Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Notes on Tajikistan

mattlakeman.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 412 posts

Re: Notes on Tajikistan

#111

Post by aprilthird2021 »

OutOfHere wrote: post #5

Tajikistan looks to be an interesting case of Islam being kept in check without resorting to either extremism or terrorism. But this is neither free nor assured, and it probably requires constant wilful effort. In the long term, I can see it bleeding more territory to China due to the significant difference in military power and aggression. This is so long as there isn't a NATO-like structure to keep Chinese aggressi…

What a lot of Westerners don't realize is this kind of sentiment is exactly why Islamist parties and political groups are so popular in the Muslim world.

If your only choice is extremely socially conservative, democratic groups like the Muslim Brotherhood (or worse) or a literal Kim Jong Un alike, then it's pretty obvious who you'd choose.

This is resorting to extremism and terrorism, it's just conducted by the army and police. Did you not hear how many people were assassinated and killed by this dictator to maintain iron grip control over the country? How is that not terrorism?

Re: Notes on Tajikistan

#112

Post by aprilthird2021 »

slt2021 wrote: post #59
rvense wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Islam is extremely important to Tajik identity. But Tajikistan is making the same mistake many other Muslim dictatorships and authocracies did. By not having a real open political system, the only place for dissent to take root is in Islamist circles, and then that's the opposition you get.

Tajikistan had civil war in 1990s where Islamist radicals were the opposition and wanted to turn TJ into sharia run state. open political system actually makes islam opposition stronger (and easy to influence with $$$ from Gulf monarchies). Keeping islam in check, also means keeping in check Gulf oil $$$$ that install their own version of islam. the pipeline of volunteers from *stans to join ISIS/Al-Qaeda was funded…

> open political system actually makes islam opposition stronger (and easy to influence with $$$ from Gulf monarchies).

No it doesn't. Provide one example where this has happened?

Re: Notes on Tajikistan

#113

Post by aprilthird2021 »

meowtimemania wrote: post #51
mkoubaa wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying "Islam being kept in check" in this way sounds an implication that religion (or perhaps just this one) ought to be suppressed. This sort of attitude and policy coming from it is like gasoline for religious extremism, and the fact that Tajikistan exports extremists should be enough evidence for that

I think by "kept in check" they mean good separation of church and state. Some islamic countries don't have good separation of church and state.

How is this (what's described in the article) good in any way?

Re: Notes on Tajikistan

#114

Post by mkoubaa »

surfingdino wrote: post #109
mkoubaa wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bedrock of liberalism is religious freedom

When a religion/ideology wants to limit personal freedom, it's a hard stop. Otherwise it's the end of liberalism.

Liberalism will end when we choose to end it, in bits in pieces, each brick ironically removed in it's own name.

Re: Notes on Tajikistan

#115

Post by loeg »

The whole thing is great and worth reading, but I wanted to highlight this anecdote:

> I asked about the criminal justice system and I was told there wasn’t much of a formal one. My companion explained that most matters were handled internally by families. For instance, if a 20-something got in a fight with another 20-something and the cops got involved, the police would most likely contact the families and let the parents and brothers sort that shit out with a warning not to cause trouble again. The families would enforce order through shaming, threats of social ostracization, and possibly physical violence.

Re: Notes on Tajikistan

#116

Post by mkoubaa »

surfingdino wrote: post #103
mkoubaa wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Islamic law is understood by Muslims to be applied only in an Islamic state. In a secular state, the consensus understanding by Muslims is that the secular law is to be followed. A secular state need not suppress Islam

Alas, religious people always want an exception to secular rule of law and in some countries in the West managed to carve out exceptions https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/applying-sharia-l...

Secular law allows it's citizens discretions for settling family disputes and inheritance. Religious people often use that discretion to use religious rules from their religion. Nonreligious people benefit from the same discretion. This is not an exception from secular law, all secular laws continue to apply.

Re: Notes on Tajikistan

#117

Post by wewtyflakes »

protomolecule wrote: post #110
wewtyflakes wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am unsure how that is relevant. The other poster was trying to paint China as an entity that did not war with its neighbors, and that seems false. If you do not like the topic of Tibet, then how about Vietnam ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War ) or Korea ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War )? I am not saying if these acts were good or bad, but they…

How it is not relevant? Anyway, from your own link: "The Sino-Vietnamese War was a brief conflict that occurred in early 1979 between China and Vietnam. China launched an offensive ostensibly in response to Vietnam's invasion and occupation of Cambodia in 1978, which ended the rule of the Chinese-backed Khmer Rouge. The conflict lasted for about a month, with China withdrawing its troops in March 1979." In both other…

Again, not talking about it being good or bad, but you cannot deny that this happened (China invading a neighbor), which is the point being made.

Re: Notes on Tajikistan

#118

Post by protomolecule »

aprilthird2021 wrote: post #112
slt2021 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tajikistan had civil war in 1990s where Islamist radicals were the opposition and wanted to turn TJ into sharia run state. open political system actually makes islam opposition stronger (and easy to influence with $$$ from Gulf monarchies). Keeping islam in check, also means keeping in check Gulf oil $$$$ that install their own version of islam. the pipeline of volunteers from *stans to join ISIS/Al-Qaeda was funded…

> open political system actually makes islam opposition stronger (and easy to influence with $$$ from Gulf monarchies). No it doesn't. Provide one example where this has happened?

Russia. [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_al-Khattab

Re: Notes on Tajikistan

#119

Post by aprilthird2021 »

inglor_cz wrote: post #53
mkoubaa wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying "Islam being kept in check" in this way sounds an implication that religion (or perhaps just this one) ought to be suppressed. This sort of attitude and policy coming from it is like gasoline for religious extremism, and the fact that Tajikistan exports extremists should be enough evidence for that

It is not just a religion, but a legal and societal system. A very medieval one. Few people care if you believe that Muhammad rode to heaven on a magic horse (Buraq). But quite a lot of people care if you want to introduce hand amputations for theft, as demanded by Sharia Law, or different inheritance rules for sons and daughters where being female = being less valuable. The medieval-practical parts of Islam must def…

So... To keep thieves from having hands cut or people from having sexist inheritance, you need to North Korea the poorest people in the world to keep them poorer?

This is ridiculous, quite frankly. You don't have to approve of every law a foreign people have to not want to basically terrorize them with a despot

Re: Notes on Tajikistan

#120

Post by dvdkon »

thriftwy wrote: post #87
protomolecule wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your own link says that during the revolution of 1911 in China local theocracy seized power in Tibet and held to it for 40 years. "After the Xinhai Revolution in 1911, most of the area comprising the present-day Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) became a de facto independent polity, independent from the rest of the Republic of China" "At the time Political Tibet obtained de facto independence, its socio-economic and poli…

It's always funny to me how facts about previous allegiance are withheld with impunity, apparently in hopes to confuse a distracted reader. I can forgive people for forgetting to mention that Baltic states were part of Russia for centuries before they were re-annexed by the USSR in 1945. Indeed I can see how people had 20 years of independence and weren't fans of being included into a socialist utopia. But, just yest…

Certainly many parts of the world aren't too big on democracy and self-determination, but from my point of view any military operation not sanctioned by the target region's people or government counts as an invasion.

Maybe that's not how all the people involved saw it, but we see, judge, and name events through the lens of our own values.

Post reply on HN