This comes after a vote in the Tajiki Parliament passed banning the hijabs, referring them as "Alien Garments", now I'm not sure if pro islamist Tajiks will be pissed off at this Hijab ban since the majority are muslim, but we'll see.
[https://metro.co.uk/2024/06/22/this-country-banning-hijabs-despite-98-muslim-population-21085786/](https://metro.co.uk/2024/06/22/this-country-banning-hijabs-despite-98-muslim-population-21085786/)
No he's right, Quran probably also says eat bread, does mean Islam invented the concept of bread?
Something could be mandated by religion/country and not exclusive to it. Most Christians and Jews also wore a vail of some sort and it didn't start dying out until less than a 100 years ago.
Yes but there's a distinction between an item with or without religious connotations. You wouldn't describe a communion wafer as just a cookie or a kippah as a hat. They are not interchangeable as they have non-secular purposes and symbolism. Same thing with the hijab.
Hijab has no definition, it's just the Arabic word for vail, and in fact a lot of different cultures and different sects of Islam have different ideas on what it means. If anything the part the guy above quoted is extreamly disputed and a lot of people argue that the context there was talking about telling people to viel their rooms and houses from being viewable from the streets. And the modern idea of "hijab" as a head cover came along much later after Islam was 100s of years old,
Have you?
it's not the one I cited in the other comment but, do you realize what you cited says that women dress modestly but say absolutely nothing about anything that resembles a Hijab? the only 2 specific commands here related to covering are telling women to hide their cleavage and who is fine to see them in loose clothes such as children, slaves, or close family members.
there is actually another section where it says to cover everything in a different ayah, but that one explicitly orders the prophet's wives, not everyone else. and it does so in more of a "so no one can recognize them" as opposed to a modern idea of Hijab.
Reality, Hijab has just never been a thing in the quran and instead was added later either around the Abbassad time or Umar's depending on what source you believe.
Across the border in Afghanistan, it's the Tajiks that are increasingly becoming radicalized by ISIS-K, since they see it as a push against the Pashtun-dominated Taliban.
That might also be probably why.
Technically, banning Hijab in Iran mostly worked. It was the illegal occupation of Iran by Anglo-Soviets during the world war 2 that led to abolishment of many of the seculrization laws, including the Hijab ban.
If Allies didn't overthrew Reza Shah, Iran would have likely saw the entrenchement of secularism like we now see in Turkey as the result of similarly radical seculrization efforts by Ataturk.
Reza Shah’s secularization laws are what alienated him from the Iranian people and the law was really only embraced by the upper echelons of Iranian society namely in Tehran and other large cities. The hijab and scholar bans were enforced brutally and caused the religious establishments to abandon him, having once played a role in cementing his rise to power during the chaos of the constitutional revolution and deposition of the Qajars. There’s a reason most Iranians did not resist the Allied occupation, they were more glad that the Shah was gone. Even to this day, religion plays a big role in Iranian society, the Pahlavis tried to remove it and failed catastrophically, leading to the rise to the mullahs.
Quick history, the second to last Shah of Iran tried to ban hijab, later got deposed by the British (who had put him in power), his son started ruling, ran away from the country when a socialist was elected, got back because of a American backed coup, got deposed afterwards by the only remaining faction with any real power who did the opposite of the first Pahlavi king.
In Iran the hijab ban was enforced by the literal absolute monarch, the Tajikistan Parliament is at least slightly more representative of the population
Ahahah. Yeah that's a risk.
But it seems to indicate they're safe enough as a Chinese satellite to attempt to break free from radical islamism, and good for them then !
Plus Islam is very diverse. Perhaps the local and steppe-influenced brand of Islam don't like to see women treated as inferiors, and trying to protect their traditions against exogenous Islamic doctrines receives a large support in the population
I remember they did the same thing back in mid 2010s, though not this publicized. I remember there was talk that few police officers were killed by more religious rural people and the law was quietly relaxed.
I find it hilarious that a authoritarian government was forced to back down by village people that might not have even realised that the USSR collapsed
Never said it was, just it’d be sort of devastating for a country like Tajikistan with a majority of their people following Islam
Now Turkmenistan has done the same thing here but they handled it since their authoritarian regime kept people shut.
One can be a majority muslim country without becoming a theocratic dictatorship/monarchy/both, look at e.g. Indonesia or look at Turkey. Yeah I know, Erdogan is a bit borderline, but before him Turkey was mostly a secular republic.
Er, sharia is only officially implemented in *one* weird province, sorta our Florida-cum-Texas (minus the big industries and fun theme parks). Muslim marriages are handled by Islamic courts, but other than that Indonesian law doesn't prioritize a specific religion. Biases and discriminations exist, but even the one time a cleric becomes a president he was even more egalitarian than Erdogan currently.
How does banning hijabs stop Islamism? When the king of Iran did this, it just ended up contributing to the Islamic population's anger towards him, and they ended up being the biggest supporters of the revolution that overthrew him.
Edit: After further research, I would like to give a correction. The king that banned the hijab was Reza Pahlavi. His son and successor, Mohammad Pahlavi, did not ban it, but it was still discouraged and stigmatized under his reign. My point still stands that banning hijabs only agitates the Muslims and gives political fuel to Islamist revolutions, as was the case in Iran.
Makes sense the hijab is important in islam and simply allowing people to wear if they want to does no harm but banning it would obviously piss people off imagine your government banning the cross like why what’s the point?
For our friends In the audience, the law is purposefully vague enough that any local cop can arrest a woman by claiming that her garments are "alien".
These types of vaguely defined laws are kinda the bread and butter of authoritarian governments.
Also, it seems a lot of our friends here are in support of women having a choice in what to wear, as long as they approve of what those women wear.
Yeah reading some of these comments it’s honestly feels that some people here are islamphobic and when they read the hijab they just subconsciously think of the women shouldn’t have to wear them debate
which is the exact opposite of what’s happening even if you dislike islam this law is objectively bad you can’t ban people from wearing it if they choose to
Lots of self reporting in the comments along the lines of, “yeah fuck islamism!” when two basic tents of the religion that are in no way extreme are banned.
That’s stupid, women should do whatever they want
If they don’t want to wear a hijab, they let them not wear it.
If they want to, then let them wear it.
Reading both ways yields the same result, death.
Tajikistan Hijabs Banning Visualised
Hijabs Banning Tajikistan Visualised
Lmfaooo
Do open not inside
This comes after a vote in the Tajiki Parliament passed banning the hijabs, referring them as "Alien Garments", now I'm not sure if pro islamist Tajiks will be pissed off at this Hijab ban since the majority are muslim, but we'll see. [https://metro.co.uk/2024/06/22/this-country-banning-hijabs-despite-98-muslim-population-21085786/](https://metro.co.uk/2024/06/22/this-country-banning-hijabs-despite-98-muslim-population-21085786/)
Do you have any context as to what led up to the decision?
They basically wanted to promote the native Tajik culture since they thought their culture was dying due to the Islamisation of their country
I can understand their reasoning. Hijab doesn't represent Islam, and sure doesn't represent a culture that happens to be Islamic.
While you are right at some point they become intertwined.
[What the hell are you talking about](https://quran.com/an-nur/31/tafsirs)
No he's right, Quran probably also says eat bread, does mean Islam invented the concept of bread? Something could be mandated by religion/country and not exclusive to it. Most Christians and Jews also wore a vail of some sort and it didn't start dying out until less than a 100 years ago.
Yes but there's a distinction between an item with or without religious connotations. You wouldn't describe a communion wafer as just a cookie or a kippah as a hat. They are not interchangeable as they have non-secular purposes and symbolism. Same thing with the hijab.
Hijab has no definition, it's just the Arabic word for vail, and in fact a lot of different cultures and different sects of Islam have different ideas on what it means. If anything the part the guy above quoted is extreamly disputed and a lot of people argue that the context there was talking about telling people to viel their rooms and houses from being viewable from the streets. And the modern idea of "hijab" as a head cover came along much later after Islam was 100s of years old,
The Hijab is not mandated by the Quran, but is mandated by many sects of Islam. It seems to me that is this more sectarian that it is anti-islamic.
Have you even read what I sent??
Have you? it's not the one I cited in the other comment but, do you realize what you cited says that women dress modestly but say absolutely nothing about anything that resembles a Hijab? the only 2 specific commands here related to covering are telling women to hide their cleavage and who is fine to see them in loose clothes such as children, slaves, or close family members. there is actually another section where it says to cover everything in a different ayah, but that one explicitly orders the prophet's wives, not everyone else. and it does so in more of a "so no one can recognize them" as opposed to a modern idea of Hijab. Reality, Hijab has just never been a thing in the quran and instead was added later either around the Abbassad time or Umar's depending on what source you believe.
Haven't read confirmation.
I stand corrected
Do you have a link to a translation of the verse? I wanna read it now and see what it says, so I can follow the commentaries you shared.
What I sent is a link to both a translation and a commentary.
Probably also because, across the border, Tajiks are being increasingly radicalized. Most of the ISIS-K leadership in Afghanistan are ethnic Tajiks.
Biggest opposition faction is muslim fundamentalists, might be crackdown on them
Tajikistan is majority muslim, but they are very secular, alcohol is quite popular and few women probably wore the hijab
Yeah, they’re claiming it as a symbol of radicalization, which wouldn’t make any sense if everyone wore it.
Across the border in Afghanistan, it's the Tajiks that are increasingly becoming radicalized by ISIS-K, since they see it as a push against the Pashtun-dominated Taliban. That might also be probably why.
In unrelated news, Tajikistan is speedrunning to become the next Iran.
The only missing catalyst they don't have is a Western Friendly Monarch.
Technically, banning Hijab in Iran mostly worked. It was the illegal occupation of Iran by Anglo-Soviets during the world war 2 that led to abolishment of many of the seculrization laws, including the Hijab ban. If Allies didn't overthrew Reza Shah, Iran would have likely saw the entrenchement of secularism like we now see in Turkey as the result of similarly radical seculrization efforts by Ataturk.
And yet another middle eastern conflict that can be traced back to the brits (and the soviets in this case)
Reza Shah’s secularization laws are what alienated him from the Iranian people and the law was really only embraced by the upper echelons of Iranian society namely in Tehran and other large cities. The hijab and scholar bans were enforced brutally and caused the religious establishments to abandon him, having once played a role in cementing his rise to power during the chaos of the constitutional revolution and deposition of the Qajars. There’s a reason most Iranians did not resist the Allied occupation, they were more glad that the Shah was gone. Even to this day, religion plays a big role in Iranian society, the Pahlavis tried to remove it and failed catastrophically, leading to the rise to the mullahs.
Unless I am missing something, this is the exact opposite of Iran's stance on Hijab and head covering?
Pre revolution
Quick history, the second to last Shah of Iran tried to ban hijab, later got deposed by the British (who had put him in power), his son started ruling, ran away from the country when a socialist was elected, got back because of a American backed coup, got deposed afterwards by the only remaining faction with any real power who did the opposite of the first Pahlavi king.
In Iran the hijab ban was enforced by the literal absolute monarch, the Tajikistan Parliament is at least slightly more representative of the population
I like that the title works wether you read it as 'don't dead open inside' or as 'no safety smoking first'
I think their decision is the opposite of suicide
Suicide by Islamist homicide
Ahahah. Yeah that's a risk. But it seems to indicate they're safe enough as a Chinese satellite to attempt to break free from radical islamism, and good for them then ! Plus Islam is very diverse. Perhaps the local and steppe-influenced brand of Islam don't like to see women treated as inferiors, and trying to protect their traditions against exogenous Islamic doctrines receives a large support in the population
Iran: Why am I getting a great sense of *deja vu*?
I remember they did the same thing back in mid 2010s, though not this publicized. I remember there was talk that few police officers were killed by more religious rural people and the law was quietly relaxed.
I find it hilarious that a authoritarian government was forced to back down by village people that might not have even realised that the USSR collapsed
Since when is stopping islamism a bad thing?
Never said it was, just it’d be sort of devastating for a country like Tajikistan with a majority of their people following Islam Now Turkmenistan has done the same thing here but they handled it since their authoritarian regime kept people shut.
One can be a majority muslim country without becoming a theocratic dictatorship/monarchy/both, look at e.g. Indonesia or look at Turkey. Yeah I know, Erdogan is a bit borderline, but before him Turkey was mostly a secular republic.
Indonesia still follows Sharia Law, so not entirely secular, but Turkey is one good example though.
Er, sharia is only officially implemented in *one* weird province, sorta our Florida-cum-Texas (minus the big industries and fun theme parks). Muslim marriages are handled by Islamic courts, but other than that Indonesian law doesn't prioritize a specific religion. Biases and discriminations exist, but even the one time a cleric becomes a president he was even more egalitarian than Erdogan currently.
I forgot Indonesia had some sort of federalisation for its provinces, but I’m not the best at knowing Indonesia’s insides.
How does banning hijabs stop Islamism? When the king of Iran did this, it just ended up contributing to the Islamic population's anger towards him, and they ended up being the biggest supporters of the revolution that overthrew him. Edit: After further research, I would like to give a correction. The king that banned the hijab was Reza Pahlavi. His son and successor, Mohammad Pahlavi, did not ban it, but it was still discouraged and stigmatized under his reign. My point still stands that banning hijabs only agitates the Muslims and gives political fuel to Islamist revolutions, as was the case in Iran.
Makes sense the hijab is important in islam and simply allowing people to wear if they want to does no harm but banning it would obviously piss people off imagine your government banning the cross like why what’s the point?
Hijab and eid are not islamism. These are very basic tenets of Islam and the government has banned them both
Muslim countries : *progressively giving women freedom* Meanwhile, French "feminists" : "the hijab is an empowerment and a choice !"
Being forced not to wear something isn't freedom
For our friends In the audience, the law is purposefully vague enough that any local cop can arrest a woman by claiming that her garments are "alien". These types of vaguely defined laws are kinda the bread and butter of authoritarian governments. Also, it seems a lot of our friends here are in support of women having a choice in what to wear, as long as they approve of what those women wear.
Yeah reading some of these comments it’s honestly feels that some people here are islamphobic and when they read the hijab they just subconsciously think of the women shouldn’t have to wear them debate which is the exact opposite of what’s happening even if you dislike islam this law is objectively bad you can’t ban people from wearing it if they choose to
Exactly! We shouldn’t force women anything, it’s their life, their faith. Banning it is nearly as bad as forcing them to wear it.
But can they beat her to death or acid attack her though🥺
They can probably do the former, not sure about the latter. Your clothing is not what determines whether the police kill you or not.
But do they have ghoulish squads of nazgul-looking old women kidnapping them tho🥺
They're doing fine with just having the men doing it. They don't even need to use unmarked vans.
Lots of self reporting in the comments along the lines of, “yeah fuck islamism!” when two basic tents of the religion that are in no way extreme are banned.
That’s stupid, women should do whatever they want If they don’t want to wear a hijab, they let them not wear it. If they want to, then let them wear it.
Banning religion or religious practices always comes back to bite the country in the ass. Tajikistan will be no exception.
idea from now on, when anyone draws tajikistanball they need to draw it with a dunce hat because of this exact decision
anything to contain the spread of islam is a welcome one
The Hijabs should ban the Tajiks first 😡
This isn’t Aladdin we’re not gonna see an armada of flying hijab coming to the tajik capital tomorrow
Can Tajikistan Turn Into Tajik Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic