many enemies that will create for them. But I have witnessed islamic extremism first hand… That gives me the right to call a spade a spade.
“What’s more, you are setting up a false dichotomy of “liberal/progressive West” and “oppressive/backward Islam,” which in itself is a propaganda technique that feeds into global Imperialist agenda. ”
Let me guess, this thought of yours could also be a false interpretation of reality. Perhaps more like a desparate effort to defend your faith against a perceived threat?
Yeah, the west is conspiring against the world!!! Haha, now this sounds like brainwashing. Much like the tactics of Soviets…a very old propaganda technique (but back then about the capitalist west). if we replace a word or two in your writings one might think he is reading an exert from a soviet history textbook
“Well, TB, there were two sides in the Tajik conflict. Now, by the same token, how can you turn a blind eye on the mistakes of the then regime and single out the opposition for blame only? Not that I support either of them, ba har duash laanat. ”
I am not saying that one side was a saint and the other was a complete devil, but if I had to choose between the two, I would not want to live under the rule of those who want to limit my freedom
Let’s face it they did. They want to dictate others how to live. That is the only problem I have with these guys.
Who cares what they wanted first and what they wanted last? The end result is that they wanted an islamic rule and they wanted it established by force.
“people should introduce socialized aspects to mosques in the effort to realize the social message of Islam.”
Social Islam does not exist. It has no ground to develop. It has no followers in CA and it won’t ever start to exist in that area. Extremism has better chances than your little nice (peaceful i hope?) model of social/religious rule.
I laid out my concerns here and this conversation (if we can call it that) is going round and round, with nothing new/interesting or mentally stimulating coming out of it for me.
on March 29th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
“this conversation (if we can call it that) is going round and round, with nothing new/interesting or mentally stimulating coming out of it for me.”
Why not admitting that you’re trapped? This said, brother, you are welcome to join us.
on May 5th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
Ataman Rakin; after just dicovering this site, and seeing this conversation revolving around a vicious circle, i’d like to point out to the simplest reason why i agree with all of Tajik Boy’s arguments against the fact that ISLAM wiLL NOT work in CA; particularly in Tajikistan. Islam, is a religion. It is a faith. Islam, is NOT a political ideology and does not have any Adam Smiths, nor Karl Marxs, nor others to give answers to the problems of Tajikistan. And, it is an ideology brought to us by God (may he exist). If you believe in this, you will believe that Islam is an ideology. So, it has to be IDEAL; throughout history, whatever ideology which has been invented, it has never ever succeeded in creating a utopia, and never will. Human being, for one thing, are not perfect enough to accept Islam in all its “perfection” and “completeness”. We are not intelligent enough to impose the “laws and regulations” of Islam into a country and relieve it of ALL it’s problems. The Arab states, havent been able to create this utopia with their Islam, not in thousands of years…How can you, and your fellow believers, do that in a country which has known only and only approximately two decades of post-medieval-soviet inependence? All we humans are able to do, is to create extremes and fanatisicisms; the problem with you, Ataman Rakin, is that you are an ideologist as well as a perfectionist and you think you know the answer to all of Tajikistan’s problems with your Islam. If we have such a “wonderful” religion such as Islam, why have we so many branches of it? I’ll tell you why, because that is human nature. We cannot be united, we’re always looking for prejudice and for preference. We cannot change thousands of human genes to VERIFY that we will never “ruin” Islam and never become extremists, this is human mind, but we CAN do something else - forget Islam as a governmental - role. We won’t have our utopia with communism and niether capitalism, but at least niether will we have another Afghanistan in the CA, and decades and decades of war against different branches of islam, be it hizb ut tahrir, Taliban, Ismaili, sunni, shii or Al-Qaeda, n’importe quoi. I personally am not against Islam and what i am saying does not have any basis in wetern propaganda of associating islam with terrorism so as to gain power and support in CA; what i am saying is just common sense; the world has never seen anything in a theocratic government, and never will. I have even studied medieval Europe’s history during which different countries had different religious monarchies, e.g. Spain as catholic christian, England as catholic and then potestant, France as catholic, etc etc, and all these political alliances and conflicts caused by these. The situation in Afghanistan reminds me of the very same situation with the difference that that was medieval Europe and this is present-day CA. Never throughout history, theocratic governments have never been able to succeed. I have lived in Iran many a year of my life, and i see the barriers to all the potential this country has to develop, and all this because of the Islamic republic, look at Afghanistan, look at the never-ending conflict of Pakistan and India because of the islamism of one and the hinduism of the other, look at Israel and Palestine…Darfour…i just can’t understand why is it so hard for you guys to understand that mixing religion and politics just doesn’t give the right cake. You all know that Politics is one of the dirtiest things in the world, if you agree, why do you want to mix your pure, “socialist”, “new” and “liberal” Islam into it? As if the government doesn’t have enough issues to deal with, to add on top of that, Islam.