Monday, February 13, 2012


Features

Salafi Ban Reflects Tajik Officials' Growing Fear

TEXT SIZE - +
By Farangis Najibullah
The government of Tajikistan has banned Salafism, saying the Sunni Islamic movement represents a potential threat to national security.

Tajikistan's Supreme Court on January 9 added Salafis to its list of extremist religious groups prohibited from operating in the country.

The movement claims to follow a strict and pure form of Islam, but Tajik clerics say the Salafis' radical stance is similar to that of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Salafi leaders insist their movement has peaceful aims, with no political or extremist agenda.

"In order to prevent national, racial, and religious conflicts and damage to the nation's reputation and honor, Tajikistan's Supreme Court, as of January 8, 2009, bans the Salafi religious movement's activities in the country as an illegal group," Supreme Court spokesman Mahmadali Yusufov said, adding that the movement poses a security threat.

Sowing Division?

The Salafi movement, which has been active in Tajikistan for just over two years, claims to have recruited more than 20,000 believers there.

Local officials say the group has only a few hundred supporters.

Tajik authorities are worried the movement will gain traction as it focuses its efforts on the country's younger generations. Most of the movement's local leaders are themselves in their 20s and early 30s, and came to Tajikistan after graduating from Islamic schools in Pakistan or Arab countries.
I've never heard any Salafi follower say anything against the government


One Salafi activist, Hoji Nazirmat, protested the court's decision to ban the group, saying the Salafi movement in Tajikistan has always steered clear of politics.

"Any act of persecution and harassment of Salafi followers would violate Tajikistan's laws, because we live in a democratic, secular country with the rule of law," Nazirmat said. "I've never heard any Salafi follower say anything against the government."

Salafis claim to adhere to a pure form of Islam, and do not recognize other branches of the religion, particularly Shi'ism and Sufism.

A majority of Tajiks follow Hanafi, a relatively moderate branch of Sunni Islam. There are also more than 200,000 Ismaili Shi'a, most residing in an eastern province of the country.

Official Concern

Tajik authorities claim that computer discs and videotapes confiscated from Salafi members show the group's leaders expressing strong anti-Shi'ite and anti-Iranian sentiments.

Local clerics have also warned the group is intent upon creating sectarian divisions within Tajikistan's Islamic faithful.

The Salafis' focus on "pure" Islam and their campaign to recruit young madrasah graduates has prompted many Tajiks to compare the group to the Taliban.

In October, Tajikistan's Council of Islamic Ulema, a grouping of prominent Islamic scholars, demanded that the Salafis abandon their beliefs or stay away from local mosques.

The group's anti-Iran stance has prompted rumors that the group has been funded by Western countries to weaken Iran's influence in Tajikistan. U.S. officials have rejected the allegations as baseless.

Tajikistan has a history of tolerance for Islamic groups that is arguably unique in the region, although official curbs on some expressions of stricter Islamic tenets have emerged more recently.

Dushanbe has cracked down on the most radical Islamic groupings, including Hizb ut-Tahrir. Tajik authorities have arrested hundreds of Hizb ut-Tahrir members, whom they accuse of trying to overthrow the secular government in favor of an Islamic caliphate.

But it is also home to Central Asia's first -- and so far only -- officially registered Islamic political party.

The country's five-year civil war from 1992-97 had pitted supporters of the secular government against members of the Islamic Renaissance Party (IRP). The government that emerged from the eventual truce went on to make peace with the IRP.

Some Tajiks, however, worry that measures like the Supreme Court ban on Salafism will only serve to radicalize the country's outlawed Islamic groups and stir antigovernment resentment.

The IRP criticized the court decision, saying the ban violates people's right to peaceful assembly and association.

RFE/RL's Tajik Service contributed to this report
This forum has been closed.
Comment Sorting
Comments page of 2
    Next 
by: Sergey from: USA
January 09, 2009 17:31
Good job banning Salafi and any Islamists seeking to turn Tajikistan into Islamist state.

I don't buy argument that "measures like the Supreme Court ban on Salafism will only serve to radicalize the country's outlawed Islamic groups and stir antigovernment resentment."

This is an utter nonsense. Legalizing Islamist groups will only give them an opportunity to gain power by democratic means, like Hamas in Gaza, and then destroy any vestige of liberty. I fully support ban on totalitarian Islamists, like I support ban on Nazis and Communists. As one American thinker said very well: "Freedom should not be used to destroy freedom".

What I worry about that ban alone is not enough. What Tajik government need to do is to offer Tajik youth a viable alternative to Islamists. They should work on social-economic development and encourage the development of non-totalitarian, non-Islamist liberal opposition movements. Will they be wise enough to do that ? I hope that they will, but it remains to be seen.

by: Turgai Sangar
January 10, 2009 10:09
"They should work on social-economic development and encourage the development of non-totalitarian, non-Islamist liberal opposition movements. Will they be wise enough to do that?"

They won't and it is naïve to assume that they will, save lip service to it for the sake of the IFI and EU grants. Liberalism also has no sociological ground whatsoever in the region except, again, among NGOs and some officials who pay opportunistic lip service to it to please Western donors.

What pisses there neo-Soviet officials off with so-called 'Safalism' is not that they care about 'liberal values' but that 'Salafism' is a path of Islam that is not easy to control and subjugate unlike so-called 'folk Sufism' which is awash with supersition, charlatans and bozo aksakals who lick the heels of regime officials.

Therefore, the ban is useless.

We know the price and flipside of your Western 'freedom': the rapacious exploitation of the periphery and the destruction of the ecosystem.

by: Sergey from: USA
January 11, 2009 05:49
" Liberalism also has no sociological ground whatsoever in the region except, again, among NGOs and some officials who pay opportunistic lip service to it to please Western donors. "

Liberalism has many faults, but replacing liberalism with Sharia--no thanks ! There are healthy alternatives to liberalism, such as Judaic and Christian based code of conduct. If people were just respecting 10 commandements, it would be much better world.

"We know the price and flipside of your Western 'freedom': the rapacious exploitation of the periphery and the destruction of the ecosystem. "

It is the result of radical liberalism--freedom without responsibility. However, the way traditional Christianity and Judaism have developed over thousands of years offer a truly healthy alternative to vices of liberalism.

Islamic laws are clearly not healthy alternatives to liberalism as evidenced by endless 1400 year old Jihad with modern Islamic terror as just the latest reincarnation, subhuman status of women in Islamic world and host of other tremendous problems.

by: Sharif from: Philadelphia
January 12, 2009 12:24
"We know the price and flipside of your Western 'freedom': the rapacious exploitation of the periphery and the destruction of the ecosystem."

What a dumb thing to say. Turgai, you read too much French media whining or something. Was it "liberalism" that destroyed the Aral Sea? Was it "freedom" that has destroyed China's water systems? Free media and civil society are the only way to protect ecosystems from governments. An Islamic theocracy like Iran's will be as irresponsible as every regime that is able to suppress any voices it doesn't like. The "dictatorship of the proletariat" is the biggest lie of the last two centuries. Dictatorship is dictatorship, there is no cultural difference.

Not to say that this isn't a purely political move by the Tajik government, hardly a bastion of freedom. But why wouldn't they fear the fundamentalism pushed by the Saudis and all their money. The retreat into medievalist fantasy and extremism has done good somewhere, Turgai? Without oil, the Saudis are Burma.

by: Turgai Sangar
January 12, 2009 12:34
"endless 1400 year old Jihad with modern Islamic terror as just the latest reincarnation, subhuman status of women in Islamic world and host of other tremendous problems."

What do you call great civilisations like Andalusia, the Mughals, the Samanids and the Ottomans then?


by: Timo Haapanen from: Finland
January 12, 2009 20:01
Banning religious groupings or political parties is no solution for preventing turmoil in society; instead, governments should win people's trust by improving or at least trying to improve their living conditions - if I have a home, a job, food, drink and some hope of a better future, there will most probably be no need for me to solve my problems by violent means, independent of my conviction

by: Sergey from: USA
January 13, 2009 00:36
"What do you call great civilisations like Andalusia, the Mughals, the Samanids and the Ottomans then?"

Their 'greatness' is much overrated. They did in fact have achievements in arts and architecture at some point, but it was not due to Islam, but to a relative tolerance of Khalifs and Turkish sultans who enforced Sharia laws selectively and allowed non-Muslim groups (i.e. Jews of Andalusia or Armenians of Turkey) to engage heavily in commerce and other areas. It was more contrary to Islam rather than because of Islam.

Whenever a strict Islamic law was applied, these civilizations all stagnated and declined. After all, Ottoman Turkey invoked Jihadist provisions when it perpetrated genocidal campaign against Ottoman Armenians in 1915-1922. Andalusia also seen massacres of its Jews under Muslim rule. So these civilizations weren't exactly a beacon of tolerance as some historians, such as Edward Said, tried to brainwash generations of westerners.

by: Turgai Sangar
January 13, 2009 12:24
“Turgai, you read too much French media whining or something.”

OK I confess. I’ll reveal my sources: parismatch.com and lejournaldequebec.canoe.ca

“Was it "liberalism" that destroyed the Aral Sea? Was it "freedom" that has destroyed China's water systems?”

Like neo-liberalism, it was (and is, in China’s case) a system that is obsessed with economic growth and using ‘freedom’ to exploit.

“But why wouldn't they fear the fundamentalism pushed by the Saudis and all their money.

Do you really think that I back that munafiq monarchy in Saudi Arabia?!

And why do you think that the spread of Islam is only a matter of Saudis pouring petrodollars around? Islam — despite its Arabic orgins, the setting of its holy places in Arabia and despite the status of Arabic as it liturgical lingua franca — is no longer an Arab monopoly or specific ‘Arab’ religion just like Christianity is no longer a ‘European’ religion. Only about one-third of the Islamic Ummah today is Arabic and that figure includes North African Berbers and Somali who are heavily Arab-influenced too.

“The retreat into medievalist fantasy and extremism has done good somewhere, Turgai?”

You’re the one seeing medieval phantasms and ‘extremism’ Sharif, not me. Also, what is that for you, an ‘extremist’ and a ‘moderate’ (Muslim)? Is ‘a moderate’ one that is subdued/brought to heel? One that is assimilated? Is an ‘extremist’ one who stands up against injustice and who respects him/herself?

Perhaps the commentators on this site who support the murder of children in Gaza by Zionist death squads are ‘moderates’ for you?

by: Sergey from: USA
January 15, 2009 20:27
I would summarize, Turgai, that I fully support banning Salafist and any other totalitarian Islamists movements, because they are a mortal threat to any chance for liberty under law. For all the numerous faults of Tajik and other post-Soviet Central Asian autocrats, they are better than Islamist rule. We see where Islamist rule will lead too, from Afghanistan, to Iran, to Somalia. Islamists can bring nothing but misery, powerty and export of terror and drugs.

You, of course, feel free to disagree vehemently, but I'd rather see these movements banned than see them take over and see what is going to happen to the rights of women and "infidels".

Surely, banning these movements will not be enough. Tajik government need to offer something better to the young generation of Tajiks than Islamic totalitarianism. However, with Islamists, there is no chance for individual dignity and human dignity whatsoever, and I happen to value these things.

by: Turgai Sangar
January 16, 2009 09:37
"individual dignity and human dignity (...), and I happen to value these things."

So do I.
Comments page of 2
    Next 

Most Popular

               
 
 
 
 
Being Discussed Now

Jolie Earns Serbian Scorn For War Film

Latest Comment (83 total)

writer: Serbians did not start the war in Bosnia but they were killed and ... More

Athens Mops Up In Wake Of Violence

Latest Comment (1 total)

Eugenio: Here is one of those countries - Greece - that joined the EU ... More

Azerbaijani Aviation Engineer Seeks Niche In Civilian Drone Market

Latest Comment (3 total)

ferrum: if i see a machine like this on the sky, i will surely ... More